Perceptions of different groups

Introduction

The proposal to develop a tourist resort at Port Hinchinbrook was the basis of one of Australia's most controversial coastal tourism development debates. As always in issues of environmental concern involving a broad range of interest groups, the perceptions of the different stakeholders engaged in the Port Hinchinbrook debate varied markedly. In order for sustainable and socially-just outcomes to be achieved, it is important that the viewpoints of all stakeholders in environmental management issues are assessed in an equitable manner. This chapter will look at the perceptions of the many interest groups involved in the Port Hinchinbrook debate, including the local councils, the local residents, the development companies (as representative of the tourism industry as a whole), the scientific community and the environmental groups who were involved in the process of management.

The local council

The Cardwell Shire Council perceived the development of Port Hinchinbrook to be advantageous for the area. Their support was primarily founded upon the belief that significant economic and social benefits would be generated by the development. Prior to the tourism resort proposal, the area had not been prospering. The local government argued that a growth in visitors through investment in a multi million-dollar tourist resort would generate many business and employment opportunities within the local community.

In 1989 the decision was made to inscribe the Wet Tropics area onto the World Heritage list. Use of the area by the timber logging industry was immediately deemed incompatible with protecting its natural values, meaning that many workers in this industry (which included many residents of the Cardwell Shire) subsequently lost their jobs. It was predicted that the Port Hinchinbrook development, once completed, could directly provide up to 1000 jobs in the local community. It also had the potential to create wealth and employment opportunities indirectly, as a result of population growth. At the time, this would have seemed an extremely attractive proposition for the local council.

The council believed that an increase in visitors to the area would also inevitably result in an increase in permanent residents, resulting from the business and employment opportunities that the scores of visitors would create. The Hinchinbrook region did not even have the population size to support its own high school when the proposal was first put forth. The council thought that the development could provide them with an opportunity to develop infrastructure and services in the region. The possibility of an increased population was therefore considered to hold positive social potential by the local council. The council also argued that the development would not threaten the surrounding environment and that the aforementioned economic and social gains would override any small environmental impacts that may be experienced.

Local residents - the pro and con-development movements

The local residents of the Hinchinbrook region were divided over the proposal to develop a tourism resort at Port Hinchinbrook. This lack of local consensus (agreement) caused a great deal of tension within the community. Those aligned with the campaign launched by environmental groups and some scientists feared that the development would threaten the natural values of their surroundings, to which they would have undoubtedly felt a very strong connection.

Those who adopted the position of the local council and developers believed that the resort would be economically and socially advantageous for them because it would provide commercial benefits that could lead to greater prosperity in their local community. Local business owners, for example, believed they would benefit enormously from the money that thousands of tourists would bring each year. Similar to the perception of the local council, the prospect of an increased resident population and its associated benefits in terms of infrastructure development was considered appealing by many local residents.

Developers and the tourism industry

Tourism is an extremely important industry in Australia and has the potential to generate a great deal of wealth and prosperity for the nation. The developers of Port Hinchinbrook envisioned that one day it could be named 'Australia's finest, fully-integrated resort township', comprising hotels, residential dwellings, commercial strips and recreational facilities. They argued that this multi-faceted project would be mutually beneficial to visitors, the local people of the Hinchinbrook region and the local economy.

Throughout all proceedings, the development companies firmly held that there would be no detrimental environmental impacts, that adequate environmental controls would be strictly adhered to and that any small impacts would be overridden by the potential for social and economic gains generated from a strong tourism industry in the area.

The scientific community

Although not all members of the scientific community opposed the development at Port Hinchinbrook on environmental grounds, over 200 scientists did present submissions to 'The Hinchinbrook Channel Inquiry' conducted in 1998, expressing their concerns. One of the biggest concerns reflected in these submissions was the issue of acid sulphate soil, which scientists predicted would result from the earthworks that were to be completed as part of the Port Hinchinbrook development.

The problem of acid sulphate soil is one to which coastal areas like the Hinchinbrook region are particularly prone. It arises when certain types of deoxygenated, subterranean (underground) soils containing iron sulphides are disrupted by construction activities. When this soil is oxygenated (exposed to air) during earthworks, the ensuing reaction between the iron sulphides and oxygen leads to the formation of sulphuric acid. Other heavy metals, such as iron and aluminium are also released in the process. The sulphuric acid and heavy metals that are formed eventually enter surrounding waterways with rainwater run-off, which increases the acidity of the water. This poses a threat to wildlife because it results in poor water quality, destroys habitats and can even result in large fish kills, which can break the food chain of the entire ecosystem. See image 1 and animation 1

The process of dredging, by removing sediment from the seabed, also disrupts acid sulphate soils and can therefore lead to the formation of sulphuric acid. The proposal to dredge the channel was therefore another concern expressed by members of the scientific community who opposed the development. See image 2

Environmental groups

According to many environmentalists, the natural values of the Port Hinchinbrook region and the Great Barrier Reef were likely to be significantly threatened if development of such a large tourist complex was approved. Most stakeholders in this group believed that the development at Port Hinchinbrook would have irrevocably damaged the ecological and aesthetic values of the surrounding World Heritage areas, hindering the ability of people to enjoy these values in the future.

Underpinning this perception is the concept of 'intergenerational equity', which is the belief that use of the environment should be equitable between today's population and future generations. This notion is closely related to the concept of sustainability in that it opposes taking actions which might hinder the capacity of future generations to share the features of the environment that we are able to utilise and enjoy today.

As mentioned, many environmentalists believed that the development would have detrimental and irrevocable effects on the ecological and aesthetic values of the region. In an ecological sense, removal of mangroves along the foreshore and dredging the Hinchinbrook Channel was believed to pose a significant threat to the survival of wildlife in the area, particularly the already endangered dugong communities. See image 3

Across Australia, declines in dugong populations have been most severe in the southern part of the GBR, where the species has been classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as 'Vulnerable to Extinction'. Under Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), any proposed action that may threaten them now needs to be accompanied by a full Environmental Impact Assessment before it may be approved by the federal government. Similar to many opponents from the scientific community, the issue of build-ups of acid sulphate soil was another potentially harmful ecological impact of the development considered by environmental groups.

In an aesthetic sense, environmentalists argued that the Port Hinchinbrook development would alter the visual appeal of the entire resort site. Plans to build right on the waterfront and construct sea walls out into the channel, for example, were perceived to have the effect of permanently blemishing the landscape. Non-government organisations heavily involved in the movement against developing Port Hinchinbrook included the Friends of Hinchinbrook; the Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook and the Wilderness Society.