community – Page 6 – ANGFA Queensland

Abbott’s half right: our national parks are good but not perfect

community, environment, government, threatened species, wildlife

Mar 072014

By Rod Keenan, University of Melbourne at The Conversation

Prime Minister Tony Abbott this week told a timber industry dinner that he doesn’t think national parks should be a growth industry:

“We have quite enough national parks. We have quite enough locked up forests already. In fact, in an important respect, we have too much locked up forest.”

Is he right? How much forest should be in conservation reserves, and does Australia really have too many?

Photo: Lake Judd, in Tasmania’s Southwest National Park. JJ Harrison/Wikimedia Commons

Parks and protection

Australia has a world-class system of reserves, with just over 13% of its land area currently protected. Governments of all political persuasions have created national parks and protected areas for a range of reasons, including biodiversity conservation, wilderness protection, scientific study or to protect specific natural features.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he will not support the creation of any new national parks. Photo: AAP Image/Daniel Munoz

The most recent national figures indicate that 16% of the native forest area, some 23 million hectares, is inside reserves. This includes 70% of known old-growth forests and 55% of rainforest types. The iconic tall, open eucalypt forests (greater than 30 m in height) are also relatively well protected, with 26% inside reserves.

This stacks up fairly well against internationally agreed conservation goals. In 2010, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which aim to conserve at least 17% of terrestrial ecosystems. In Australia, 54 bioregions already meet or exceed the 17% Aichi target, but 35 have less than 10% of terrestrial ecosystems protected.

These reserves have generally been created on public land, but 70% of Australia’s forest estate is privately managed, including private freehold and leasehold land and land managed by indigenous people.

Some significant conservation efforts are happening on these lands. For example, 83,000 hectares of forest on private land in Tasmania have been protected through programs such as the Private Forest Reserves Program and the Forest Conservation Fund developed under Tasmania’s Regional Forest Agreement.

Biodiversity conservation goals won’t be achieved simply by creating more reserves on public lands. More of these types of incentive programs will be required to encourage private landowners to participate in conservation.

While significant areas of forest on public land are not in reserves, these forests are not simply open slather for clearing or timber harvesting. Most states have legal restrictions on clearing and timber operators adhere to a code of practice. In many cases the land is inaccessible or not suitable for other uses.

As a result, only about 6% (or 9 million hectares) of Australia’s native forest area is available for wood production.

The Tasmanian question

The forest conservation debate is hottest in Tasmania, where the federal government is seeking to remove 74,000 ha of forest from the World Heritage list just a year after it was added.

The 2012 Tasmanian State of the Forests report indicates that 49% of the state’s native forest area (1.5 million of 3.06 million hectares) is in conservation reserves. Of the 50 native forest communities, 37 have at least 15% of their estimated pre-1750 extent protected in reserves. This includes the very tall Eucalyptus regnans (16% in reserves) and E. delegatensis forests (26% in reserves) in places like the Styx and Florentine Valleys.

Seven communities, mainly shorter-statured dry eucalypt types, have less than 7.5% of their pre-1750 extent protected in reserves. For most of these communities, the remaining extent is largely on private land.

As a result of this agreement, the previous federal government added 172,000 hectares to the 1,412,000 ha in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. But the Abbott government claims that 74,000 ha should be delisted because it is “degraded or logged”.

But it is misguided to describe harvested areas added to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area as “degraded”. Whatever your views on whether it should have happened at all, timber harvesting in Tasmania has generally been well-managed, with limited impacts on soil and water values. Harvested forests have been regenerated with the local species, and many other trees, shrubs and other life forms return to site within a short period of harvesting.

It is precisely this careful land management that has provided the opportunity to include these areas as World Heritage.

So was Abbott’s claim right?

In one sense, Abbott is correct about our national parks. We do have an excellent conservation reserve system with significant representative areas of many forest types. The vegetation types subject to timber harvesting are relatively well protected, both within national parks and outside them, by the restrictions and regulations on timber harvesting.

However, for the Prime Minister to suggest that we have “too much” forest in reserves overlooks the fact that there are many types of forest where the reserved areas do not meet national or global protection targets.

These are generally not the iconic tall wet forests adjacent to Tasmania’s wilderness areas. They are the shorter, less aesthetically appealing (to some) forest types in drier areas along Australia’s east coast. Remaining areas are often on private land, and the main threats are urban and infrastructure expansion, weeds, pests and feral animals.

Focusing the debate simply on areas in reserves also misses the need for a “whole-landscape” approach to conservation. Protected areas are just one part of the picture – areas outside reserves also need to be carefully managed so that conservation can co-exist with other land uses, such as agriculture.

This holistic approach will give us the best chance of protecting and conserving our unique native species and ecosystems.

