14/7/01

G`day all,(1) "Growing Together" - a new plan for farming & conservation

(2) Groundwater cuts to NSW irrigators

(3) State Nature Conservation Strategy

(4) Contradictorary land use regulations

(5) Farming economics and city based creation

(6)Caught in Native veg controls

(7) Qld Veg committees going well

(8) Fight over Sunraysia water changes

(9) Sustainability discussion

(10) The Great Salinity Debate:  Part II

              Our news this week is Chris Dyer, & Dennis Fahey have met with

6 liberal senators at Barcaldine to talk about landholder issues. Our

position was put that landholders were very unhappy with the lack of security

of property rights whether it be vegetation, water, managerial rights or

native title, and the dictatorial process we are getting more and more with

every aspect of regulation is anti democratic.

   I think it would be fair to say the 6 senators thought there is no real

reason for us landholders to complain and that Senator Hill is doing a

marvellous job with the environment portfolio.

If any one wants to inform our politicians of their views and would like some

email addresses, let us know.

  Our other news is we have begun contacting  many politicians and green

groups and some government people with an e-magazine of news, views, stories

and articles.

Several have replied including the Victorian shadow Ag minister who rang us

and is very supportive. Just so you know what sort of material they are

getting, we will inform you on News & views.

  On e-magazine no1 was a comment on the WA land clearing at Badgingarra,

comments on WWF`s report on the Great Barrier Reef, Dawn Parker & Warren

Thomas`s story of injustice, and Dr Christine Jone`s second article on

Salinity.

Since there are many people who have just begun receiving News & Views, we

will incude that article at the end of this email. Our apologies to those who

have read it before.

Here are some reports from ABC radio              

(1) "Growing Together" - a new plan for farming & conservation

A major new environmental paper prepared by the NSW Farmers' Association

calls for a more constructive approach to controversial environmental issues

by traditional adversaries -farmers, greens and governments.

NSW Farmers' Association President, Mal Peters, said â˜Growing Togetherâ™

paper would mark the beginning of a new challenge for the environment

movement, farmers and politicians to cooperate to achieve environmental

outcomes.

âœFarmersâ™ opposition to increased environmental regulation has been

misunderstood by some people as opposition to environmental initiatives.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Peters said that if â˜Growing Togetherâ™ were adopted by governments and

the green movement it would help to forge a different approach to

environmental management.

âœThe key to â˜Growing Togetherâ™ is that it is based on identifying and

achieving environmental outcomes on the ground where it counts, rather than

putting in place blanket laws that are inflexible and incapable of achieving

what they set out to achieve.

âœThere is no difference between growing environmental outcomes and growing a

paddock of beans. Neither can be done from an office in Sydney and the farmer

is crucial to both.

âœThe past regulatory approach has been inequitable for landholders,

inefficient for the economy and ineffective for the environment.â

Mr Peters said crucial to future environmental management will be to identify

a minimum standard or duty of care landholders have to look after the

environmental health of their land.

âœRegulations that impose additional management restrictions in excess of this

standard should trigger public funding to offset the cost of those

restrictions on individual farmers.â

Greens claim still a long way to go - Georgia Bateman

The green groups, who have traditionally have been poles apart from the

farmers approach to land management, say the document "Growing Together" is

still a long way from the "seachange" required if the two parties are to see

eye-to-eye. While the Nature Conservation Council welcomes the farmers

"working together" philosophy the Executive Director, Kathy Ridge, says they

have already been co-operating on the issue. Ms Ridge says the reliance on

the "duty of care" is "interesting" but they still have a number of issues

with the concept and they need to consider it far more carefully. Contrary to

the proposal, Kathy Ridge believes there would be a need for more regulation

to ensure protection of the environment, not less.

(2) Groundwater cuts to NSW irrigators

The Department of Land & Water Conservation has defended its management of

ground water in the Namoi, Murrumbidgee, and Macquarie Valley's. Ground water

users in all of those regions say they face economic loss, and in some cases

disaster, because of plans by the Dept to drastically cut their bore water

irrigation allocations. But Senior Departmental Officer, Des Cleary, says

'MOST' irrigators won't be significantly disadvantaged. (* What happens to

the remainder?)

