Vivid Sydney

Graduation!

Mother & Daughter

Me? Me?

Tree farmer yearns to change the world

Mr. David Kennett is a revolutionary farmer, against all odds. Chau Vu writes about the man who plants trees in midsummer WA heat.

Mr. Kennet sharing knowledge from his successful AURIA project. Photo by Chau Vu

When winter, the traditional season for tree planting in Western Australia, draws to an end David Kennett buys leftover trees from nurseries and plants them throughout the summer heat.

Not wanting to pour money down the drain or attract attention, Mr Kennett has quietly experimented with his unconventional tree-raising techniques for a decade – and now plants successfully in midsummer with no subsequent watering.

“I even planted trees on January 1st this year when it was 46°C,” he said. “I had heat stroke at that time but I got 100 per cent survival of my trees.”

Thanks to his remarkable forestry research, this year David Kennett was a finalist in the prestigious United Nations Association of Australia’s World Environmental Day Awards. Now he hopes to take the knowledge he’s developed in Western Australia and transfer it to desert regions across the globe.

No seasonal limit

Having taken early retirement from his engineering career in 2001, Mr. Kennett’s journey started when he bought a piece of highly-degraded land in Western Australia. His goal: to find out how to make farm forestry viable in low-rainfall, eroded and saline areas.

The land he bought was unattractive to local farmers: full of weeds, badly salt-affected and with soil compacted by grazing stock. Nobody could have imagined that less than 10 years later, Mr. Kennett’s property would be full of greenery.

More surprisingly, through his AURIA forestry project, its owner has come up with new techniques which enable farmers to plant trees all year round without any pesticides, fertilisers or irrigation – even during summer in dry climates, with hot winds and low humidity.

David Kennett said he’s achieved exceptional survival rates and some of the tree species planted in 2007 have increased their biomass 10 times more quickly than those trees he planted traditionally in 2004.

Mixing old and new ideas

One of his approaches is to immerse the trees in water prior to planting and then “plant the trees far deeper into the soil than the traditional way,” he said.

He explained that watering the trees with a hose or watering can prior to planting does not fully saturate the root-ball. Seedlings first need to be soaked in water so that their root balls get moist enough to sustain them until their roots can reach down to moisture below the ground. Very deep planting then also helps the new trees retain water by preventing it from evaporating.

“My latest method is water injection which will be applied when conditions are most challenging [very hot],” he said. Together with careful ground preparation, direct water injections under the trees helps retain ground moisture for a long time, and eliminates the need for more watering after the trees are planted.

Mr. Kennett has proof in a picture of the casuarina obesas he planted in late October 2010, when Western Australia experienced its driest winter, followed by its hottest and driest summer on record. The trees have grown up to his waist and appear to be flourishing.

Mr. Adrian Price, Natural Resource Management Officer of Shire of Dowerin observed Mr. Kennett planting trees in 40°C degree plus heat in Mid-December last year, and said the results were far beyond his expectations.

“Mr. Kennett achieves a higher survival rate than most other tree planting projects I have seen in Western Australia,” said Mr. Price, noting that some of the trees planted were not even in prime condition as they were nursery leftovers.

Preparing the soil

According to Mr. Price, Mr. Kennett’s success is not only a result of his experimentation, but also due to his sensitivity to the tree’s soil and nutrient needs.

Mr. Kennett indicated that he always gave considerable attention to site preparation before planting, such as deep-ripping to address soil compaction and help deep root system development.

“I use weeds by slashing them and turning them into the ground as mulch, thereby adding natural nutrients to the soil and minimise soil erosion,” he said.

He also companion plants, using plants species which can harvest water from deep below the surface and bring it up close to the surface, literally irrigating the surrounding ground.

Recognition and aspiration

Several very dry years have elapsed since Mr. Kennett purchased his land in Dowerin Shire, and the landscape has been transformed amazingly. The sloping, degraded farmland which ran down to severely saline flats has become a sea of vegetation with the natural fauna returning.

“First the microfauna would have appeared,” said Ms. Beth Boase, a local tree nursery owner who is also an environmental conservationist. “Then the insects such as ants, followed by various spiders and now the birds.”

She said that while most farmers planted around July and August, after they had sown their crops, Mr. Kennett’s year round planting trees was very encouraging.

