Cranes and Plans 2
Part 2 of comments on NRM (Natural Resource Management) Plans for five north Queensland Regions with critical crane habitat. Cranes and Plans 1 checks which Plans informed catchment groups, residents and decision-makers about how important these Regions are for Australia's cranes, and how well the Plans covered wetland and grazing management. Here in Part 2, we review how the Plans covered threats and costs, with a list of Plan and other links.
Question 3: Threats & Costs
- Do the Plans deal with Threats likely to affect cranes?
All the Plans, in their own way, dealt comprehensively with threats like weeds, ferals and some impacts of changed fire regimes, particularly to wetland habitats vital to many waterbirds.
- Do they deal with side-effects, or possible new Threats, arising from Targets?
Several potential threats to cranes were not discussed, or were increased by some Plan Targets.
Example: removal of grazing Targets for universal wetland fencing without considering impacts of removing grazing are a problem for cranes, more so if wetlands are defined to include all farm dams (see Cranes and Plans 1). Are the universal fencing Targets in some Plans based on the view that grazing at any level is a ‘threat’ to wetlands? If so, these Targets should factor in the management costs of keeping wetland areas free of dense weedy growth after removing cattle.
Example: hunting Some illegal hunting occurs but probably targets mainly Australian Bustards, not cranes. Aboriginal hunting is legal, and has important cultural and subsistence values recognised by the relevant Plans. In terms of crane breeding ecology and population, harvest particularly of Sarus Cranes should also have been covered under the Biodiversity theme. While Sarus are not officially endangered in Australia, they are endangered internationally and their current threat rating here can be questioned due to small population and low recruitment rates. These factors mean that sustainable hunting practices are essential for eggs, young and adults.
TOP- Did Plans assess costs and benefits of Targets for all biodiversity, including biodiversity on farming or pastoral lands?
There was a marked difference in the way some Plans, or background State of the Region Reports, regarded rural industries and biodiversity on production lands.
Why?
Possible reason: habitat values and baselines Is it possible that some Plan targets, despite the NRM mission to integrate natural values with production industries, took a baseline from (assumed) pre-agricultural habitat for a preferred reference state? If so, the biodiversity of production landscapes where cranes now feed, roost and breed will always be undervalued and underprotected in comparison to, say, perceived biodiversity gain from putting NRM funds into replanting forest or converting pastoral into conservation properties.
NRM Sites & Contacts
Most final plans are now available on Regional NRM sites. These resource documents have a wealth of information on natural resources and rural industries. Some downloads are very large files but printed or CD copies may be available.
| Organisation | Link |
|---|---|
| National | NRM Home Page |
| All Queensland Regions | Map & Links |
| All Queensland Regions | Links to Plans |
| Queensland Regional NRM Collective | Collective site with NRM news and events |
| Northern Gulf | N Gulf Site |
| Southern Gulf | Southern Gulf Site |
| Wet Tropics & Upper Herbert (FNQ) | Terrain NRM Site |
| Burdekin-Dry Tropics | Burdekin-Dry Tropics Site |
| NRM Federal funding example | Community Water Grants Page |
More..
Goodbye Sarus?» Can good intentions do bad, not good? – how restoring to a pre-agricultural ‘natural’ reference state would expel Sarus Cranes from Australia's largest Sarus roost, Bromfield Swamp.
