Please join us for a special breakfast to welcome the walkers to Cairns and send them on their way!

Saturday 1st June, 8-10am on the Cairns Lagoon (Jabiru BBQ area). 

Want to join the walk for the day? Show your support by putting on your walking shoes and walking with the group to Edmonton.

Or join us for a slide night and dinner at the Edmonton Town Hall, ‘Down Park’, Pyne St from 6pm. Live music, all welcome, bring some food to share.

For details contact our office on 4032 1746.

Want to join the walk for longer? For more information on joining the walk visit reefwalk2013.com.

Why walk?

The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef ecosystem on our blue planet, representing about 10% of all the world’s coral reefs. It is one of the seven natural wonders of the world and is dearly loved by locals and visitors alike.

There are more different species of animals and plants in a cubic metre of the Great Barrier Reef than in any other environment in the world – including tropical rainforests. In fact, some reefs in the Great Barrier Reef have more different fish types than in the entire Caribbean Ocean.

Australia’s oceans are some of the richest and most diverse on our blue planet. Global studies have revealed that our northern oceans are some of the last remaining healthy tropical seas in the world. In our cool blue south, an incredible 80% of the marine species living in our temperate oceans occur nowhere else on Earth.

In terms of the Australian economy, the Great Barrier Reef alone generates over 6 billion dollars worth of revenue per year. But all this is under threat from plans from unprecedented expansion of the coal industry coal seam gas and its associated infrastructure.

Queensland’s 50 new port, rail and mine developments are too much, too quickly for a reef already under pressure.

Up to 10,000 ships a year through the Great Barrier Reef by the end of the decade, compared to less than 2.000 in 2011.

The post Reef Walk 2013 – Cairns launch 1 June appeared first on CAFNEC.

During the past school term, Reef Guardian students from Port Douglas State School have been learning about the harmful effects of plastic bags and other marine debris, which are affecting their community. With the help from their teacher, Mr. Doug Barnes, these students have created amazing posters relating to this issue.

As Mr. Barnes explains, “The Reef Guardian representatives of the school were very enthusiastic to assist the community by raising awareness of the negatives associated with plastic bags and hope to see Port Douglas a plastic bag free zone in the future.”
Everyone is encouraged to go and view this wonderful art installation.

The installation is on display at the Port Douglas kiosk at 13-29 Mowbray Street (Community Centre) until the end of May.

The post Students for a plastic free paradise appeared first on CAFNEC.

The new Port Douglas reusable bag has finally arrived and is now out in the community helping to reduce the use of plastic bags as part of our Think Outside the Bag campaign. Making its debut at the official launch to help with the campaign was the Plastic Bag Monster.  Did you know the average household collects an estimated 500 plastic bags per year?  Stay tuned for the next appearance of the Plastic Bag Monster in town near you!

To help keep paradise plastic bag free you can get your very own  Port Douglas reusable bag at the Reef Adventure Centre on the corner of Macrossan St and Grant St in Port Douglas for a $2 donation.

We are also excited to announce that currently 22 businesses in the Port Douglas area have gone plastic bag free with more businesses in transition.  Any business that would like to join the campaign are encouraged to contact Mindi Tonak, Project Manager, at sustainability@cafnec.org.au.

The post Port Douglas Reusable Bag Launch appeared first on CAFNEC.

The post Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior arrives in Cairns April 27 appeared first on CAFNEC.

The Newman government is proposing amendments to the Vegetation Management Framework that would reduce protection of our native vegetation and allow the clearing of an estimated 700,000 hectares of Queensland’s endangered and ecologically significant forests and woodlands.

“The proposed Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Bill causes us to have serious concerns about the future of Queensland’s terrestrial biodiversity and the future health of the Great Barrier Reef. If passed, this Bill would represent the biggest wind-back of environmental protection laws in Queensland’s history” said Anna McGuire, Coordinator of the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre.

“Many of the amendments are not in the long term interests of Queensland communities and are in direct conflict with the purpose of the Vegetation Management Act, which is to make land use more sustainable by preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological processes.”

“These amendments effectively prioritise economic interests over ecological concerns. This Bill should be rejected for the sake of maintaining our soil and waterway health, protecting biodiversity, and safeguarding the future prosperity of our regional and rural communities.”