Rod Keenan receives funding from the Victorian Government and has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Why don’t we believe Australia’s fisheries are sustainable?

community, fisheries, government, research

Mar 062014

By Jacki Schirmer, University of Canberra; Lain Dare, University of Canberra, and Peter O’Brien, University of Canberra at The Conversation

Australians love seafood. We each consumed an average of 25 kilograms of seafood in 2010 – an amount that has increased significantly over the last 30 years. Worldwide, fish consumption now exceeds beef. Despite our love of fish, more than two-thirds of Australians think that our fisheries are unsustainable, a view that is strongly at odds with the scientific evidence.

We love our fish ‘n’ chips, but most Australians don’t think our fisheries are sustainable. Photo: Simon Collison/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Two current reports on Australia’s wild catch fisheries reveal stark differences in the way scientists and Australians view the sustainability of fish stocks. While scientists assess most stocks as sustainable, the community sees it differently. Less than one in three Australians perceive the wild catch commercial fishing industry as sustainable.

What we know

Last year, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation published an extensive assessment of the status of Australia’s commercial fish stocks. The report assessed 150 stocks of 49 species, which make up the bulk of the commercially significant fisheries (approximately 70% of the commercial wild catch by volume and 80% by value).

The report tells a positive picture: 98 stocks were classified as “sustainable”, 11 as “transitional”, 39 were “undefined” due to insufficient data, and just two – Southern Bluefin Tuna and School Shark – were assessed as overfished.

This isn’t a comprehensive survey. Some stocks could not be assessed because information was not adequate. The report doesn’t assess all commercial species, or consider sustainability of the broader marine environment. But it shows clearly that more than more than 90% of the total catch of the species considered is being fished sustainably. This is good news for consumers of wild caught Australian seafood.

What we think we know

But last week, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) released the results of a recent survey of community perceptions of the Australian fishing industry. The online survey of 1021 respondents shows that only 30% believe that the commercial wild catch fishing sector is sustainable.

Because of this gap between science and community perceptions, there is a real risk of limited community approval or acceptance of fisheries management.

In other words, Australia’s commercial fisheries lack a “social licence” to operate. This means that when controversy arises — as it did in conflict over the “super trawler” Margiris — Australians are unlikely to support these fisheries.

The 142-metre 10,000-tonne MV Margiris, the world’s second largest super trawler, arriving at Port Lincoln, South Australia, in August 2012. Photo: AAP/Nat Kilpatrick

Licensed to fish?

Why the gap? Other natural resource industries provide some valuable lessons.

First, the Australian fishing industry may be being defined by its past. Despite improvements in management and practises, poor past performance can contribute to today’s perceptions of an industry.

The survey released last week shows that 80% of the Australian public are unaware or unsure of changes put in place to improve fishing industry sustainability in recent decades.

Second, the community might be generalising perceptions about international fisheries to Australian fisheries. Imported seafood, mainly from Thailand, China, Vietnam and New Zealand, made up 72% of the seafood consumed in Australia in 2008/09.

Third, the public judge wild catch fisheries based on their knowledge of it. This knowledge rarely comes from people directly involved in the industry, and much more commonly comes from newspapers, radio and television. Media headlines grab public attention, yet the depth of information portrayed is often shallow and the opportunity to meaningfully learn from scientific reports is limited.

But it’s a two-way street. We need more accessible information on fisheries management, and science needs to address the issues that concern the community, if Australians are to make informed judgements.

What we think of bigger businesses

Compounding those problems is the lack of visibility of commercial fishers in many communities. Social licence is often built through personal interaction and trust, and an industry that lacks visibility has few opportunities to build this trust.

Thanks to efforts to improve economic efficiency and sustainability, Australia’s commercial wild catch fisheries now employ fewer people, and have shifted to larger, more corporate fishing businesses. Commercial fishing activity has also been reduced in near-shore areas used by recreational fishers. This has the unintended side effect of reducing the visibility of commercial fishing and the sense of familiarity for the general public. With less connection and less visibility, commercial wild catch fishers operate almost out of sight.

The shift to larger businesses and in some cases larger boats may itself reduce trust in wild catch fisheries. Multiple studies (based on energy, forestry and farming) have found that the public perceive activities more negatively if they are conducted by large businesses or on a large scale.

Fisheries policies —intended to improve productivity and encouraging economies of scale — may have the unintended consequence of reducing the acceptability of the industry.

The lack of a social licence to operate for Australia’s commercial fishing sector means fisheries can struggle to find community support when controversy arises.

But the latest FRDC survey suggests there is room for change. While only 30% of Australians believe our fisheries are sustainable, a further 37% sat on the fence. Better access to trusted information and increased familiarity with the fishing industry can help address this gap.

Peter O’Brien is a Director of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.

Jacki Schirmer and Lain Dare do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Fighting on to save lake

Australian native freshwater species, community, fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands, wildlife

Mar 062014

Original story by Gregor Heard, Stock and Land

Key points

Fishermen and local residents unite

Push for emergency allocation of water to save fish stocks

Government at this stage unlikely to approve request

Local water authority says running channel to Toolondo not an option

FISHING enthusiasts, together with the local community are fighting hard to save fish stocks in Lake Toolondo in the south-west Wimmera.