This is from Tas Country Hour - ABC

(3) State Nature Conservation Strategy - Sally Dakis

The debate over land clearing on private land has been fuelled by the recent

release of the state government's Nature Conservation Strategy. The product

of 12 months work, the Nature Conservation Strategy has been drawn up by the

State Biodiversity Committee, headed up by Professor Bruce Davis. The

strategy is aimed at providing an action plan for protecting Tasmania's

natural diversity and maintaining our ecological processes and systems. It

offers 64 recommendations and 15 priority recommendations for the next 5

years.

(4) Contradictorary land use regulations

This Is from Graham Brooks (Aust Forest Growers)

Dear all

This is one of my favourite topics - I wish someone could explain to me why,

in a

day and age when we have uniform legal frameworks for so many sensitive areas

of

food safety, pesticide usage, road safety codes, quarantine, etc, that there

is a

proliferation of unduly prescriptive regulatory requirements in terms of land

use -

each state and territory redesigning the wheel so to speak!  We rave on about

being

focused on global markets, while remaining parochial in terms of our

essential legal

frameworks for land-use within Australia.

In a fairly high level meeting recently on forestry, an industry CEO said

that the

two major impediments to private investment in plantation development were

(1) failure of the States to honour their obligations under National

Competition Policy (and fully recover the costs in log pricing), and

(2) the proliferation of contradictory land-use regulatory frameworks  across

state boundaries.

Unfortunately the extreme green groups have often stolen the high ground and

influenced politicians against the best sustainable NRM scientific

principles.  Then

again the more moderates are talking with us quite constructively,

particularly

about the distortions about NCP.

Cheers

Graham Brooks

National Policy Director

Australian Forest Growers

(5) Farming economics and city based creation

This is form David Chambers

Leon,

It is very possible you have not heard of our Society. We have been working

in the area of ecologically sustainable farming since 1983. Invested a lot

of effort and have been very frustrated by the reality of farming within the

Australian ecosystem.

The overiding challenge is that even when farmers wish to remediate damage

or change to more ecologocally sustainable practices there is one major

limitation. Their rising costs as more is demanded and their low returns as

corporates compete for the consumer dollar. The net result is little

financial reserved against natural droughts etc., dropping return per

hectare and farmers striving to survive let alone invest back into

ecological sustainability.

Those in government do not seem to understand the basics and are creating

great overheads of consultants and trainers to extract more dollars from

farmers. ( First be more efficient, next a better manager and now a multi

facet specialist). We are currently watching a mammoth industry arising

which the government regulators insist must be farmer demand driven. Yet

there are tight demands on trainers and consultants to spend to remain

qualified, this in itself moves the action from farmer demand driven to a

need for these newly created jobs to sell and earn income. The reason stated

is that farmers will spend a $1000.00 per day if they see benefit!!!  It is

our experience that this type of expenditure only occurs where a buck is to

be made. When it comes to environmental reparation, where we have long

experience, farmers do not see the return/cash that they need to survive.

Therefor $1000.00 per day is very unlikely. It seems that the government

administrators can not discern the fact that farmers in general can not

afford to pay what it takes for environmental recovery. The answer must lie

in better returns so that profit is available for re-investment.The public

purse is the only other alternative.

City people seem to have forgotten the farming is the basis of city

creation, no mass produced food, no cities. The city based demands upon the

very worthy farming workforce are incredible, where is the tangible, food on

the table reward?

We are involved in some interesting activities.

1. Participation in the Redesigning Australian Agricultural Landscapes

program.

2. On-farm monitoring

3. One day awareness courses for farmers

Just a few thoughts which I guess reflect some frustration. Would like to

hear from you.

Take a look at our web site.  www.lmsinfo.com.

Keep up the good work.

David Chambers. Director Farm Monitoring

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6)Caught in Native veg controls

From Jenny Blake (Vic)

Hi, I found your letter to the Geelong Advertiser interesting in that for some

years Kevin and I have been actively been promoting Nv (native vegetation)

and its values and are of course now caught in the web of Nv controls.

Last year I travelled to England and looked at the Environmentally sensitive

areas schemes and other ideas in vogue there and came home and prepared

detailed work for anyone who may listen but as you are probably aware the

ears here are very deaf.

The one who may listen is Wilson Tuckey who I heard at a Timber Towns

meeting in Melb recently - I have not yet tackled him - Hill I do not

believe is worth the effort.