“Protecting vegetation is critical for maintaining the fundamental ecosystem services that our regional, rural and urban communities rely on. Maintaining native vegetation cover is a fundamental aspect of ensuring ongoing prosperity for the agricultural sector. Vegetation protects topsoil and maintains healthy waterways, and is necessary for sustainable agricultural production in the long term.”

“Minister Cripps describes these proposed changes as ‘practical reforms’ that will ‘pave the way for sustainable development of new agricultural areas’, but these proposed changes would lead to loss of biodiversity, degradation of water quality, loss of topsoil and decreased soil health.”

“These amendments would lead to further fragmentation of an already fragmented landscape, resulting in species declines and loss of ecosystem function. The effects of clearing and fragmentation of native vegetation are well researched and absolutely clear – any clearing within these fragments will have significant long term negative impacts on biodiversity values and on species’ survival.”

“These changes would result in degradation of waterways, including Wild Rivers, with lasting impacts on the health of the Great Barrier Reef. Large-scale vegetation clearing increases the amount of sediment and nutrient runoff flowing out in to the reef lagoon, placing further stress on the reef.”

“We also have concerns regarding policing and enforcement of vegetation clearing under the revised framework. Removal of the capacity for judicial review and placing decision making entirely in the hands of the Chief Executive, removes a fundamental democratic check and allows for politically appointed Chief Executives to make unsound and unreviewable decisions that reflect political ideology, rather than being in the best interests of land stewardship.
Contact – Anna McGuire P: 4032 1746 E: coord@cafnec.org.au

Background
The vegetation management framework consists of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and their regulations. Since its introduction in 2000, the framework, policy and codes (developed through extensive stakeholder consultation and with extensive input from the scientific community) which have been applauded by state and national environmental organisations, natural resource management bodies, state and commonwealth government agencies, indigenous organisations, local government, landholders and industry a s a critical tool that to protect Queensland’s native vegetation.
Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act, introduced in 1999, slowed land clearing from more than 50,000 ha per year before laws were introduced to 77,590 ha in 2009-10. Changes to the laws in 2009 gave extra protections to regrowth vegetation in recognition that many ecosystems had been pushed so far to the brink that recovery was their only hope.
The Newman Government is proposing amendments to the Vegetation Management Framework that would mean:

• Clearing applications could now be made for ‘additional relevant purposes’ of high value agricultural clearing and irrigated high value agricultural clearing. This would mean that north Queensland would be exposed to extensive clearing for agricultural purposes, with adverse impacts on the GBR.
• High value regrowth vegetation on freehold land and indigenous land (regrowth which hasn’t been cleared since 1989) will no longer be protected, exposing hundreds of thousands of hectares of regrowth to clearing.
• All Wild River provisions will be removed from the VMA, meaning that clearing along these rivers will be assessed under standard VMA codes rather than previous stricter Wild Rivers codes. Declared Wild Rivers in the GBR catchment that this will affect are: Hinchinbrook, Lockhart Basin and Stewart Basin.
• Compliance, offences and enforcement provisions will be significantly weakened. For example the defences are expanded to include ‘mistaken belief’. A lease could no longer be forfeited if the lessee has more than one conviction for a vegetation clearing offence.
• Removing of the capacity for judicial review and placing the decision making entirely in the hands of the Chief Executive which will remove a fundamental democratic check. This would allow for a politically appointed Chief Executive to make unsound and un-reviewable decisions that reflect the wishes of their political superiors, rather than being in the best interests of land stewardship.

The post MEDIA RELEASE “Taking the axe to Queensland’s tree clearing laws” not such a bright idea appeared first on CAFNEC.

