Community consultation on the DSC Draft Coconut Management Plan closed Monday (20/7) and letters to the editor indicate the community are not satisfied with what has been presented.

While DSC collates the community feedback in preparation for presentation to Council and the wider public, the community are seriously concerned.

John Sullivan from Hortulus is very disappointed claiming the draft plan is based on scare tactics and not scientific facts, which do not hold up in the debate.  “There needs to be a scientific response.  The debate is not about whether they are native it should be about scientific studies,” says John.

Ratepayers in this Shire should not pay or possibly be liable for the destruction of coconuts in natural areas as they are not on ANY QUEENSLAND OR AUSTRALIAN WEED LIST. There is a huge legal issue with removing vegetation from foreshore or natural areas where they are not actually recognised as weeds.

John writes:

I am writing to express my disappointment in the Draft Coconut Management Plan. It is emotive and poorly researched, citing false statistics (150 deaths by coconuts; please google!!!!), and unnecessary scare tactics, (Rats and Mosquitos) which should beneath this sort of science based writing. This document should exist to correctly inform the public. I had hoped that this document had put together an open and well researched case for the management of coconuts, taking into account our natural landscape, economic value, ascetics value and cultural heritage. However, it clearly shows how unnecessary the management of coconuts are beyond our streetscapes and high use parklands. What is obvious with a small amount of research is actually how non-invasive coconuts are without humans moving them and some populations are natural to our coastline.

The Draft Management Plan is based on the premise that coconuts are not native which is incorrect as they are part of the pan-pacific flora. The poor research and plagiarism (can supply two supporting documents not referenced) delivered in this Plan is highly erroneous and borderline liable for the Douglas Shire Council. Coconuts have and will continue to play a role in the flora of Far North Queensland since long before European settlement.

The Draft Coconut Management Plan does not recognise local Cultural Heritage of coconuts and the role they played in providing food and ceremonial significance.

The Draft Coconut Management Plan denies the economic value of this iconic plant to our region and ratepayers. This is twofold;

a. The dollar value that we can give to significant plants (like street trees in affluent suburbs) needs to be recognised not only on our populated beaches for tourism (weddings/movie production) but also on our coastline for passing ships, and eco adventurers camping in our bush. The destruction of coconut in our natural areas will have an economic affect.

b. The wild harvest of coconuts from public land could be an economic win for our region. The negotiation with private contractors to harvest coconuts from public land as an organised activity (with appropriate insurance etc.) should be a primary feature of this Draft Plan. Please consider (Councils Statistics) that Douglas Shire Council currently de-nut 1369 palms at a cost of $160,000. That is about $117/palm per year. If the Council has 8491 fruit bearing trees to de-nut on Council land, then it would cost $993,447 per year. However, if the 679,280 nuts per year (Council Stats) from these palms were collected and sold for $2ea, they would deliver $1,358,560.00 per year to the Douglas economy. A net gain of $350K! It is a fact that Coconuts are sold regionally in the tourist market for $5 to $8 each. That is somewhere between $3,396,400.00 and $5,434,240 to the local economy, not to mention the value they have in other by-products (copra/compost/fuel), tourism (including weddings & movies), and cultural heritage.

The Draft Plan is vague and open to interpretation by individual Council Officers who may not have the suitable qualifications. This could be in the form of not being able to identifying natural areas as opposed to urban areas, as was clearly the case in the removal of coconuts by Cairns Regional Council on Four Mile Beach. I believe this incident still may become the subject of legal action by local residence against the offending Council, due to the lack of progress in the repair of the public open space in a critical foreshore zone. Any plan should remove the ambiguous descriptions and be scientific in there terms and straight forward in the intended outcome.

Management of coconuts in urban streets and parklands definitely needs management. However this should not be costly, and needs to be in line with our town plan. We need a progressive and forward thinking urban approach. I think Douglas Shire Council should seek expertise in progressive urban design beyond what has been delivered in this plan.

Ratepayers in this Shire should not pay or possibly be liable for the destruction of coconuts in natural areas as they are not on ANY QUEENSLAND OR AUSTRALIAN WEED LIST. There is a huge legal issue with removing vegetation from foreshore or natural areas where they are not actually recognised as weeds. The recent removals of coconuts on Newell Beach before this Policy has been adopted throws into question the actions of the current Douglas Shire Council.

The Policy needs to clearly define how public notification of ANY and ALL coconut removals will be done.

The Policy provides only a two-week appeal time to residences. This should be at least 8 weeks, and public notification should be given to the entire community.

Assume the arboriculture costs are actually high. Are they compared to well-maintained street & parkland trees? I actually think the Council needs to recognise that rates are paid to manage vegetation, which is done through employing local rate paying residence!

This Policy is actually against the current Town Plan in that it will be against the “Rural Nature” of the Shire. To remove stands of coconuts would affect the Shire, in much the same way the removal of sugar cane would.

