Cranes and Plans 1
In 2005 Ozcranes reviewed five Natural Resource Management Plans covering critical crane habitat in north Queensland. NRM Plans are packed with valuable information and recommend Targets for funding and regional development.
Four of these Regions are home to virtually all Australia's Sarus Cranes, and many Brolgas: Cape York Peninsula (CYP), Northern and Southern Gulf, and Far North Queensland (FNQ, covering the Wet Tropics/Upper Herbert). The fifth, Burdekin/Dry Tropics Region, is nationally significant for Brolgas.
Do the Plans give catchment groups, decision-makers and residents the tools and priorities they will need, to carry out their responsibilities for Australia's cranes?
Question 1: The Cranes
← Community NRM group Southern Gulf Catchments Ltd (SGC) chose the Sarus Crane, an icon bird for the Gulf region, as their logo
Apart from all-inclusive statements about protecting biodiversity, did each Plan (or at least one of its background reports) cover the importance of the Region for Sarus Cranes and/or Brolgas? Did it note the Sarus Crane is listed under international migratory bird treaties?
- Yes: Three (N and S Gulf, Burdekin)
- Yes and No: One (FNQ)
- No: One (CYP)
Comments FNQ noted Sarus as a listed migratory species that ‘may’ occur in the Region with ‘a few’ roosting at Bromfield Swamp. But: the region has been known as significant for Sarus Cranes for at least 25 years, with 1,700 to >3,000 in annual counts from 1997, and up to 800 at Bromfield Swamp.
CYP mentioned migratory species in general. After years of CYPLUS planning their Draft NRM Plan was very different, and less detailed than others. But how did CYPLUS cover cranes?
TOPQuestion 2: Wetlands and grazing
← Wetland logo, Northern Gulf Catchments NRM
Did each Plan focus clearly on wetland processes, uses and conservation, and sustainable grazing? Did Plans factor crane (or other large waterbird) ecology into targets and recommendations for all types of wetlands?
- Yes. And No.
Comments All the Plans dealt comprehensively (allowing for CYP differences) with wetland health issues and sustainable grazing. But some Plans seemed unaware of potential impacts their Targets might have for large waterbirds, and for rural industries. A major example in some Plans was lumping everything wet – from small farm dams to vast floodplains – into ‘wetlands’ but not analysing their differences. Another was indiscriminate recommendations for ‘wetland’ fencing. The good news is, that our comments to the Plans on the fencing issue evolved into the ‘Crane-friendly Fencing Guidelines’, now updated with feedback from landowners, two Regional NRM organisations and Catchment Groups. But despite these positive informal contacts, it seems NRM is channelling scarce funds into large wetland fencing or other cattle exclusion projects, without considering potential impacts of fences on cranes and removing grazing in the long term and even in the short term.
Next, Cranes & Plans 2: Threats, Costs, and Plan contacts»