April 2013

The Newman Government is proposing amendments to the Vegetation Management Act 1999 that will mean:

• Clearing applications could now be made for ‘additional relevant purposes’ of high value agricultural clearing and irrigated high value agricultural clearing. This would mean that north Queensland would be exposed to extensive clearing for agricultural purposes, with adverse impacts on the GBR.
• High value regrowth vegetation on freehold land and indigenous land (regrowth which hasn’t been cleared since 1989) will no longer be protected, exposing hundreds of thousands of hectares of regrowth to clearing.
• All Wild River provisions will be removed from the VMA, meaning that clearing along these rivers will be assessed under standard VMA codes rather than previous stricter Wild Rivers codes. Declared Wild Rivers in the GBR catchment that this will affect are: Hinchinbrook, Lockhart Basin and Stewart Basin.
• Compliance, offences and enforcement provisions will be significantly weakened. For example the defences are expanded to include ‘mistaken belief’. A lease could no longer be forfeited if the lessee has more than one conviction for a vegetation clearing offence.
• Removing of the capacity for judicial review (page 39 line 17), and placing the decision making entirely in the hands of the Chief Executive which will remove a fundamental democratic check. This would allow for a politically appointed Chief Executive to make unsound and un-reviewable decisions that reflect the wishes of their political superiors, rather than being in the best interests of land stewardship.

Our concerns

These proposed amendments to the Vegetation Management Act (VMA) cause us to have serious concerns about the future of Queensland’s terrestrial biodiversity, as well as concerns about the long term sustainability of Queensland’s agricultural sector, and the future health of the Great Barrier Reef. These amendments are in direct conflict with the original purpose of the VMA, and are not in the long term interests of Queensland communities.

The purpose of the original Vegetation Management Act is to make land use more sustainable by preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecological processes, a critical part of ensuring inter-generational equity in access to the natural environment.

These amendments insert an economic imperative that overrides ecological concerns in allowing for the clearing of Endangered Regional Ecosystems. Most of our most fertile lands are already cleared, what little remains deserves protection. These tiny fragments, and in the case of Brigalow and Mabi Forest they really are tiny, provide critical habitat for threatened species – and yet if someone thinks they can make a few dollars by clearing, then it will be permitted. The effects of clearing and fragmentation of natural vegetation are well researched and absolutely clear – any clearing within these fragments will have a significant long term negative impacts on biodiversity values of the land.

Why protecting native vegetation is important

• Not only is it important to protect native vegetation to preserve endangered plants and ecosystems and to provide habitat for native fauna, but also to ensure intergenerational equity in access to resources and to ensure prosperity of future generations.
• Protecting vegetation is critical for maintaining the fundamental ecosystem services that our regional, rural and urban communities rely on.
• Native vegetation cover safeguards soil health and water quality, and sequesters carbon.
• Maintaining native vegetation cover is a fundamental aspect of ensuring ongoing prosperity for the agricultural sector. Vegetation protects topsoil and maintains water quality in waterways, and is necessary for sustainable agricultural production in the long term.
• Minister Cripps describes these proposed changes as ‘practical reforms’ that will ‘pave the way for sustainable development of new agricultural areas’, but these proposed changes would lead to loss of biodiversity, degradation of water quality and loss of topsoil and loss of soil health.
• Soil health, as any farmer can tell you, is fundamental to agricultural production. Removing riparian vegetation and losing topsoil to erosion does not lead to ‘sustainable agriculture’.

For more information you can read our April 2013 submission on this issue.

If you’re concerned about this issue, please contact Premier Newman (thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au) and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Andrew Cripps MP (nrm@ministerial.qld.gov.au).

The post Proposed amendments to the Vegetation Management Act put Queensland biodiversity at risk appeared first on CAFNEC.

27 March 2013

The Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, CAREFISH (CAirns REcreational Fishing Industry Stake Holders) and local commercial fishers are concerned over the recent approval of the Cairns Airport Land Use Plan by the State government.

The Land Use Plan contains a ‘Movement Expansion Precinct’ (or new second parallel runway) and a ‘Mixed Aviation Zone’ which if built, would result in the loss of over 100 ha of vegetation, much of it mangroves and salt marsh communities. This loss has unacceptable negative consequences, including:

• a reduction in fish stocks available for local recreational and commercial fisheries;
• loss of habitat for threatened flora species;
• loss of protection of the coastal zone (and costly airport infrastructure) from storm wave action; and
• loss of habitat for migratory and marine bird species.

Paul Auburn, CAREFISH:

“CAREFISH hold grave concern over the removal of any mangrove area particularly such a large area. These mangroves are not only extremely important to the Barron River estuary, nursery to many species, but also as a filter for water flows from the massive tablelands agricultural catchment including several sewerage treatment plants. This is the last stop for water heading to the Great Barrier Reef.”