“Rocklands is full of carp and does not support the same ecology you get at Toolondo.” Trevor Holmes.

A group has been formed with two goals, in the long-term to shore up the future of the lake, described as the most important trout fishery in mainland Australia, and in the short-term to get an emergency allocation of 5000 megalitres of water to stop fish from dying.

One of the spokesmen for the group, Trevor Holmes, said the immediate challenge was to save trout stocks within the lake.

“The lake was restocked in 2011, and it seems silly to make that investment and then just let the fish die, when they can easily be saved with a relatively small amount of water.”

In the longer term, Mr Holmes said he wanted to see a minimum level retained in Toolondo where possible.

“It is a storage and does not evaporate quickly, so by putting in water you are not jeopardising the region’s water security.”

Mr Holmes said Toolondo had a much more significant eco-system than Rocklands, which is the region’s major storage.

“Rocklands is full of carp and does not support the same ecology you get at Toolondo.”

He said Toolondo was not only important for sporting fish but had healthy populations of native fish, eastern long necked turtles, yabbies and water-based birds and insects.

The group is lobbying Victorian Minister for Water Peter Walsh on the matter.

A petition on online petition platform www.change.org has over 1300 signatories and a Facebook group has over 1100 members.

However, thus far there has been little progress.

Minister Walsh said decisions for Toolondo’s management were made by the local water authority, Grampians Wimmera Mallee (GWM) Water.

“While the Victorian Government recognises Lake Toolondo has been providing some great fishing opportunities for recreational fishers, it is vital that the Wimmera-Mallee system is managed responsibly and as a whole,” Mr Walsh said.

“The stock and domestic supply of local landholders could be jeopardised if more water is transferred into Lake Toolondo for recreational fishing, given the current levels of Rocklands Reservoir.

“While in the past few years flooding rains have allowed for transfers from Rocklands Reservoir into Lake Toolondo, it would be irresponsible to transfer water under current conditions.”

GWM Water spokesman Andrew Rose said the short-term allocation of water would not be a prudent move.

“The water losses in running water up the open channel from Rocklands to Toolondo would be massive.”

He also said Toolondo was not a preferred storage, not because of evaporation issues as in other GWM storages popular for recreation usage, such as Lake Lonsdale near Stawell, but because of topography.

“It’s true we can get water out of Toolondo, but when it gets to a certain level we need to pump it out, which obviously will increase costs.”

Mr Holmes disputed the water security argument.

“On our calculations, based on current water levels, running the 5000mL up to Toolondo would only drop Rocklands by 3cm.”

President of the Horsham Fly Fishers and Trout Anglers Club Gary Marlow said having lived through the Millennium Drought, which crippled the Wimmera from 1997 to 2007, he understood the importance of water security.

However, he said transferring water to Toolondo was not a risk at current storage levels.

“We understand if there is just no water about then it couldn’t be done, but we believe this lake has significance from an environmental, economic and recreational perspective and should be maintained.”

Both Mr Marlow and Mr Holmes questioned water management practices, such as summer environmental flows down the Wimmera and Glenelg Rivers.

“If we are trying to mimic the natural catchment patterns, then I don’t think you would have seen water running during our dry summers,” Mr Holmes said.

He said he realised the difficulties in getting the group’s requests through given the current water management framework.

“Longer-term, we’re certainly going to be working to get a more common sense approach to managing water resources.

“I know everyone wants their own lake filled, but in the case of Toolondo, there is a really strong argument, this lake has a massive reputation among the fishing community as a showcase trout fishery and we believe it can be filled without impacting on water security throughout GWM’s area.

Fishers welcome Queensland management overhaul

community, fisheries, government

Mar 052014

Original story by Charlie McKillop, ABC Rural

Queensland’s fisheries management is about to get a comprehensive overhaul, but it’s come at the expense of a much-anticipated decision on the future of the crab fishery.

Trawler operators in Queensland have welcomed efforts to reduce red tape and simplify the regulatory environment in which they operate. Photo: Charlie McKillop

Fisheries Minister John McVeigh says he won’t proceed with the crab review and instead will refer it to a soon-to-be-appointed ministerial advisory committee as the government embarks on its review of management review.

It’s a move welcomed by the peak lobby group, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA).

Chair Karen Collard says fishers want more certainty about the regulatory environment in which they operate.

“There has been very little confidence in the Queensland fisheries management for a number of years because of these overlaying contradictions.

“Part of the problem is some of these things (such as the crab review) haven’t had a lot of support from the industry or from the Department.

“There wasn’t any real benefit for anybody to make some regulatory changes because everything was so interwoven and clunky.

“Now, we’re actually starting with a clean page so we can take away the inconsistencies and the problematic parts of the legislation and the regulations to make it a lot more user friendly,” she said.

“There’ll be a lot less red tape for fishermen to have to worry about.”

Everything was so interwoven and clunky. Now, we’re actually starting with a clean page so we can take away the inconsistencies and the problematic parts of the legislation and the regulations to make it a lot more user friendly. There’ll be a lot less red tape for fishermen to have to worry about.