We won a landcare award in 1993 so we do have credibility.

I am very much afraid that the green movement is carrying such a huge vote

that we will be swamped.

Regards Jenny Blake

----------------------------------------------------------------

(7) Qld Veg committees going well

This is from Jan Oliver (Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland)

Thanks for your email newsletter

I am passing on your address and web page to other landholders as I talk with

them because the issues have to be mulled over - even if we as a Society do

not

necessarily agree with everything!

The (QLD) Vegetation Management committees are going well, with an amazing

amount of compromise and resolutions amongst very different participants

in many cases. Good to see.

More abc news

(8) Fight over Sunraysia water changes - Lyndal Reading

The reduction of private diverters licences from a 15 to a five year term has

incurred the wrath of the Victorian Farmers Federation. The VFF has

criticised Sunraysia Rural Water for a move which it says threatens the

security of the farmers' supply. However Sunraysia Rural Water says the term

of the licences needs to be shorter to react to the changing needs of the

environment. Chair of the VFF Water Resources Committee, Doug Chant, says

irrigators will be reluctant to spend money on reducing water consumption if

they can't plan for the future. Don Rowe from the Sunraysia Rural Water

Authority says the VFF is stirring up trouble. Mr Rowe says the Authority

need to be able to address the changing needs of salinity and biodiversity.

(*Once again the issue of who is in control flares up - Is it the whole

community taking a holistic approach deciding with the best science available

and being fair to everyone, or is it a beauracrat with his own views and

prejudices?)

(9) Sustainability discussion

Greg Burrows (WA) has replied to last weeks comments

Just like to comment on point 1 (sustainable production will not conserve

every species)

your idea of sustainable development is ecologically unsound. How many

species do

you draw the line at and what happens to the chain of the natural system

they were in? ESD has nothing to do with producing more of something off the

same area.

Almost all Australian cropping is obscenely high input, it is not

sustainable on the fact that almost all the inputs are from non renewable

natural resources ie they will run out, which leads on to

point 2  this feed the world stuff is crap, Brazil ( one country has at

least 200 million acres that can and will come into production of the next

decade, Australia has less than 1%  of the world grain market all we do is

try and make as much money as we can supporting an array of multinational

fuel, fertilizer and chemical companies who do a cost analysis on us  and

also contribute as less as possible back into the country(& that includes

environmental management).

Just to reiterate another point rem  vegetation is what provided fresh water

and clean air in the first place, what is the value of these two things?

Cheers

Greg Burrows

From Leon Ashby - My comment on sustainable production not conserving every

species is based on

(1) Some native species are in conflict with production e.g. heartleaf and

bracken fern poison stock, Dingoes reduce productivity etc. These species are

in conflict with production and are actively destroyed.

(2) Some native species are weeds or annoying to production or not very

productive. These too are actively reduced.

(3) Some introduced or invading species displace native ones e.g. the Dingo

replacing   the Thyracine (Tasmanian Tiger), The rabbit replacing many small

mammals. We could try to stop them but once they get going, no amount of

effort will stop them.

(4) Then there is the fact that even with the best management, there will be

occasional situations where one slight difference will be enough to push a

species into decline. With many millions of species yet to be identified let

alone understood, and then let alone be managed, how can anyone be able to

claim anything but, many (but not all) species can be conserved via

sustainable production.

In reply to the "Feed the world" comment - It is interesting to note that a

university environmental text book "Universal Science" says "If populations

continue to grow at present rates, the production of food must double or

triple by the first decade of the next century for all people to be

adequately fed." The book devotes a question in relation to increasing

Population & needs at the end of each chapter.

Fresh air is provided by all plants that photosynthesise - not just from

remnant vegetation

Fresh water can come from any unpolluted source. Remnant vegetation is not

the only non polluting land use, as many organic farmers are demonstrating.

Does anyone else want to comment?

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(10)Now for Dr Christine Jone`s article. Christine has had 100`s of replies

supporting the new  model she suggests. We will feature some evidences that

support the new model  later on .  Cheers for now

The Great Salinity Debate:  Part II

Why the recharge-discharge model is fundamentally flawed

Christine Jones

The recharge-discharge model which has been used to describe the changes in

water balance since European settlement is based on false assumptions

concerning

i) the nature of pre-European vegetation and

ii) the way water moves in the landscape.  

