Conservationists say proposal would make sediment problems on the reef – which funding is designed to prevent – much worse

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

A property in Queensland with one of the biggest tree-clearing proposals in Australia, and which is specifically identified by experts as a risk to Great Barrier Reef water quality, is one of the beneficiaries of a $4m federal government reef water quality program.

Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Andrew Picone said that it showed the federal government “isn’t taking its reef commitments seriously” since the proposed clearing would exacerbate the very problem the funding is meant to mitigate.

“At face value it seems inappropriate that we’re spending money on water quality improvement measures on a property where the landholder is wanting to clear 30,000 hectares in a reef catchment,” Picone said.

Can Queensland Labor end broadscale land clearing, as promised? Read more

Olive Vale station in Cape York gained approval from the Queensland government to clear 31,000 hectares in 2015.

In April 2017 the federal government announced $18m funding for a series of new projects to reduce sediment flow onto the reef.



Among those projects, $4m was announced for a program working to minimise gully erosion, with three priority sites, one of which was Olive Vale. The program involves “practical training in gully remediation and capacity building within the Cape York grazing community”. The other priority projects are the Crocodile, Welcome and Normanby stations.

Olive Vale is situated in the Normanby basin, a catchment with rivers that flow directly into Princess Charlotte Bay on the Great Barrier Reef.

Princess Charlotte Bay, one of the largest tidal wetlands on the Cape York peninsula, is zoned as a special management area to protect important populations of dugongs, which rely on seagrass. Seagrass is particularly sensitive to sediment pollution.

Sediment pollution, made worse by tree clearing and intensive agricultural land use, can also smother corals, making harder or impossible for them to survive or reproduce.

The Normanby basin has the third-highest sediment load of all catchments on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has advised the federal government, in relation to a much smaller clearing proposal, that “caution should be taken in approving any further clearing in the Normanby catchment because this catchment has already been subject to such a large amount of increased erosion”.

The government-funded program is run by Cape York Natural Resource Management (NRM), which has developed the draft eastern Cape York water quality improvement plan. That plan identifies Olive Vale’s proposed clearing as risk in the area for the Great Barrier Reef’s water quality.

Appendix 1 of the plan is a report that attempts to assess the biggest threats to reef water quality in the region.

The first page of that report has a before-and-after picture of broadscale clearing at Olive Vale, which occurred before 2015, and it specifically notes the proposed development at Olive Vale as an example of development that will increase the risk of gully erosion.

“More significantly, as land use intensification (such as that proposed on Olive Vale and Springvale Stations) pushes into more marginal and potentially erodible soils, the role of these gully erosion trigger mechanisms will only increase in importance.”

Even if the development is done to avoid exacerbating the development of gullies, which pour enormous amounts of sediment onto the reef, the report notes intensification of agriculture will become a dominant cause of sediment pollution.

'Global deforestation hotspot': 3m hectares of Australian forest to be lost in 15 years Read more

“While the management of gully erosion is likely to continue to be the highest priority for improving current water quality in the [northern GBR], future declines in water quality are most likely to come from the intensification of land use, be it associated with agricultural developments such as that proposed for Olive Vale Station, or from urban and peri-urban development around Cooktown and other settlements in the eastern cape.”

A spokeswoman for Cape York NRM told Guardian Australia: “Cape York NRM are planning to work with Olive Vale Station in future gully management projects because the property has been identified as containing some of the highest sediment producing gully subcatchments in the Normanby Basin.”

She said about $260,149 of the $4m would be spent on works at Olive Vale.

“By working in a constructive way with all properties across Cape York we are in a much better position to support improved land management practices into the future,” the spokeswoman said.

Work there could involve fencing to keep cattle away from the most sensitive areas of the property; vegetation recovery programs; the creation of diversion banks to cut-off active gullies; and rehabilitation of other areas to reduce sediment loss.

But Picone said the funding ought to be reviewed.

“I think what this reveals is the fact that land use practices and agricultural intensification, by its very nature, causes these problems and that is why Olive Vale is a site for reef remediation work. The fact that this work is going on at that site, means Olive Vale is inappropriate for clearing.”

“We can’t justify doing remediation work while contributing to the drivers of reduced water quality on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Queensland approved the clearing at Olive Vale in 2015, but in November that year the federal government said it had gained assurances the owners would also gain federal approval.

In 2016, it was revealed further clearing of about 100 hectares had occurred, without federal approval. The federal government stepped in, and again said the owners had said they would seek federal approval.

Since then, no application for clearing has been submitted to the federal government, and no further clearing has occurred.

Guardian Australia attempted to contact the owners of Olive Vale for comment.

The federal Department of Environment and Energy has not responded to queries.