Karen Collard, Queensland Seafood Industry Association

Mr McVeigh says the review will tackle a range of anomalies and exceptions that have developed over decades in more than 900 pages of legislation for Queensland’s 1500 fishing operators.

He says it builds on work already being done, including the implementation of a $9 million buyback in the east coast net fishery and the crab review.

“Quite honestly it’s not progressing as quickly as I would like but we are making progress.

“I am aware of other reviews that have been delayed for more than 10 years, for example, the crab fishery review,” he said.

“Well, we’ve pulled that on in the past six months or so, got it going finally to try to sort out the industry position.

“Unfortunately, that industry position on how crab fisheries should be reviewed going forward is not at all clear.

“We want to just keep conditions in place there at the moment, therefore, and just make sure we include it in this overall review.”

Mrs Collard uses the example of restrictions on fishing boats transferring through marine parks, despite fishing gear not being engaged or in the water, as an anomaly that could be easily fixed.

“We still won’t be fishing in green zones, we’ll still be bringing healthy seafood to the tables of consumers.

“It’s just that we’ll hopefully be able to do it in a more financially friendly manner as well as maintaining our ecological sustainability,” she said.

The way forward on the crab fishery will now be addressed by the newly-appointed Ministerial Advisory Committee representing commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers as well environmental advocates.

Mrs Collard says the QSIA is looking forward to being a part of the process.

Mr McVeigh says he wants all parties to work together on the crab review and other contentious issues facing the industry.

“By bringing them to the table, by negotiating, by everyone recognising – which on a one-on-one basis they do – that we have some environmental credentials to live up to as well to maintain the sustainability of the stock right around the state, I think we will move through a process where people will have their say and we’ll get the balance right.

“But there’s no doubt about it, it’ll be a long hard road but we’ve got to do it properly and we’ve got to do that once and for all,” Mr McVeigh says.

Let’s dump Great Barrier Reef dredging myths: authority chief

community, government, waterways/wetlands

Mar 032014

By Russell Reichelt, James Cook University at The Conversation

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s recent decision to allow 3 million cubic metres of dredge material to be disposed of 25 kilometres off Abbot Point in north Queensland has attracted passionate commentary around the world.

Already operating as a coal port, the disposal of dredge material from expanding Abbot Point is now the subject of a legal challenge. Photo: GBRMPA

Millions of people from Australia and overseas have a fierce desire to protect one of the world’s most beautiful natural wonders. As the independent body managing the Great Barrier Reef for future generations, all of us at the Authority understand and share that desire: it’s what makes us want to come to work every day.

An aerial shot of coral reefs. Photo: GBRMPA

But the debate about Abbot Point has been marked by considerable misinformation, including claims about “toxic sludge”, dumping coal on the reef and even mining the reef. Late last week, it was confirmed that our decision to allow the dredge disposal will be challenged in court.

So what’s true, and what’s not? I hope with this article, I can clear up some of those misunderstandings on behalf of the Authority, particularly about our role, the nature and scale of the dredge disposal activity, and its likely environmental impacts.

If you still have questions at the end of this article, I and others from our team at the Authority will be reading your comments below and we’ll do our best to reply to further questions on The Conversation.

A sizeable challenge

At 344,400 square kilometres, the Marine Park is roughly the same area as Japan or Italy.

The Great Barrier Reef, relative to other parts of the world. Photo: GBRMPA

Of this vast and richly diverse expanse, one-third is highly protected; some places are near pristine, while others are feeling the effects of centuries of human uses.

But rather than locking the entire area away, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s (GBRMPA) role — as set out under Australian law — is to protect the region’s ecosystem, while also ensuring it remains a multiple-use marine park open to sustainable use. This includes tourism, commercial fishing, shipping and other operations.

While there are five major ports in the region, to this day only 1% of the World Heritage Area is set aside for ports. Most of the region’s 12 ports existed long before the Marine Park was created in 1975, and nearly all fall inside the World Heritage Area, but outside the park itself.

Responding to “toxic” claims

Among the many claims made about the Abbot Point decision is the assertion that the “Reef will be dredged” and that “toxic sludge” will be dumped in marine waters.

Both of those claims are simply wrong, as are suggestions that coal waste will be unloaded into the Reef, that this natural wonder is about to be mined, or that Abbot Point is a new coal port.

The Abbot Point port, looking out to the terminal and beyond. Photo: GBRMPA

The reality is that disposal of dredge material of this type in the Marine Park is not new. It has occurred off nearly all major regional centres along the reef’s coastline before now.

It is a highly regulated activity and does not allow material to be placed on coral, seagrass or sensitive marine environments.

The material itself in Abbot Bay is about 60% sand and 40% silt and clay, which is similar to what you would see if you dug up the site where the material is to be relocated.

In addition, testing by accredited laboratories shows the material is not toxic, and is therefore suitable for ocean disposal.