The use of this flawed model as a basis for strategies to combat dryland

salinity underpins the poor success rates achieved to date.

Native vegetation

We hear a lot about the clearing of native vegetation in relation to dryland

salinity.  Most people assume that the words "native vegetation" mean "trees

and shrubs".  Contrary to popular opinion, the historical record clearly

shows that in the early years of European settlement many of the higher

rainfall areas of temperate Australia were grassy woodlands, that is, widely

spaced trees with a grassy understorey.

The explorers and early surveyors described the richness and diversity of

this vision splendid, with grasses frequently up to their horses' bellies.  

Many of the hills were recorded as being grassed to their summits, having

only thinly scattered trees, or being treeless.  The descriptions of the

grassy vegetation were remarkably similar across the temperate parts of

eastern, southern and south-western Australia, and the comment was invariably

made that, unlike many parts of America where clearing was a prerequisite,

here most of the land was immediately ready for grazing or the plough.

Early settlers could not have anticipated the rapid deterioration in the

quality and diversity of groundcover and the decline in soil quality that

accompanied European style grazing and cultivation.  In parallel with the

loss of grassland habitat was the extinction of 20 previously common species

of small marsupials and the near extinction of a myriad of others.  The

significant role that these native fauna played in soil enhancement is not

widely recognised.  In combination with the cessation in aboriginal burning

and soil disturbance regimes, the widespread loss of the thousands of small

animals that loosened soil, buried organic matter and consumed emerging tree

seedlings, produced massive changes to the ecology of the Australian

landscape.  So much so that today's "remnant vegetation" probably bears

little resemblance to the plant communities in existence 200 years ago.

Europeans were caught unawares by the sudden explosion in the numbers of

trees and shrubs which followed settlement.  In 1848, Thomas Mitchell,

Surveyor General for NSW, described "thick forests of young trees, where,

formerly, a man might gallop without impediment, and see whole miles before

him". Observations of regrowth were reported many times thereafter by other

observers across southern Australia.  For example, Howitt (1890) described

the tree regrowth in Victoria "â¦After some years of occupation, whole tracts

of country became covered with forests of young saplingsâ¦and at present time

these have so much increased, and grown so much, that it is difficult to ride

over parts which one can see by the few scattered old giants were at one time

open grassy country".  Subsequent generations found it necessary to clear

this regrowth in order for agricultural activities to proceed.

The changes in the quality and quantity of the groundcover since European

settlement have had enormous implications for water balance in the Australian

landscape.  The diverse perennial grassland communities which proved so

productive for early settlers could respond to rain at any time of the year.  

Furthermore, the soil organisms which proliferated in response to the high

root biomass and the activities of the grassland fauna, produced humic

materials and microbial gums which glued soil particles together, creating a

crumb structure which resisted erosion.  Soil microbes also produced plant

growth hormones which stimulated root growth and enabled plant roots to

penetrate clay subsoils.  The many pore spaces in these healthy, living soils

enabled them to hold large volumes of water.

The movement of water in the landscape

Dryland salinity is the result of a water cycle that is out of balance.  The

salt is an unwelcome fellow traveller with rising groundwater, and even

though serious in its own right, salinity is merely an indicator of a more

deep-seated problem.  It is therefore extremely important that we look very

carefully at what is happening at the landscape level, sooner rather than

later.

In comparison with pre-European times, there is now LESS water entering

aquifers in the HIGHER parts of the landscape (and hence LESS fresh

groundwater available to feed springs and streams), MORE runoff and lateral

subsurface flow on undulating country (which may be intercepted by dams and

contour banks and may not necessarily reach rivers other than in periods of

high rainfall) and MORE recharge to water tables in the LOWER parts of the

landscape (Fig.1) below.

Prior to settlement                                              today

   [Unable to display image]               [Unable to display image]          

This is almost the opposite of the widely accepted recharge-discharge model

on which most salinity "solutions" are based.  The recharge-discharge model

depicts MORE water entering deep drainage in the higher parts of the

landscape with the removal of the original native vegetation, which is

assumed to be trees, which in turn are assumed to be deep rooted.  This

excess water then apparently travels underground, collecting salt along the

way, to emerge as discharge at the break of slope or in low-lying areas (Fig.