“He appears to be pushing the boundaries traditionally acceptable for some species, but the quick growth rate is testimony to his determination to try new methods,” she said.

Mr. Rex Adams, the Deputy CEO of Dowerin Shire Council is also enthusiastic about the AURIA project. He said the council was impressed by Mr. Kennett’s efforts to rehabilitate the badly salt-affected land and council members often took people to talk with Mr. Kennett about the project and to see his trees.

Recently, Mr. Kennett has been busy preparing his submission for the Banksia Awards, which recognise outstanding environmental or sustainability achievements. While he was also proud to be recognised as a finalist in the WED awards, he has a pragmatic motivation for nominating AURIA in further competitions.

“I dearly wanted to be a winner this year in order to attract some sponsorship for my project,” he said, explaining that he now needed financial support from the government or an organisation to expand his research, especially to further develop the water injection method.

“So many countries have problems with desertification, such as China, Africa, South America” said Mr. Kennett.

He said he really hoped that his low tech, low cost solution one day could be applied by people from different parts of the world where food shortage, famine or deforestation still rage.

Smoking ban ignites human rights debate

When the tobacco industry and the government are burning with the debate on plain packaging law, NSW smokers are concerned over a bitter pill to swallow: the outdoor smoking ban.

Not only Marrickville and Young Shire, the two latest councils that have adopted outdoor smoke-free policies, but also 78 other councils have put an outdoor smoking ban in place and still some others are on the way to consult the public about similar policies. The NSW government has also been considering a state-wide outdoor smoking ban.

Things are getting tougher on smokers. They say they have the feeling of being chased and marginalised. They feel their freedom of choice and human rights are being abused.

However, it’s not the case. It’s only their feelings.

The case is that their right of smoking still exists. The outdoor smoking ban which is quickly spreading over the state doesn’t abuse smokers’ human rights but help non-smokers claim back their rights.

In the case of Marrickville, although the council adopted one of the toughest outdoor smoke-free policy packages in NSW which bans smoking in most public areas from July 1, 2011, including alfresco dining venues, within 10 meters of bus stops and children’s playgrounds, the right to smoke is still maintained. Gary Moore, Director of Marrickville Community of Services affirmed that although the policy aimed at protecting non-smokers, it didn’t stop people smoking.

“Smokers are still allowed to light up on the streets and other places where people don’t gather,” he said.

The ban is said to still keep a line of retreat open for smokers. In the context that smoking is proved to cause adverse health effects, annually killing 15.000 Australians due to related diseases and costing the country a huge $31.5 billion, much higher than the tax revenue generated from tobacco sale of $6 billion, both the federal and NSW governments could have introduced a stricter ban if they didn’t take into account its democracy and smokers’ rights and suffering.

People have a right to smoke, but the right cannot extend to harming others. Science has proved that second-hand smoke can cause various health risks, such as asthma, respiratory infections, heart disease, lung cancer, sudden death syndrome and stillbirth. Obviously, it is unfair to let some people enjoy their pleasure at the expense of others. A basic principle of public health which also is featured in NSW Council for Civil Liberties (2008) states: It is a person's right to use any legal substance, but “the context of use should be dependent on the comfort of others” and smoking should only be allowed where “there is no possibility of passive smoking causing harm or discomfort to others”.

Outdoor dining venues have been colonised by smokers for too long a time. Some or a group of smokers enjoying coffee, blowing fumes into the air and occupying outdoor cafes has been a common image in many corners of Sydney.

On a sunny beautiful day, many of us would love to have coffee outside our favourite cafe. However, for non-smokers, if they have a chance to enjoy a sunny warm seat with street view, their happiness might not last long. A few minutes after one or two smokers turn up, the happy non-smokers realised that they need to leave and they do it - a common choice when people have to weigh between the risk of second-hand smoke exposure and the benefits brought about by a nice place.

A similar situation happens at bus stops. Smokers easily occupy a bus stop. They don’t need to do or say anything, just turn up with a burning cigarette! This kind of smokers’ occupation in outdoor places might have started since the NSW Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and its related amendments which ban smoking in “enclosed” areas came into effect.