Limiting new port development

Abbot Point’s location on Queensland’s coast, with the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park marked in red. Photo: GBRMPA

As Queensland’s population has grown over the past 150 years, so too have the size and number of ports along the Great Barrier Reef coastline.

We recognise the potential environmental risks posed at a local level by this growth, which is why we have strongly advocated limiting port development to existing major ports — such as Abbot Point — as opposed to developing new sites.

This will produce a far better outcome than a proliferation of many, albeit smaller, ports along the coastline. And that’s not just our view: it’s a view shared by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, which oversees the Great Barrier Reef’s listing as one of Australia’s 19 World Heritage sites.

Given Abbot Point has been a major port for the past 30 years, our approval of the dredge disposal permit application from North Queensland Bulk Ports is entirely consistent with this position.

The added benefit of the port is its access to naturally deep waters, meaning it requires less capital dredging than other ports. It also has a much lower need for maintenance dredging.

What’s being done to protect the reef?

With this as our backdrop, we analysed the potential impacts and risks to the Great Barrier Reef from disposing dredge spoil off Abbot Point within the Marine Park.

In this case, we reached the conclusion that with 47 stringent conditions in place, it could be done in a way that makes us confident there will be no significant impact on the reef’s world heritage values.

These safeguards are designed specifically to ensure potential impacts are avoided, mitigated or offset, and to prevent harm to the environmental, cultural or heritage values associated with the nearby Holbourne Island fringing reef, Nares Rock, and the Catalina World War II wreck.

Our conditions are in addition to those already imposed by the federal government in prior approvals.

Holbourne Island. Photo: GBRMPA

Is “dumping on the reef” allowed?

Again, just to clear up any confusion: the dredge material will not be “dumped on the reef”.

Instead, we are looking at an area within the Marine Park that is about 25 kilometres east-northeast of the port at Abbot Point, and about 40 kilometres from the nearest offshore reef.

When the dredge disposal occurs, the material will only be allowed to be placed in a defined 4 square kilometre site free of hard corals, seagrass beds and other sensitive habitats.

If oceanographic conditions such as tides, winds, waves and currents are likely to produce adverse impacts, the disposal will not be allowed to proceed.

As an added precaution, the activity can only happen between March and June, as this falls outside the coral spawning and seagrass growth periods. As the sand, silt and clay itself will be dredged in stages over three years, the annual disposal volume will be capped at 1.3 million cubic metres.

Compared with other sites in this region, it is much less than has been done in the past. For example, in 2006 there were 8.6 million cubic metres of similar sediments excavated and relocated in one year at Hay Point, near Mackay. Scientific monitoring showed no significant effects on the ecosystem.

The dredge disposal from Abbot Point will be a highly managed activity — and it will not, as some headlines have suggested, mean the Great Barrier Reef will become a sludge repository or that tonnes of mud will be dumped on coral reefs.

This is not Gladstone Harbour all over again

I have often heard during this debate that Abbot Point will become “another Gladstone”.

I can assure you that GBRMPA understands strongly the need to learn the lessons from past port developments, including ones like Gladstone that fall outside of the Marine Park. This is why the recommendations from an independent review into Gladstone Harbour have been factored into our conditions.

Much of the criticism of the development at Gladstone Harbour centred on monitoring and who was doing it. This is why one the most common questions we’ve heard at GBRMPA about Abbot Point is “Who is going to make sure this is all done properly?”

The answer is: there will be multiple layers of independent oversight. Indeed, past authors on The Conversation have used Townsville’s port as a good example of how local impacts can be managed safely through transparent, independent monitoring and reporting, and active on-site management.

The Port of Townsville. Photo: GBRMPA

This is why we will have a full-time staff member from GBRMPA located at the port to oversee and enforce compliance during dredge disposal operations. This supervisor has the power to stop, suspend or modify works to ensure conditions are met.

In addition, an independent technical advice panel and an independent management response group will be formed. Membership of both these bodies will need the approval of GBRMPA.

Importantly, the management response group will include expert scientists as well as representatives from the tourism and fishing industries, and conservation groups. Together, GBRMPA and those other independent scrutineers will be overseeing the disposal, and will have the final say — not North Queensland Bulk Ports, which operates Abbot Point, or the coal companies that use the port.

Water quality monitoring will take place in real-time to measure factors such as suspended solids, turbidity and light availability. This is in addition to a long-term water quality monitoring program that will run for five years — much longer than what is normally required.

It’s vital that there is utmost transparency and scrutiny of what happens. We believe that with our staff on the job, plus independent oversight that includes the community, it will be a highly transparent process.

What are limits of the Authority’s powers?

It is true to say that despite all these safeguards, placing dredge material on land rather than in the Marine Park remains our preferred choice, providing it does not mean transferring environmental impact to sensitive wetlands connected to the reef ecosystem.

Indeed, land-based disposal is an option that must always be examined under national dredging guidelines.