2).  Although the model appears seductively simple, there are no biological

or physical mechanisms by which these processes can occur at the landscape or

regional scale.

(Fig 2) current assumed model

Prior to Settlement                                                      

Today     

[Unable to display image]                         [Unable to display image]

"Recharge" in the upper catchment

Imagine that you're standing on the side of a fairly steep hill in the

pouring rain.  The hillside is completely bare.  Where does the water go?  

Straight down the side of the hill, taking soil with it.  Not directly into

the soil and into "deep drainage" as the recharge model tells us will happen

if there are no trees.  Any water that does infiltrate will also run

downslope on top of the subsoil as lateral flow, under the force of gravity.  

If there are rocky outcrops, some water will seep through cracks, but this

will only account for a small percentage.  The remaining water has no

mechanism for becoming recharge until it reaches the lower parts of the

catchment.

Now imagine that there are trees on the hill, but no grasses or other

groundcover.  Where does the water go?  Again, straight down the side of the

hill, perhaps a little more slowly.  If there's leaf litter, at least some of

the rain will infiltrate, but it will then also travel as lateral flow unless

the soil is high in organic matter.

Finally, imagine that the hill is covered with dense tussocky perennial

grasses which have deep, fibrous root systems.  The soil is well mulched and

you can't see any bare ground.  Where does the water go?  The V-shaped grass

architecture, in combination with high levels of organic matter both in soil

and on the friable soil surface, will facilitate the rapid infiltration and

storage of rain as it falls.  The chance of water moving downslope will be

significantly reduced.  The water held in pore spaces between soil aggregates

in the root zone will be available for later use by the grassland plants and

the soil community of invertebrates and microorganisms.  

A small amount will slowly percolate through the subsoil (or enter cracks in

the parent material) and provide clear, filtered water for springs and

streams.  It is extremely important for future generations that this process

continues.  When the water runs on the top of the ground instead, or on top

of the subsoil, we get into the all too familiar flood/drought cycle, with

rivers carrying either too much or too little water, while freshwater

aquifers are shrinking.

Recharge in the lower catchment

The conventional recharge-discharge model has provided landholders in the

lower parts of the landscape with a scapegoat for their own inappropriate

(although unintentional) land management practices.  Where there are annual

crops or pastures, or where perennials are overgrazed, enormous amounts of

water enter the groundwater below the break of slope.  Despite this, the

tendency has been to point the finger at others higher in the catchment and

blame them for all the recharge.

Certainly, some water has travelled downslope, but the lower parts of the

landscape normally account for the major portion of the total land area, as

well as for most of the recharge if conventional cropping or conventional

grazing are the major land uses.  The fact that the eruptions of saline water

are often at the break of slope doesn't necessarily mean that all of the

water came from above - it simply means that the rising groundwater put

backward pressure on any water moving downhill and there was nowhere else for

it to go.  This phenomenon can be demonstrated by placing a piezometer above

the high water mark on the beach.  As the tide comes in, the water level

rises in the tube.  If you were only observing the water level in the

piezometer and couldn't "see" the tide coming in, it would be natural to

assume that the water had moved downslope from the sand dunes behind.

In the lower parts of the landscape, fibrous-rooted perennial grasses and

associated organic components will again hold most of the rainfall in the

root zone, where it can increase the productivity of a wide range of

enterprises.  Remember, a pulsed grazed native pasture base will be more

nutrient and water efficient than a high input introduced pasture and will

complement, rather than compete with, pasture cropping, viticulture,

horticulture or silviculture.  If the main land use is grazing, a diversity

of cool season (C3) and warm season (C4) perennial native grasses will

provide year round productivity, stability and drought tolerance, provided

the management is appropriate (refer Part I this series).  A small amount of

water will still go through to deep drainage, but that's what was happening

200 years ago.

Discharge

The rate of movement of water in underground aquifers depends on many

factors, but in most situations takes between 300 and 1000 years to travel

one kilometre.  For water to travel 50 km underground could take up to 50,000

years.  If you have saline discharge on your property, the chances are that

recharge also took place there.  The good news with respect to this local

hydrology scenario is that landholders can have some control over their own

destiny where dryland salinity and other land degradation processes are

concerned.

