DR STEVE TURTON DFIAG, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, Central Queensland University and University of the Sunshine Coast
“The Daintree River Crossing Options Assessment Report, while meeting basic Council requirements, is woefully inadequate for such an environmentally sensitive area, and will undoubtedly receive national and international scrutiny and criticism.”
DR STEVE TURTON
Why the Daintree River crossing options must consider cumulative impacts.
In an earlier article in DouglasNews.Network I drew attention to the threats to World Heritage status of the Daintree Coast that would inevitably follow should a bridge be built over the Daintree River. This was in response to a firm indication by newly-elected Douglas Shire Council Mayor Michael Kerr that he wanted to re-visit various river crossing options for the Daintree River, for residents and businesses on the Daintree Coast and further north to Cooktown.
In my original article, I argued that βa bridge over the Daintree River will be the beginning of βdeath by a thousand cutsβ for the Daintree rainforest, and may well be the catalyst for UNESCO to place the entire Wet Tropics of Queensland on the World Heritage in-Danger list.β
In light of the recent release of βDaintree River Crossing Options Assessment Reportβ by Douglas Shire Council, this provides an opportunity to re-examine the environmental impacts of the four crossing options (including the existing single ferry), but to do so with consideration of βcumulative impactsβ and how these might all align with a βstrategic environmental assessmentβ (SEA) framework.
The first consideration is to examine the four options within a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework (SEA).
βSEA is a systematic decision support process, aiming to ensure that environmental and possibly other sustainability aspects are considered effectively in policy, plan and program makingβ.
This means the four crossing options must be examined from the perspective of the entire Shire, its existing planning schemes and its community values, as well as considering matters of national environmental significance and maintenance of World Heritage values to the north of the river.
Which option best aligns with the local and Indigenous communitiesβ future aspirations for the Shire?
Which option best aligns with maintenance of βoutstanding universal valueβ of World Heritage to βprotect, conserve, present and transmit to future generationsβ?
The second consideration is the βcumulative impactsβ of the four river crossing options.
Cumulative impact assessment aims to consider the βeffects of multiple actions or impacts on the environmentβ, including those beyond the particular river crossing point itself. Impact is a βneutralβ term and therefore includes positive and negative impacts on the environment, but social and economic impacts should also be included in any cumulative impact assessments.
This issue is way more than just about taking vehicles and people from one side of the river to the other, whether we are talking about the same location or elsewhere on the river.
“The Daintree River Crossing Options Assessment Report, while meeting basic Council requirements, is woefully inadequate for such an environmentally sensitive area, and will undoubtedly receive national and international scrutiny and criticism.”
DR STEVE TURTON
The adoption of a SEA framework and consideration of βcumulative impactsβ of the four river crossing options will bring credibility and rigour to the community consultation and Council decision-making processes.
We’d love to hear from you.
Some of our best stories come from our readers. Share you story with us today, or send in your Letter to the Editor to express your view.