Smokers get upset and start their outcry when they lose their privileges. It’s natural and understandable. It wouldn’t be understandable and reasonable if smokers’ dynasty continues and their rights keep superceding or are given equal weight to those of non-smokers. It is noteworthy that not only common sense but also international legal frameworks are on the side of non-smokers. The right to smoke, in fact, has never been internationally recognised . Smoking is never a basic right. Neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) nor the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) – the two most well-known international legal frameworks on human rights – mention this right.

Meanwhile, the rights of non-smokers are strongly backed by international agreements. Articles 15 and 36 of the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights say everyone is entitled to the right to the highest attainable health. The convention discourages the abuse of tobacco and other harmful substances and obliges nations to take actions to reduce population exposure to these substances.

In a more direct way, article 8 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires signatories (including Australia) to take effective actions to protect all people, with no exceptions, from second-hand smoke exposure in all indoor places and other places.

Several states both inside and outside Australia have surpassed NSW in the field of tobacco control in outdoor areas. For instance since July1, 2006, all commercial outdoor eating or drinking areas in Queensland have been smoke-free. Recently, the City of New York on May 23 started to ban smoking at parks and beaches and Canada’s City of Winnipeg early this month also released a proposal to prohibit smoking within 30 meters of athletic fields where youth are playing sports, in addition to playgrounds, school grounds, public pools and spray pads, according to Winnipeg Free Press.

Smoking ban policies are getting tough and could even be tougher. In its recently released discussion paper on Tobacco Control in NSW 2011-2016, the state sets targets to decrease the proportion of adult-smokers to 10% by 2020 from 17.2% in 2009 and prohibits smoking in all commercial outdoor eating and drinking areas.

Smokers would face a hard time ahead. However, giving back to non-smokers smoke-free areas or in other words, returning to Cesar what is Cesar’s, is a proper behaviour.

Also, tracking down to the root, the policy would be a motivation for smokers to quit smoking. According to Professor Simon Chapman from the University of Sydney, a leading Australian expert on tobacco control, in a recent interview with ABC LifeMatter program, the fact that having to go out of a restaurant in a cold and rainy evening to smoke is uncomfortable for smokers but this would “drives many smokers out of smoking”, an unhealthy habit which is also a life prison for many of them.

Smoking ban ignites human rights debate

When the tobacco industry and the government are burning with the debate on plain packaging law, NSW smokers are concerned over a bitter pill to swallow: the outdoor smoking ban.

Not only Marrickville and Young Shire, the two latest councils that have adopted outdoor smoke-free policies, but also 78 other councils have put an outdoor smoking ban in place and still some others are on the way to consult the public about similar policies. The NSW government has also been considering a state-wide outdoor smoking ban.

Things are getting tougher on smokers. They say they have the feeling of being chased and marginalised. They feel their freedom of choice and human rights are being abused.

However, it’s not the case. It’s only their feelings.

The case is that their right of smoking still exists. The outdoor smoking ban which is quickly spreading over the state doesn’t abuse smokers’ human rights but help non-smokers claim back their rights.

In the case of Marrickville, although the council adopted one of the toughest outdoor smoke-free policy packages in NSW which bans smoking in most public areas from July 1, 2011, including alfresco dining venues, within 10 meters of bus stops and children’s playgrounds, the right to smoke is still maintained. Gary Moore, Director of Marrickville Community of Services affirmed that although the policy aimed at protecting non-smokers, it didn’t stop people smoking.

“Smokers are still allowed to light up on the streets and other places where people don’t gather,” he said.

The ban is said to still keep a line of retreat open for smokers. In the context that smoking is proved to cause adverse health effects, annually killing 15.000 Australians due to related diseases and costing the country a huge $31.5 billion, much higher than the tax revenue generated from tobacco sale of $6 billion, both the federal and NSW governments could have introduced a stricter ban if they didn’t take into account its democracy and smokers’ rights and suffering.

People have a right to smoke, but the right cannot extend to harming others. Science has proved that second-hand smoke can cause various health risks, such as asthma, respiratory infections, heart disease, lung cancer, sudden death syndrome and stillbirth. Obviously, it is unfair to let some people enjoy their pleasure at the expense of others. A basic principle of public health which also is featured in NSW Council for Civil Liberties (2008) states: It is a person's right to use any legal substance, but “the context of use should be dependent on the comfort of others” and smoking should only be allowed where “there is no possibility of passive smoking causing harm or discomfort to others”.