In some places freshwater aquifers are drying up while saline water tables

are expanding.  How could those two things be happening at the same time?  It

can be explained quite easily if the recharge-discharge model is in fact

upside down.  The conventional model states that recharge occurs high in the

catchment and discharge occurs lower down.  The available evidence suggests

that there is very little true recharge at the top (albeit too much lateral

flow, which adds to the discharge at the bottom) and that both recharge and

discharge are occurring in the lower parts of the landscape.  Unfortunately

this has resulted in some of the freshwater aquifers beginning to backfill

from enlarging saline aquifers below.

The current situation

The recharge-discharge model as shown in Fig.2 also at the bottom of this

article is being taught in schools across Australia today.  A whole

generation of children will grow up believing that it is their duty to plant

trees in the upper parts of the landscape to "prevent recharge".  Meanwhile,

dryland salinity will continue unabated.  

Furthermore, our children are being led to believe that all trees have deep

tap roots, as depicted in salinity models.  The tap root of the seedling tree

degenerates over time, and although some fine roots may occasionally follow

rock fissures, most mature trees of the species commonly found on hillsides

do NOT have a tap root.  More usually, up to 90% of the root mass is

concentrated in the top 50 cm of the soil profile.  Once the water has run

off a hillside covered in trees, there is no way the trees can get it back.

The recognition of urban salinity as a mostly local hydrological phenomenon

has clearly demonstrated that we don't need a fool on the hill, or even a

hill, or even an agricultural landscape, to encounter water balance problems.

 In the urban context, dryland salinity results from the combined effects of

activities such as watering shallow rooted lawns (all short grasses are

shallow rooted) and rain falling on impermeable structures such as rooftops,

paths, driveways and roads, and becoming runoff.  That is, urban salinity is

the result of excessive runoff added to excessive recharge in situ.  

I fail to see much difference between this and the expression of dryland

salinity in agricultural landscapes.  Planting trees on a hill 20 km away

will do little to resolve the problem in either the agricultural or the urban

context.  Trees and shrubs form an integral and ecologically valuable

component of grassy woodland vegetation and I am by no means dismissing their

importance.  My concern is with the promotion of broadscale tree planting

(mostly same-age monocultures) as a panacea, not only for dryland salinity,

but for all land degradation problems.  In a healthy perennial grassland

soil, there may be 50 tonnes of biomass (roots, soil organisms and humic

materials) below ground for every tonne of biomass above ground.  In forests,

there is far more organic material above ground than below.  The fact that we

can only see the biomass above ground may explain the distorted image many

people have of these respective plant communities.

We certainly do have to mimic the native vegetation to restore hydrological

balance, but let's get the facts right.  The vegetation of the temperate zone

was almost exclusively perennial 200 years ago, but Australia was not a

forest. The majority of aboriginal people were not forest dwellers.  Neither

do we have to be.  How many rural communities will be lost in this mad rush

to return Australia to a land of trees we never had?

The aboriginal people lived in a diverse and dynamic grassy ecosystem. So can

we.  Grasslands produce more food than forests and the intuitive response

would be to manage the landscape to favour grassland species.  To refer to

the pre-European vegetation as "natural" or "pristine" totally ignores

thousands of years of prior habitation, exceptional observational skills and

active management to achieve desired outcomes.  Australia has been mismanaged

for the last 200 years.  Now it's crunch time.

In our low and variable rainfall environment, the increasing reliance on high

water use plants or engineering solutions to "dewater" soils makes neither

ecological nor economic sense.  We can restore water balance and improve soil

health, nutrient cycling and productivity if current agricultural and

horticultural activities are conducted in an appropriately managed perennial

groundcover base.  That's the topic for the next issue.

 Summary

 The assumed model

Deep rooted trees USE large amounts of water and keep water table in balance.

    Tree removal results in water table recharge in upper catchment and

discharge in lower catchment.

Prior to Settlement                                                      

Today     

[Unable to display image]                         [Unable to display image]   

B: a more realistic model

Healthy perennial groundcover, fibrous root mass and associated humic

materials HOLD water where it falls with some percolation to groundwater.     

Loss of healthy groundcover in both upper and lower catchments results in

more runoff, lateral flow, recharge and discharge. Replenishment of elevated

aquifers may be reduced.     

Prior to Settlement                                                Today      

 [Unable to display image]                       [Unable to display image]