Redland City councillors have been told there’s no need for further scientific assessment of the Toondah project’s impact on migratory shorebirds, because the science is already done.
Local resident Jeanette Douglas told councillors at Redland City Council’s last general meeting of 2018 that this would have been evident if proper due diligence had been done.
You can view the presentation by Jeanette Douglas on the meeting video recording, commencing at 32 minutes. The text of this presentation is published below.
Science of migratory shorebirds
My name is Jeannette Douglass. I live in Cleveland and I am a retired Maths teacher and team building consultant. I will be speaking on the science of migratory birds.
You and I live in the Redlands with Moreton Bay, our greatest asset. A large residential development is being proposed on 42 hectares of international Ramsar site. This development, I have learnt, will destroy the roosting and feeding areas for critically endangered and threatened species. We have been told many times both verbally and in writing “let’s wait for the science” to inform a decision on the proposal. Well, guess what, the science is already there. Proper due diligence in the beginning should have uncovered it!
Professor Richard Fuller from the School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland has been studying and tracking migratory shorebirds in Moreton Bay for many years. His research found that these birds fly over 10,000km without food or rest to the roosting and feeding Ramsar site in Moreton Bay – the same destination every year. The birds need to rest and recuperate before flying back on their long journey to breeding grounds along the Eastern Australasian Flyway, Korea, the Yellow Sea, Russia and the Arctic. They travel around 30,000km in one year, every year of their lives. If the Toondah Harbour roosting site is taken away the birds will die. Earlier this year China stopped all development in the Yellow Sea because it realised the detrimental effect it was having on the birds.
Dr Rob Clemens from Birdlife Australia came from the US to Australia 15 years ago to research migratory birds. His research proved the same as Professor Fuller. He recently stated about Toondah Harbour and I quote “It’s one of the jewels in this council region. If we take a step back and look at all the areas where we could put an apartment complex this would come out at the bottom of the list, surely.”
Peter Rothlisberg, secretary of Queensland Wader Study Group has been tracking and monitoring the shorebirds each month for 27 years. He says tens of thousands of birds were lost with the construction of Raby Bay – before Ramsar. A select number of birds have been tagged, fitted with satellite antennae and solar cell batteries for specific tracking. His research proved the birds travel eight days or more without a rest. The birds come back to the same place every year. They lose more than half their body weight on the journey. Toondah Harbour is a very valuable part of the Ramsar site for roosting and feeding.
In Walker Corporation’s own Referrals the researchers found that Toondah Harbour development will have a significant impact on the threatened species, the wetlands and the migratory birds.
I learnt last week from an ABC podcast, that Environmental experts, Ramsar experts, species experts and legal experts from the Federal Department of the Environment, had recommended to the then Federal Minister for the Environment, on not one but two occasions, that the Walker Proposals for Toondah Harbour be declared “clearly unacceptable” under the EPBC Act because it would cause, to again quote, “permanent and irreversible damage to the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland”.
If you, like me, thought you were living in a democracy, you too would have been disillusioned and appalled, as I was, when I learnt, again from the podcast, that the Minister for the Environment went against his department’s expert advice and declared the proposal a “controlled action”. Based on documents in his possession, the ABC journalist described this as an “abuse of process”.
What, you might ask, led him to this conclusion? It was continual lobbying of politicians, threats of legal action, Walker representatives flying to Switzerland to approach the Ramsar Secretariat and a substantial Party donation by the developer at a critical decision making time.
A Federal Member of Parliament condoned this and I quote from the podcast “obviously companies and unions drive money to politics to get results. Let’s be honest it’s simple democracy”. Is this the behaviour we are entitled to expect in a democracy? If so, what faith can a community have in its elected officials?
What happened to judging the proposal purely on science?
What sort of a generation are we when we allow money and bullying to destroy a sensitive environment when the science dictates that the environment should be protected and we have laws supposedly to ensure this?
I feel that it is very selfish and irresponsible of the current generation not to protect the environment for the children of the future.
Jeanette Douglas – Cleveland
Further reading
Concerns have been raised about the process of developer driven environmental impact assessments, discussed further in this article republished by Redlands2030:
OPINION: Environmental impact assessments aren’t protecting the environment
Redlands2030 – 16 December 2018
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
10 Comments
The Science is in but after the Auditor Generals truncated review of DES,(missed Taxonomy and Invertebrates etc relevant to Toondah) and after half a dozen pieces of Environmental and Planning Legislation demolished by Campbell Newman and not fixed up or but exacerbated by Qld Labor, there are several other directions to be considered after the peculiar Parliamentary Review of the Economic Development Act(PDAs).
