Fighting to protect our ancient rainforests

The Australian Rainforest Foundation believes all Australians have a duty to protect the environment. For more than a decade it has, with the help of governments, corporations and private individuals been working hard to protect one of the world’s oldest and most mega-diverse rainforests, the Daintree, in far north Queensland.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points of detail and explain further the ARF’s position and the work it has been tasked to do.

The Daintree – always controversial
Following the subdivision of an area of the Daintree which was approved by the Queensland Government in the 1980’s, there were various attempts to ‘buy back’ some of these lots with mixed success. In 2000, the Queensland and Commonwealth governments, meeting as the Wet Tropics Ministerial Council (MINCON) accepted a report that mapped a way for the resolution of the conservation of the Daintree rainforest. This “Daintree Futures Study” report acknowledged that a sustainable residential and commercial community could exist in the Daintree if approximately half of the 1100 allotments were removed from development. Among other strategies, the report recommended a revolving land fund be established and the private sector be engaged to raise funds for the buy back of approximately 600 of the rainforest blocks in private ownership.

The revolving land fund is a conservation tool that provides a role in conservation for private individuals and corporations by offering high value conservation land for resale after reducing the impact of development, usually by consolidation of a number of blocks and placing conservation covenants on the land title to protect the undeveloped areas of the block. Potential owners, who may build a dwelling on the land, would become as ARF refers to them - guardians of the rainforest - with over 90% of their land protected by perpetual covenants on the title.

Revolving fund a valuable tool
As such, a revolving land fund provides ongoing funding for conservation with income from the resold land being used to buy more land and to undertake other conservation works and in turn that land is resold to continue the funding cycle.

As an example, $5 million worth of land purchased by the government for inclusion in the National Park, once spent is no longer available. By comparison, $5 million worth of land consolidated, covenanted and resold, (even for less than the $5 million), provides a cash flow for further acquisition.

In 2001, responding to the “Daintree Futures Study”, MINCON provided $1 million to the ARF to undertake a revolving land fund in the Daintree and to actively seek the support of the private sector in conservation of the Daintree.

A funding agreement was signed between ARF and the Queensland government representing MINCON - with both governments providing the funding.

Contracted obligations affect both parties
Of particular interest and importance was the insistence of MINCON that any land purchased by the ARF for the revolving land fund was to be offered on a first option basis to Queensland Government to purchase if they wanted the land for the National Park. A clause to this effect was inserted into the contract.

It may seem strange to some that public funds were being used to acquire land for conservation and that further public funds were to be used if the land was to be transferred to the Queensland Government. Nonetheless, both the Queensland Government and the ARF were aware of this requirement in signing the contract.

The rationale behind this requirement was that the $1 million was considered ‘seed funding’ to enable the ARF to acquire a number of blocks and to begin the resale, thereby generating funds for further acquisitions. Both parties estimated that $15 to $20 million would be needed to buy back 600 blocks.

If the land was simply transferred to the Queensland Government, there would be no funds for further acquisitions. Furthermore, Queensland always had the ability to acquire land for the National Park from its own resources at any time and did not need the ARF to do this for them.

Further support for a revolving land fund
The Commonwealth Government provided an additional $5 million to the ARF in 2005 to continue with the revolving land fund and other conservation strategies that supported private conservation for public good in the Daintree. A key component of the financial contract with the Commonwealth was a first option to the Queensland Government to purchase any of the land for the National Park before it was resold to the private sector.

Implications Of A Development Ban
The Douglas Shire Council (the local government authority responsible for the Daintree) introduced a Planning Scheme in 2006 which banned any development on more than 200 freehold blocks in the Daintree. Landowners were encouraged to either sell their land to the Queensland Government or to seek compensation from Council for the loss of rights to build a dwelling. The Queensland Government supported the Council’s planning scheme and agreed to provide $15 million to underwrite compensation and land acquisition.

Twenty of ARF’s 25 lots were included in the new conservation zone which stripped the rights to build a dwelling from the land. ARF offered the land to the Queensland Government to buy in accordance with the terms of the funding agreement.

After twelve months of negotiations in which Queensland expected the ARF to transfer the land for no consideration – thereby failing to meet the contractual obligations and if agreed, killing the revolving fund - the ARF applied for compensation so that it could continue to meet its contractual requirements in establishing and running a revolving land fund.

Is it right to seek compensation?
The revolving land fund was a legitimate, government supported and funded strategy which valued those landowners choosing to live in the rainforest and look after it.

At the heart of this current issue is a political need to be seen as the controlling influence in Daintree conservation. Once the ARF was contracted to run a revolving land fund, the Douglas Shire Council lost the control of conservation efforts in the Daintree. Their new Planning Scheme, which was highly controversial and widely criticised, gave the Council back the controlling influence on how conservation was to be delivered.

The ARF has absolutely no intention of developing these blocks. It has simply followed the process for compensation determined by Council.

The potential loss in funding created by the rezoning of lands currently under ARF ownership in the Daintree significantly inhibits our ability to implement strategies to conserve what remains of our extraordinary tropical rainforests which is still unprotected.

We all need to continue to protect our remaining rainforests. The ARF is an efficient and ethical business, delivering the contracted conservation outcomes clearly laid down in its State and Commonwealth contracts. The ARF would be negligent if we did not apply for compensation which will assist us to continue with the essential task of conservation and we will continue to pursue our rights to this compensation and reinvest these funds in conserving the magnificent Daintree for future generations.

CEO, Roger Phillips