But we recognise onshore disposal is not always immediately practical. Some of the challenges include finding suitable land, the need for dredge settlement ponds and delivery pipelines, and potential impacts on surrounding environments.

Ultimately, what occurs on land is outside of GBRMPA’s jurisdiction. We do not make decisions about mines, railways and loading facilities, and have never had the power to compel a port authority to place dredged material onshore or to build an extension to existing jetties.

Nor do we have the ability to stop dredge disposal from occurring in port limits that fall inside the World Heritage Area, but outside of the Marine Park.

Our legislative powers simply enable us to approve or reject a permit application for an action in the Marine Park, or to approve it with conditions.

Based on the considerable scientific evidence before us, we approved the application for Abbot Point with conditions, on the basis that potential impacts from offshore disposal were manageable and that there would be no significant or lasting impacts on the reef’s world heritage values.

Improving protection for the reef

Our recent assessments show the dominant risks to the health of the reef are the effects of climate change, excess sediment and nutrient run-off (such as from widespread floods), outbreaks of coral-eating starfish, extreme weather, and some types of fishing.

Coastal development such as ports are assessed as significant but local in their effects. However, many small impacts can accumulate and we take the risks posed by local developments very seriously. Each proposal is assessed on its merits and an approval at Abbot Point does not mean the same action would be approved elsewhere.

It is GBRMPA’s strong view that the current situation where governments and agencies make decisions on individual parts of individual projects – in the absence of a larger strategic plan – needs to change.

Assessing development applications on a case-by-case basis creates unnecessary uncertainty for local communities as well as the ports sector. But it also heightens environmental risks. As a previous Conversation article explained, when we only consider development applications in isolation, we increase the danger of potential cumulative environmental impacts on the reef over a wide geographic area not being properly assessed.

This was highlighted in our strategic assessment and can be readily addressed through master planning of port infrastructure and operations, as proposed by the Australian Government’s National Ports Strategy 2011.

We support the intention of the Queensland Government’s draft Ports Strategy to keep future port development within existing designated port areas. However, the next step should be to incorporate consistent reef protection measures into the master plans for each port, as part of a much-needed strategy that considers cumulative impacts for the entire Great Barrier Reef region.

Russell Reichelt does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Anglers gutted: Lake Macquarie misses proposed artificial reef

community, fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands

Mar 022014

Original story by Damon Cronshaw, Newcastle Herald

LAKE Macquarie fishos have hit the roof after the NSW government snubbed them over a planned artificial fishing reef off the coast.

GUTTED: Jason Nunn had hoped Lake Macquarie would get an artificial fishing reef. Photo: Brock Perks

‘‘We’ve been stiffed,’’ Jason Nunn, of Fisherman’s Warehouse at Marks Point, said.

NSW Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson announced that a $900,000 offshore artificial reef would be built off the coast of Port Macquarie.

Fishermen said the government had promised Lake Macquarie would get the next reef and the decision appeared to be political.

‘‘How ridiculous to take it to Port Macquarie,’’ Mr Nunn said.

‘‘Port Macquarie has a lot of reef structures within its inshore grounds as it is.

‘‘The whole idea is to create habitat, not to put habitat where it already is.’’

He said the coast from Redhead to Swansea had ‘‘a lot of sand’’.

‘‘For years we’ve copped it sweet with the giant anchors of coal ships grinding our reefs to a pulp,’’ he said.

‘‘We’ve lost a lot of habitat this way and it would have been a great thing to put that back.’’

In 2010, the former Labor government said reefs were planned off the coasts of Lake Macquarie, Sydney and the south coast to improve recreational fishing.

Reefs were built off Vaucluse and Shoalhaven, but Lake Macquarie missed out.

Fishos said the Coalition government had made promises the Lake Macquarie plan would proceed, but the minister said a north coast site had been the target since the 2011 election.

The Lake Macquarie plan involved installing on the seabed – 3.6kilometres off Blacksmiths Beach – four 12-metre high artificial reefs made of steel.

Swansea MP Garry Edwards said he had never been lobbied on the matter.

‘‘If somebody had bothered to speak to me about it maybe I could have intervened,’’ Mr Edwards said.

Ms Hodgkinson said the offshore artificial reef program, funded through fishing fees, had been ‘‘enormously successful and is expected to continue in future’’.

She said the Department of Primary Industries had deployed the first purpose-built artificial reef inside Lake Macquarie in 2005, which was expanded in 2007.

However, this was a separate program for artificial reefs in estuaries.

The minister said ‘‘two fish aggregating devices’’ were deployed off Swansea and Newcastle Harbour each year, leading to ‘‘terrific recreational fishing opportunities’’.

Crocodile reported around Bulimba Creek in Brisbane’s south

community, threatened species, waterways/wetlands, wildlife

Mar 012014

Original story by Daryl Passmore, Courier Mail

RESIDENTS around Bulimba Creek on Brisbane’s southside are keeping their eyes peeled after a report of a freshwater crocodile emerging from the waterway.