The ABC revelations on Toondah and the EPBC Act need one or several holding actions and Independent Reviews, as the Act does not appear to have saved any koalas etc.,but promoted development ,tree clearing and offsets.(Flagstone PDAs, Transurban, Bruce Highway etc).
The Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia by Mandy Elliott (2014) has a section at 9.18 p 263, which points out some hidden EIA aspects and EIA limitations some applying to Toondah.Some of these include;
” It is largely the technically literate who become involved in the EIA process, but the proposals frequently affect those who are not technically literate(disenfranchised groups of people, plants and animals)
EIA has a tendency to be used as a vehicle for assisting development to occur, and may not give adequate attention to alternatives (such as do nothing)
Frequently there are attempts to quantify and place a value on environmental impacts ,where such attempts have little objective basis(e.g. value of a view in dollar terms)
Some may see EIA as providing “the objective information” upon which decisions are made; however all decisions about resource use are social by nature, EIAs are also based on value judgements and are political decisions. Indeed ,EIA is both a technical and a political process.”
There are some lessons from other EIA like the GBR Independent Report and the Iwasaki Resort circa 1976 where the site was considerably downsized, spatially moved off cultural and Biodiversity Hotspots , and Concepts altered and ancillary projects rejected.
The Science appears Reasonable grounds for a smaller Biosphere Reserve Nomination supported by a friendly agency and supplementary submissions and actions?
So discouraging to read that our treasured migratory birds are no longer welcome after their incredible feat of flight. Set their weary little wings down where? Find the nourishment they desperately need some other place besides Moreton Bay?
Council have obviously quite forgotten about the environmental storehouse they were ‘gifted’ upon taking office, and find gold of more importance than small creatures who have no way of enriching Council’s coffers.
It’s time for honesty and integrity, accuracy and truth, to be valued higher than creating more housing for folks who already have too much to care for or about.
Jeanette Douglas has spoken for many of us concerned Redland residents. Will it have an effect on Council decisions? or will we be told again that there are”binding contracts” and Council is unable to change anything, that it is all up to the State Government? It should be noted that this project is not of “urgent national interest” which is the requirement to strike off a listed Ramsar site.
I have to agree 100% with the conclusions of Jeanette Douglas, which are based on sound science. When you read the advertising language of the Walker Corporation brochures you can see that the only people that would be taken in by it are those with vested interests or those who cannot understand the science. The artist’s impressions do not show large arrays of 10 storey blocks of units and the colourful language talks about eco-based bird hides yet the intention is to dredge and eradicate the bird habitat. A person would have to have a low IQ to fall for that nonsense.
what a wonderful address to council made by Jeanette Douglas! she is right the science is there already. I think her questions to the councillors re what can we expect from our elected representatives in a democracy if their decisions are swayed not by the scientific facts but the money provided by the developer?
Does that mean that we live in a corporate dictatorship which has the veneer of democracy?
Money talks!!!!!
Good to see a committed local resident putting the science on the public record for all Councillors and ratepayers to reference. But disappointing to see (at 32 minutes onwards in the video recording) the mayor spending a good deal of the presentation time busying herself with her mobile phone and not giving it her full attention. Putting this PDA in the Ramsar area was clearly an unacceptable idea, as the Environment Department’s scientists have advised. It needs to be withdrawn (by Council) and an immediate start made on just fixing the ferry arrangements.
Below is a direct quote from part of the report from the Ramsar Conference this year!
Australia’s National Report to the 13th Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention
United Arab Emirates, 21 – 29 October 2018
“The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) places an obligation on a person to not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have, a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared Ramsar wetland.”
Seems fairly straightforward doesn’t it? Should mean no Toondah development in the Ramsar Wetlands. End of story!
Andrew Laming, you stated ” wait until the science is in” . Well it’s been ” in” twice and still your Minister for the Environment has ignored the science in favour of a wealthy developer. It’s the stick and carrot approach. The documents released and used in the ABC investigation prove that Walker Corp. alternately threatened legal action if his proposal wasn’t passed through the EPBC process and the Liberal Party of Australia received a huge donation -$ 250,000.00. No surprise that Frydenberg ignored his own department’s advice stating the development was ” clearly unacceptable” and let it progress as a controlled action. Yes, but controlled by whom? What happens if the EPBC again advises “clearly unacceptable “? Will the current Minister also reject the science? And I thought the EPBC’s purpose was to PROTECT the environment! This is not the proper democratic course of action. Frydenberg, why did you do it? Please don’t give us the jobs mantra again – that is irrelevant! You were to decide on the correct environmental outcome, not the employment! There is no defence for this unacceptable decision.
An area of vital and international importance to migratory birds. They need it to survive! It mustn’t be developed by humans!