“The Cairns commercial fishing sector have also reaffirmed their concerns over the ongoing degradation of coastal habitat, breeding area and protection for important restaurant and seafood outlet species, and say the Barron River area can do with all the help it can get. Removing large areas of mangroves is clearly not in the best interest of those stocks.”

Anna McGuire, Coordinator of the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre:

“Not only is this mangrove vegetation vital habitat for rare plant species, it is also an important breeding ground for many local fish, crab and prawn species. If you remove this critical breeding ground of fish species like the mangrove jack, fish stocks in the area are predicted to decline dramatically.”

“Mangroves provide valuable nursery areas for juvenile fish and crustaceans and are an important source of nutrients for the adjacent marine ecosystem. These mangroves are vital to the health and sustainability of Queensland’s northern fisheries. They are the breeding grounds that replenish commercial fish and prawn stocks. Biologists estimate that 75% of the commercially caught fish and prawns in Queensland spend at least some part of their life cycle living in the mangroves.”

“In addition, turtles, particularly young ones, use these areas for shelter and food. The mudflats are also rich in burrowing invertebrates and are important feeding areas for significant and internationally protected migratory wading birds.”

“Mangroves also help to protect the coastline from serious erosion during tropical cyclones and they also act as a natural filter to improve the quality of the water that reaches the reef.”

“There will be limited or no economic benefit to the community from these plans to clear the ‘movement expansion precinct, move the general aviation area and create a commercial precinct. In fact, the current Plan is expected to instead cause adverse competition and a loss of skilled jobs in the region. Airport capacity can instead be increased much more cost effectively via options such as extending the taxiway, flying in planes with greater seating capacity and better timetabling in off-peak hours.”

The Cairns Regional Council has raised concerns about the Movement Expansion Area and the associated vegetation clearing, noise impact on residential communities and impact on coastal processes. In addition the Far North Queensland Regional Plan also identified a large part of this area as a ‘Conservation Corridor’.

The post MEDIA RELEASE – Important mangrove habitat to be the victim of unnecessary airport expansion appeared first on CAFNEC.

Council yesterday voted to apply for a damage mitigation permit to relocate the bat colonies near the Cairns City Library. Council voted against such a motion in October 2012, presumably due to the prohibitive cost of the relocation. According to the October Council report, such a relocation would cost at least $80,000 with costs increasing if multiple relocations were required due to dispersal to a problematic location.

This time around, Premier Newman weighed in on the debate, threatening to mobilise a workforce to deal with the issue and charge Council for the cost. Unfortunately the Premier is not an expert on the relocation of bat colonies, and therefore may not be aware of the risks and costs associated with such relocations.

“Premier Newman has lashed out at Councils for failing to act on the issue of bats, claiming that urgent action is required, but he has offered no good reason why haste is necessary. In fact the message that we’re hearing from the community is that a well-informed, measured and ethical approach is what is required.”

“Relocating these flying fox colonies is not an efficient use of time and money, and the results are uncertain” said Cairns and Far North Environment Centre Coordinator Anna McGuire. “The flying foxes may relocate to a problematic location, or return to the original location, with some relocation programs dragging on for as long as 9 years and becoming financial nightmares. These colonies harm no one and draw crowds of tourists who come to see the bats fly out each evening.”

“Research suggests that relocation of colonies will add further stress to these populations, increasing the susceptibility of individuals to disease. The stress of the relocation can actually increase the possibility of virus circulation and transmission in the bat colonies.”

“If the Premier is concerned about health risks associated with flying fox colonies, the best long-term solution is to make sure people in the community understand the risks and know how to minimise them. Less than 1% of wild bats carry Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) and there have only been 3 cases of human infection over the past 17 years.  Although the consequences are high, the chance of contracting this disease is low, particularly if care is taken to avoid handling bats.”

Media contact:

Anna McGuire, Coordinator, 4032 1746

The post MEDIA RELEASE – Flying fox relocation a waste of time and money appeared first on CAFNEC.

CAFNEC, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace Australia Pacific held a forum on this issue in February 2013. This forum featured Mark Ogge from the Australia Institute and Louise Mattheisson from Greenpeace.