View Larger Map

A listener rang radio station 4BC on Friday night to say he spotted the reptile creeping out of the creek near Banika St in Mansfield.

Locals were yesterday startled — and cynical — about the suggestion that a man-eater may have moved into the neighbourhood.

Mark Kenway, whose house backs onto the bush corridor around the creek, was cool about the possible threat.

“I’ve lived here eight years and never seen anything,’’ he said.

“Well there are some pretty big goannas around here — and some mighty pythons.’’

“Let me guess,’’ asked Terry Vogan. “The bloke who rang the radio had a Kiwi accent and was actually looking at a four-foot lizard.

“We’ve got a couple of those, some vicious wallabies and a few savage cane-toads. But I can guarantee there ain’t no ‘gators.’’

Turns out, however, that Terry’s wife Lesley has got history when it comes to croc-spotting in the suburbs.

“I grew up on Norman Creek and there were always stories that a crocodile was in there. We survived that one too.’’

Crocodiles are rarely spotted south of central Queensland but rangers captured a 3.1-metre saltie in the Mary River near Maryborough last November and a 3.5m giant is still believed to be on the loose in the same area.

Wildlife officials caught a 1.6m freshwater crocodile in Logan City in 2009. They said there were signs it had previously been held in captivity and released 1300km from its natural environment.

The Courier-Mail carried a photograph of a 3.8m crocodile which was shot in the Logan River in 1905.

Carbon emissions reduction target ‘not credible’

community, environment, government

Mar 012014

Original story by Abby Dinham, SBS (Transcript from World News Radio)

The soon to be abolished Climate Change Authority says Australia’s target of a 5 per cent reduction of carbon emissions by 2020 is not credible.

And the goal must be raised to 15 per cent for the country to be considered serious about tackling global warming.

In what may be its final progress report, the Authority warns the government’s target will not contribute to the international goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

And it says in the long run, global warming will cost Australia more than any climate change policy.

Abby Dinham has the details.

The Climate Change Authority was established in 2012 to provide expert opinion to the Australian government.

Last year the newly-elected Coalition government delivered on its promise to introduce a Bill to abolish the Authority.

With that Bill still before the Senate, the Authority has delivered a damning assessment of the government’s climate change goals.

Authority chair Bernie Fraser – a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia – says Australia’s current five per cent target of emissions reduction will not contribute to keeping global warming below 2 degrees before the year 2050.

“To stick with the 2020 target of a minimum of 5% would within the framework of the present global budget and Australia’s share of the global budget would impose a virtually impossible task of making up lost ground and getting to the end result of the time available.”

Australia has a formal international agreement with the United Nations to reduce emissions by at least 5 per cent by 2020, compared with 2000 levels.

But the federal government also indicated that it might do more under certain circumstances.

Climate Change Authority member Professor John Quiggan says the world’s two largest emitters – China and the United States – are greatly stepping up their efforts on climate change.

He says the longer Australia leaves it to take action on climate change the more expensive it will be.

“If we decide to meet our commitment, we’ll be paying more substantially more in the decade ahead than we would now. If we decide not to and the rest of the world decides to do that same there will be catastrophic consequences for Australia for future generations that are set out in the report and there is also the gamble that we can be the international slacker that we can get away for doing nothing while other countries take up the burden.”

The Climate Change Authority report says that Australia will greatly suffer under a warmer climate, with predictions of increased weather extremes, such as heatwaves, droughts, floods and bushfires.

The report provides several funding methods to reach a 15 percent target of emissions reduction, including the establishment of a fund to purchase international carbon offsets to help meet the recommended 2020 goals.

Carbon offsets – sanctioned by the Kyoto Protocol – are earned by governments and private companies reducing emissions, which can then be traded on a marketplace to countries that can’t or don’t want to reduce fossil-fuel consumption.

The University of Melbourne’s David Karoly says this may be cheaper than inaction.

“We’ve already seen over the last 10 years and the last 12 months an increase in wildfires an increase in coastal erosion, and while scientists are yet to link Queensland and NSW drought to climate change because it’s too recent to do that. There’s obviously been major investment in addressing that. There are many many economic costs associated in addressing unmitigated climate change, in fact all economic assessments I have seen at least a three fold or more greater cost of unmitigated climate change than addressing climate change.”

But the Climate Authority report states that some progress has been made in Australia on climate change.

It says Australia’s emissions were almost the same in 2012 as in 1990 – this despite the economy doubling in size.

Effectively, this means that the rate of emissions over this 22 year period halved.

It attributes the reduction to broader economic forces and some government policy.

But the Climate Authority’s Professor Clive Hamilton says further efforts are needed to achieve absolute reductions in emissions.

Professor Hamilton says a 19 per cent reduction can be achieved with little more cost to the Australian economy.

He says that figure could come from the addition of the proposed 15 per cent reduction with a carryover of the four per cent emission credits that Australia accrued under the Kyoto Protocol.

“For the five per cent target gross national income per person is expected to be $66,450 whereas under the 19 per cent gross national income per person would be $66,350. So a shortfall of a $100.”

