Developer/environmentalist collaboration, SEQld

[Jill Dening <>]

Hi Michael,

> On behalf of all the subscribers - anyone
> who disagrees will
> have me to deal with ! - warmest congratulations on your work
> and the paper.

Thank you Michael, I accept your congratulations on behalf of all the people who are participating with me in this process at a range of levels. Peter Scott wrote the paper, and Warren Russell and I commented. It would make me very happy to see more of this kind of collaboration all over the country. We still have a long road ahead of us, but we'll get there.

> We need more of this sort of thing to
> help us all learn: bird
> conservation is about people more than it is about birds.

Indeed the personalities are crucial in the process. Trust is slow to build, but without trust, the process cannot move forward. I am fortunate, in that I have come from a business background. Additionally, my father was a property valuer, and as a kid I was kept quiet in the car, playing the game of "while I'm in valuing this property, you guess the value, and we'll see later who gets closest." I am a capitalist to my bootstraps, and believe in a society which promotes incentive for individuals. I used to be the only environmentalist in the Caloundra Chamber of Commerce (don't know if there are any there now). Because of my background I understand to a degree how developers think (just like me?), and was able to bridge the gap - but it took quite a while before the process actually got underway. Then the input of many became critical to further progress. I don't have the scientific credentials to back my arguments, to command the respect required to pull this off, but that came from Peter Driscoll, the Chairman of Qld Wader Study Group. Peter backed my arguments, and so I guess then I gained more respect from the developers and from Council. EPA kick-started the process, by bringing us all together.  Peter Scott, the environmental consultant to the developer, didn't know much about waders, and I spent considerable time in the field with him, teaching him about the needs of waders, at the same time amazing myself with all the little bits of knowledge I had stored in different corners of my brain. Peter helped me to bring them together, and we were on our way. Peter also gave me a broader understanding of the ecological processes at work. In addition we had a field trip or two involving other QWSG members, and various departmental people. Warren Russell, the site manager, has the perfect personality and attitude for this process, and has been in there, pushing and cajoling all the way. He didn't know one wader from another, and now he is getting quite flash with his IDs. The developer conducted a serious, honest community consultation process, and broke down barriers that had been up for years. This is a real collaboration, and we keep each other informed along the way. This is no token flag-waving exercise, this is a project in which the participants on both sides have lots of commitment to the ultimate goal.

> And the symbolism is enormously
> important.  I can now go to
> developers (and my blessed Council) and say "it's not new -
> it's
> been done, you have no excuse".

I've got to tell you, it isn't easy. You need to be committed and not be distracted from your ultimate goal. On the positive side, developers are now facing far more demanding environmental laws than ever before, and they are beginning to take notice and seek other ways of managing environmental situations, than the old adversarial way. Once you get to the council level, you are dealing with very localised  interests. One councillor thinks an environment is something you mow. Council managers like public spaces which are easy to maintain (meaning you send a worker out with instructions to mow). Open spaces along waterfronts are not like that just for the benefit of the public to play - they are easy for councils to maintain. A wader roost is a bit of an unknown to a council, and our job is to educate them and to provide them with a manual which gives the necessary maintenace in a simple step by step manner, so that they can pull the roost maintenance manual off the shelf in the workshop, and it is easy to understand.

Wayne Lawler wrote a very good book called, "Wader Roost Construction in Moreton Bay: A Feasibility Study into the Construction of Migratory Wader (Shorebird) High Tide Roosts in Moreton Bay, Qld, using Raby Bay as a Case Study." August, 1995. It is available through Linda Cross of the Qld Wader Study Group. I think it costs around $15 plus postage, and is a soft cover A4 booklet of about 100 pages. I would recommend it to anyone who has an interest in this subject.

A few developers are starting to reap the benefits of linking with environmental groups for better outcomes. In the case of our North Headland roost (which is still log-jammed in Council, despite approval in principle), our developer has very cleverly linked the building of the roost with an application for one stage of its many-staged development.  So two parties are in there wanting an approval, for different reasons. It's part of the sweetener for getting council approval for the development plan - "We'll build a roost for the birds, and we want so many house blocks, etc." I find no problem at all with this, in fact I actively pursue the win-win situation. Humans are just animals behaving as pre-programmed, and without incentive, their commitment would be less.

From the environmentalists' point of view, developers bring a great deal of savvy about the application and approvals process. Also, developers work smartly and more efficiently than community environmentalists do generally, because every dollar spent has to be regained with interest at the rear end of the project. I appreciate very much the way our developers shoulder the responsibility for gaining these bureaucratic approvals (with our cooperation), and admire their skill in this area. They're also very nice people to deal with.

There is so much more to tell you, but you can't just pile it into one email. There are upsides, downsides, but every step of the way we get a bit smarter. The point I want to get across to people on this list is that there are two processes happening here.  One is the building of artificial roosts to replace a roost which will be lost. The other is the very important social process of collaboration between two erstwhile adversaries.

> Since it is election day in Queensland, I
> wonder how much of the
> change is actually about the environment.

None at all. In fact, Beattie now has such a huge margin, that he doesn't need to take notice of the environmental voter during this term.

>  The press wrote up
> the WA results as if it all had to do with "Pauline Hanson's
> One
> Nation Party" (pronounced fonp) whereas my impression is that
> the anti-logging debate was very important.

In Queensland's case, it was a very simple plea from Peter Beattie that people should vote 1 Labor and give no preferences. It is a feature of our Queensland electoral system that we have optional preferential voting. It was very successful, but might have a downside at the forthcoming federal elections, where a vote without preferences included would be deemed to be informal.

I hope I am getting across to some of you the notion that you, too, could get involved in bringing about better environmental outcomes for the country.  Reaching out to talk might be better than standing in front of a bulldozer. Not every time, but when appropriate.

Cheers,

Jill

--
Jill Dening
Sunshine Coast, Qld
26º 51'        152º 56'

Ph (07) 5494 0994