The Great Barrier Reef that we all know and love is at risk.  Coal companies are planning to build up to nine new coal export terminals along the Queensland coast adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, which will result in thousands more coal ships crossing the reef and millions of tonnes of sea-bed dredging.

The Great Barrier Reef is such an important part of our region’s identity. We rely on the health of the reef to support our communities and our economy. Coal mining, port infrastructure and shipping have the potential to seriously damage the reef. We’re lucky that we don’t have a coal export terminal in our backyard, but we’re not immune to the impacts of increased coal shipping through the GBR.

But mining is good for the economy, right? Well, maybe not according to Mark Ogge of The Australia Institute: “Over the past ten years global tourism has boomed, with tourist numbers increasing by around 20 per cent. Over the same period, the number of international tourists coming to Tropical North Queensland has dropped massively by 25 per cent. This isn’t because the reef is suddenly less beautiful, or that the region’s tourist operators are doing something wrong. It is because international tourists are faced with the high Australian dollar which has been driven up by the mining boom. The simple truth is that the boom has made Tropical North Queensland a far more expensive tourist destination, which is costing local jobs and businesses.”

If we obediently resign ourselves, as Premier Newman has suggested, to being ‘in the coal business’ at the expense of all other industries, we may well lose the best asset that our state has. Prioritising the long term health of the reef over short term economic gains will result in the best outcomes for our communities and economies.

The post Reef at Risk: Coal mining and the Great Barrier Reef appeared first on CAFNEC.

The proposed Wongai coal mine on the shores of Princess Charlotte Bay on Cape York (about 150 kilometres northwest of Cooktown), presents a series of conflicting issues for environmental activists.  The proposed mine is located on freehold Aboriginal land owned by the Kalpowar Land Trust, the Traditional Owners for this country, but is situated adjacent to the Lakefield and Cape Melville National Parks and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.  The property also contains cultural heritage sites and a nature reserve.  The Princess Charlotte Bay, Bathurst Head, Flinders Islands areas feature in Dreamtime stories culturally significant to Traditional Owners throughout the region.

The project will include:

• a bord and pillar mine at depths of up to 250 metres (this method of mining aims to leave enough intact coal behind to prevent collapse and eventual surface subsidence);
• a 150 person accommodation camp with all the usual infrastructure for power, water, waste and sewage treatment;
• a coal handling and preparation plant;
• a 20 kilometre elevated coal conveyor from the mine site to stockpiles at a barge loading terminal on Bathurst Bay, and lastly, but certainly not least:
• three off-shore coal transhipment points, adjacent to the Flinders Islands in  the waters of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, where the 5,000 tonne barge loads will be transferred to large coal ships for transport to customers.

As for jobs, the construction workforce is expected to be 250 persons, with an operational workforce of 200 and a flow-on of approximately 600 regional jobs for a project capital investment of $500 million.  Remember, all this expensive effort is extracting coal not gold.

So, given the location of the mine in an area of outstanding natural beauty, biodiversity and cultural and ecological values it’s a bit of a surprise that the project has been proposed by the Traditional Owners, now also the freehold owners, of Kalpowar.  They have engaged Aust-Pac Capital Pty Ltd, a NSW based investment company, to prepare and lodge the necessary documents to obtain all the approvals required to operate this project and, no doubt, attract the investment required to set it up.

Inappropriate and environmentally damaging projects don’t become more acceptable when proposed by Traditional Owners on their own country.  After Marcia Langton’s recent criticisms of the green movement as holding back the economic development of Indigenous Australia, this has become a bit of a minefield for green activists also pursuing a social justice agenda.  But this shouldn’t stop us from opposing this project on the basis of both its potential impacts on several areas with high ecological values, including National Parks, wetlands and fish habitat areas, and the high risk of damage to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon from introducing barges, three coal transhipment points and additional shipping to an area currently free of such activities.

There are much more sustainable, less damaging ways (not contributing to global warming), and for less capital investment, for Traditional Owners to create economic opportunities that work with the natural and cultural values of their country rather than by destroying them.  You can find out a lot more about this project and get engaged in the referral and assessment process under the EPBC Act by visiting the EBPC referrals page.[1]

The post Wongai – FNQ’s Franklin River? appeared first on CAFNEC.