The report states that in 2012, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions were 2-point-5 per cent above 2000 levels.

It says without effective policies over the next six years, emissions are predicted to grow to 17 per cent.

The report recommends the introduction of targeted and sustained emissions reduction policies, that include market-based reforms, to alter the course of the Australian economy in a greener direction.

It says the government should set a trajectory range for emissions reductions of between 40 and 60 per cent below 2000 levels by 2030.

But Bernie Fraser admits that with the Authority facing the axe, he’s not convinced that the government will act on any of the recommendations.

“We’re hopeful, we’re always hopeful. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here I think. We just have to see how it all pans out.”

Australia is obliged to review its five percent emission reduction pledge and deliver a response on a possible target increase to the UN by the end of April.

Conservation group seeks to overturn reef dump plan

community, environment, government, waterways/wetlands

Feb 272014

Original story by Jessica Nairn, ABC News

An environmental lobby group says it has a strong legal case against the agency that oversees the Great Barrier Reef over the planned dumping of dredge spoil.

Abbot Point coal terminal in Queensland. The expansion of Abbot Point will generate millions of cubic metres of dredge spoil. Photo: ABC

The North Queensland Conservation Council (NQCC) is trying to overturn the approval to dump three million cubic metres of spoil in the marine park as part of the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority gave the go ahead last month.

Jeremy Tager from NQCC says they have taken the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane, citing several concerns.

“The assessment undertaken by the marine park authority has failed to adequately look at alternatives at sea, dumping inside the marine park and that the impacts of dumping are far greater than the assessment,” he said.

Yesterday, construction firm Lend Lease withdrew its bid from the tender process for the Abbot Point expansion and allowed its partnership with rail company Aurizon to lapse.

Aurizon says it will continue with the tender process.

Walkabout Creek won’t become theme park

aquarium, Australian native freshwater species, community, environment, government, waterways/wetlands, wildlife

Feb 272014

Original story by Tony Moore, Brisbane Times

The Queensland government says it has ‘‘no intention’’ of reducing ranger-led activities in a $2.5 million revamp of the Walkabout Creek centre at The Gap.

Platypus in the wild at Walkabout Creek. Photo: Karleen Minney

Fairfax Media understands the state government has set aside $2.5 million for the stage one of a new centre on the site, which is in Premier Campbell Newman’s Ashgrove electorate.

This follows a Fairfax Media story yesterday questioning the marketing of the nature centre, which includes a rare chance to see a platypus in a natural setting.

However residents are concerned the master plan for the site – the regional headquarters for the National Parks and Wildlife Service – plans to wind back the animal enclosure at the centre.

In a statement issued late Tuesday afternoon, the government said there were ‘‘no plans to discontinue ranger-led wildlife encounters at the facility’’.

Enoggera Weir, behind the centre. Photo: Tony Moore

‘‘Certainly there are no plans to turn the location into a ‘theme park’,’’ the statement said.

The government has received 265 public submissions to its master plan for the site, which includes plans to use a ‘‘flying fox’’ or ‘‘zip line’’ to re-invigorate the area, beside Enoggera Weir.

The plan also recommends kayak and canoe trips on nearby Enoggera Weir.

Stage one of the upgrade includes the placement of the ‘‘flying fox’’, new playground equipment, picnic areas and barbeques.

Flying fox lines would go in the outdoor section of the wildlife enclosure, which now runs down to Enoggera Weir.

Some residents have questioned the impact of the extra noise from Enoggera Weir on local bird species, like the Red Browed Finch.

This area now houses the outside wallaby and wombat enclosure.

The majority of respondents have been supportive of the draft master plan for the centre, the government said in a statement.

‘‘The master plan seeks to expand nature-based opportunities for visitors and encourage them to explore national parks in the area,’’ it read.

‘‘To get out ‘into the bush’ and reap the health and wellbeing benefits that an active outdoor lifestyle offers.”

One of the submissions came from the Riverlife Centre at Kangaroo Point, which runs canoes and kayaks on the Brisbane River.

Manager Josh Wicks confirmed Riverlife was interested in being part of any revamped centre at The Gap.

‘‘But it comes down to what activities that they are willing to keep open,’’ he said.

‘‘My understanding is that they still have not got a firm understanding of what they are going to offer.

‘‘But I understand that is likely to come about June.’’

He said Riverlife would not run wildlife operations, but was interested in running canoe and boutique-type events from the site.

‘‘We obviously don’t have any say in what happens to that wildlife zoo, but we wouldn’t be saying that you would have to get rid of that,’’ he said.

Mr Wicks said a lot of locals were saying they wanted access to the weir.

‘‘So we might be interested in running jazz-kind of events under the stars like we do down at Kangaroo Point, which the locals like,’’ he said.

‘‘And I’m not sure that there is the opportunity to do that type of thing – we have to wait until the government releases the master plan – but we are willing to look at that.’’

Tenders are expected to be offered in June.

Older Entries Newer Entries