Outdoor dining venues have been colonised by smokers for too long a time. Some or a group of smokers enjoying coffee, blowing fumes into the air and occupying outdoor cafes has been a common image in many corners of Sydney.

On a sunny beautiful day, many of us would love to have coffee outside our favourite cafe. However, for non-smokers, if they have a chance to enjoy a sunny warm seat with street view, their happiness might not last long. A few minutes after one or two smokers turn up, the happy non-smokers realised that they need to leave and they do it - a common choice when people have to weigh between the risk of second-hand smoke exposure and the benefits brought about by a nice place.

A similar situation happens at bus stops. Smokers easily occupy a bus stop. They don’t need to do or say anything, just turn up with a burning cigarette! This kind of smokers’ occupation in outdoor places might have started since the NSW Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and its related amendments which ban smoking in “enclosed” areas came into effect.

Smokers get upset and start their outcry when they lose their privileges. It’s natural and understandable. It wouldn’t be understandable and reasonable if smokers’ dynasty continues and their rights keep superceding or are given equal weight to those of non-smokers. It is noteworthy that not only common sense but also international legal frameworks are on the side of non-smokers. The right to smoke, in fact, has never been internationally recognised . Smoking is never a basic right. Neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) nor the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) – the two most well-known international legal frameworks on human rights – mention this right.

Meanwhile, the rights of non-smokers are strongly backed by international agreements. Articles 15 and 36 of the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights say everyone is entitled to the right to the highest attainable health. The convention discourages the abuse of tobacco and other harmful substances and obliges nations to take actions to reduce population exposure to these substances.

In a more direct way, article 8 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires signatories (including Australia) to take effective actions to protect all people, with no exceptions, from second-hand smoke exposure in all indoor places and other places.

Several states both inside and outside Australia have surpassed NSW in the field of tobacco control in outdoor areas. For instance since July1, 2006, all commercial outdoor eating or drinking areas in Queensland have been smoke-free. Recently, the City of New York on May 23 started to ban smoking at parks and beaches and Canada’s City of Winnipeg early this month also released a proposal to prohibit smoking within 30 meters of athletic fields where youth are playing sports, in addition to playgrounds, school grounds, public pools and spray pads, according to Winnipeg Free Press.

Smoking ban policies are getting tough and could even be tougher. In its recently released discussion paper on Tobacco Control in NSW 2011-2016, the state sets targets to decrease the proportion of adult-smokers to 10% by 2020 from 17.2% in 2009 and prohibits smoking in all commercial outdoor eating and drinking areas.

Smokers would face a hard time ahead. However, giving back to non-smokers smoke-free areas or in other words, returning to Cesar what is Cesar’s, is a proper behaviour.

Also, tracking down to the root, the policy would be a motivation for smokers to quit smoking. According to Professor Simon Chapman from the University of Sydney, a leading Australian expert on tobacco control, in a recent interview with ABC LifeMatter program, the fact that having to go out of a restaurant in a cold and rainy evening to smoke is uncomfortable for smokers but this would “drives many smokers out of smoking”, an unhealthy habit which is also a life prison for many of them.

Smoking ban ignites human rights debate

When the tobacco industry and the government are burning with the debate on plain packaging law, NSW smokers are concerned over a bitter pill to swallow: the outdoor smoking ban.

Not only Marrickville and Young Shire, the two latest councils that have adopted outdoor smoke-free policies, but also 78 other councils have put an outdoor smoking ban in place and still some others are on the way to consult the public about similar policies. The NSW government has also been considering a state-wide outdoor smoking ban.

Things are getting tougher on smokers. They say they have the feeling of being chased and marginalised. They feel their freedom of choice and human rights are being abused.

However, it’s not the case. It’s only their feelings.

The case is that their right of smoking still exists. The outdoor smoking ban which is quickly spreading over the state doesn’t abuse smokers’ human rights but help non-smokers claim back their rights.

In the case of Marrickville, although the council adopted one of the toughest outdoor smoke-free policy packages in NSW which bans smoking in most public areas from July 1, 2011, including alfresco dining venues, within 10 meters of bus stops and children’s playgrounds, the right to smoke is still maintained. Gary Moore, Director of Marrickville Community of Services affirmed that although the policy aimed at protecting non-smokers, it didn’t stop people smoking.