Each photographed region needs to be reviewed through proper public consultation. For example the removal of coconuts along Pebbly Beach will not only have an adverse effect on foreshore stability and road stability but would be a major loss visually to the tourism industry and the drive to Port Douglas! It is also obvious on Pebbly Beach that there are very few young palms and that coconuts struggle to regenerate in many coastal situations.

I would suggest that this Policy will need to be completely reviewed before further public consultation is sort. Below are some notes that relate directly to the Draft Coconut Management Plan and some links for your reference.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I look forward to be able to work further with the Douglas Shire Council on developing a suitable policy on the Coconut Palm.

<link beloved-icon-or-omen-of-environmental-is.12790.0.html>www.newsport.com.au/Beloved-icon-or-omen-of-environmental-is.12790.0.html

NOTES TO DRAFT COCONUT MANAGEMENT PLAN;

The whole Plan is based on the flawed premise that coconuts are not native Australian plant but an invasive weed. There is no scientific evidence of this, however;

1. They are part of the pan-pacific flora that the East Coast of Australia shares with the Pacific Islands, New Guinea, Indonesia, India and even as far as Africa. Plants such as; Terminalia species, Casuarina equisetifolia, Calophyllum, Cerbera, Cordia, Erythrina variegate, Guettarda, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Pandanus tectorius, Pisonia grandis (Madagascar to eastern Polynesia), Thespesia, Clerodendrum inerme, Premna serratifolia, Scaevola taccada,  Sophora tomentose, Vitex, Ipomea pes-caprae are all a part of this flora, not to mention mangrove species like Rhizophora, & Xylocarpus .

2. In Robert Tucker’s 1988 book, “The Palms of Subequatorial Queensland”, he treats this palm as a native having a long history in Queensland and the Torres Strait. He references stories by the Indigenous people of Lockhart River having a specific local name (“Kunga”) for the coconut and stories relating to, “inter-clan rivalries in which the coconut trees belonging to one clan (because they grew on their land) were frequently cut down by rivals as an act of attrition. The people apparently never planted the seeds, and would often destroy a germinating nut in order to obtain the “pitjiri” or soft and edible haustorial growth inside the cavity. The only trees that grew were those that drifted up naturally and survived long enough to establish. Coconut husks also featured in certain ceremonial artefacts which are probably of ancient design.” Tucker also writes that while there are numerous stands of coconuts on the peninsula coast definitely planted, others can’t be so easily explained; “the variety of coconut forms represented in these groves indicate that there are a multitude of regional origins……Many of the forms occurring on the Peninsula coasts have fruit containing very small seeds, some almost spindle-shape. Such forms would rarely be deliberately cultivated amongst societies dependant on the fruits as food, and may represent forms close to a “wild” coconut.”  

INTRODUCTION; (read with report) Has there been any public liability claim from coconuts on Council records?

Are crocodile attacks more of an issue in the Douglas Shire vs coconuts? How are we approaching Crocodiles from a Council perspective?

We need to put a dollar value on the aesthetic value and the potential economic value of coconuts on public land. The cost of $160,000 is cheap and provides jobs for people in the Douglas Shire.

THE COST OF COCONUT MANAGEMENT;The photo on “Newell Beach June 2014” actually doesn’t show how coconuts destroy native vegetation and are erosion prone, it shows an area where plants have been removed from below coconuts in front of residential areas over a period of at least 10years, leaving the coconuts as the remnants of the coastal vegetation unable to cope with shifting sand deposits and tidal movements at the nearby mouth of the Mossman River. These plants are not the culprits (scare mongering by Council that is not needed in this debate!).

Below this photo is a claim that coconut groves “are potentially detrimental to coastal birds dependant on native vegetation for roosting and nesting habitat.” Please reference and quantify this statement.

Page 4; Much of the last paragraph is plagiarised (even the photos of the Rat & chewed coconut!!!!!) from an article “Are Coconuts Native to Australia “from the Ellabayforever Blog by Russell Constable;

http://ellabayforever.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/are-coconut-palms-native-to-australia.html

This section on White Tailed Rats and Mosquitos supplies no quantified data or facts. It is simple scare tactics and has no place in this report. Please consider:

1. White Tailed Rats are “a coconut busting machine” as they evolved with coconuts, which they predated heavily on along with past indigenous people keeping the coconut population low. I am concerned the loss of coconuts may have an adverse effect on White Tailed Rats and other native animals

2. Coconut receptacles do harbour mosquitos as do a lot of native vegetation in coastal rainforest as we have all experienced. Reducing coconuts will not reduce the mosquito population (please reference data if you have it?)

3. Yes rats carry Leptospirosis but so does a huge variety of native and domestic animals! Completely unnecessary scare tactics in this report!

Page 5; (Paragraph below photos) “It is estimated that, around the world, falling coconut fruit are responsible for the death of around one hundred and fifty people a year.” This is a fictitious statistic made up by shark researchers to illustrate how harmless sharks are. A quick internet search dispels this myth and I only wish that this report had presented an unemotional argument from the Council’s side. Very disappointing. Please learn to Google,

http://www.wafflesatnoon.com/falling-coconut-deaths-vs-shark-attack-deaths