“Smokers are still allowed to light up on the streets and other places where people don’t gather,” he said.

The ban is said to still keep a line of retreat open for smokers. In the context that smoking is proved to cause adverse health effects, annually killing 15.000 Australians due to related diseases and costing the country a huge $31.5 billion, much higher than the tax revenue generated from tobacco sale of $6 billion, both the federal and NSW governments could have introduced a stricter ban if they didn’t take into account its democracy and smokers’ rights and suffering.

People have a right to smoke, but the right cannot extend to harming others. Science has proved that second-hand smoke can cause various health risks, such as asthma, respiratory infections, heart disease, lung cancer, sudden death syndrome and stillbirth. Obviously, it is unfair to let some people enjoy their pleasure at the expense of others. A basic principle of public health which also is featured in NSW Council for Civil Liberties (2008) states: It is a person's right to use any legal substance, but “the context of use should be dependent on the comfort of others” and smoking should only be allowed where “there is no possibility of passive smoking causing harm or discomfort to others”.

Outdoor dining venues have been colonised by smokers for too long a time. Some or a group of smokers enjoying coffee, blowing fumes into the air and occupying outdoor cafes has been a common image in many corners of Sydney.

On a sunny beautiful day, many of us would love to have coffee outside our favourite cafe. However, for non-smokers, if they have a chance to enjoy a sunny warm seat with street view, their happiness might not last long. A few minutes after one or two smokers turn up, the happy non-smokers realised that they need to leave and they do it - a common choice when people have to weigh between the risk of second-hand smoke exposure and the benefits brought about by a nice place.

A similar situation happens at bus stops. Smokers easily occupy a bus stop. They don’t need to do or say anything, just turn up with a burning cigarette! This kind of smokers’ occupation in outdoor places might have started since the NSW Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 and its related amendments which ban smoking in “enclosed” areas came into effect.

Smokers get upset and start their outcry when they lose their privileges. It’s natural and understandable. It wouldn’t be understandable and reasonable if smokers’ dynasty continues and their rights keep superceding or are given equal weight to those of non-smokers. It is noteworthy that not only common sense but also international legal frameworks are on the side of non-smokers. The right to smoke, in fact, has never been internationally recognised . Smoking is never a basic right. Neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) nor the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) – the two most well-known international legal frameworks on human rights – mention this right.

Meanwhile, the rights of non-smokers are strongly backed by international agreements. Articles 15 and 36 of the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights say everyone is entitled to the right to the highest attainable health. The convention discourages the abuse of tobacco and other harmful substances and obliges nations to take actions to reduce population exposure to these substances.

In a more direct way, article 8 of WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires signatories (including Australia) to take effective actions to protect all people, with no exceptions, from second-hand smoke exposure in all indoor places and other places.

Several states both inside and outside Australia have surpassed NSW in the field of tobacco control in outdoor areas. For instance since July1, 2006, all commercial outdoor eating or drinking areas in Queensland have been smoke-free. Recently, the City of New York on May 23 started to ban smoking at parks and beaches and Canada’s City of Winnipeg early this month also released a proposal to prohibit smoking within 30 meters of athletic fields where youth are playing sports, in addition to playgrounds, school grounds, public pools and spray pads, according to Winnipeg Free Press.

Smoking ban policies are getting tough and could even be tougher. In its recently released discussion paper on Tobacco Control in NSW 2011-2016, the state sets targets to decrease the proportion of adult-smokers to 10% by 2020 from 17.2% in 2009 and prohibits smoking in all commercial outdoor eating and drinking areas.

Smokers would face a hard time ahead. However, giving back to non-smokers smoke-free areas or in other words, returning to Cesar what is Cesar’s, is a proper behaviour.

Also, tracking down to the root, the policy would be a motivation for smokers to quit smoking. According to Professor Simon Chapman from the University of Sydney, a leading Australian expert on tobacco control, in a recent interview with ABC LifeMatter program, the fact that having to go out of a restaurant in a cold and rainy evening to smoke is uncomfortable for smokers but this would “drives many smokers out of smoking”, an unhealthy habit which is also a life prison for many of them.