Land Management and Biodiversity Conservation
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
Biodiversity Reforms – Have Your Say PO Box A290 Sydney South NSW 1232
Submission on proposed changes to NSW biodiversity and conservation laws. Dear sir/Madam Please accept this document as a submission re. The NSW Government’s Draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016 and the Draft Local land Services Bill 2016. It seems clear that the proposed changes are intended to weaken existing environmental legislation and facilitate substantially unregulated exploitation of the natural environment of NSW.
Current laws, in particular, The Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 have been remarkably successful in protecting Native vegetation and consequently, fauna, previously threatened by loss of habitat.
Relaxation of land clearing laws in Queensland, passed by the previous Liberal National Government has resulted in an orgy of ecological destruction that will inevitably lead to numerous local extinctions. In addition the changes have resulted in an estimated 36 million tonnes of carbon pollution. This is especially outrageous, considering the reduction in land clearing underpinned Australia’s carbon emissions reduction strategy when presented to the UN.
Prior to the gazetting of the current conservation legislation, land was being cleared in NSW at the rate of 100,000 ha per year, resulting in some of the most degraded landscapes in the country. A couple of decades ago a drive in the NSW countryside would reveal an endless landscape blighted by salinity, erosion, weeds, Eucalyptus Dieback and severely damaged rivers. Whilst evidence of that era still exists the improvements are obvious and substantial, with clearing rates in recent years being approximately 12,000 ha per year.
Responsible landowners are not unreasonably impacted by current legislation but there will always be a significant number of landowners that have no interest in the ecological health of their property. This is particularly relevant when land holdings are constantly being consolidated into larger and larger blocks and more and more land is owned by huge, often foreign owned, corporations.
The proposal to introduce self- assessable codes that facilitate broadscale land clearing is utterly insane. It may well be appropriate to introduce codes that allow minor clearing for basic management procedures, such as fencing or the erection of farm buildings but I suspect such activities are not impacted much by existing legislation.
It is especially outrageous that this legislation is even being considered, without first completing mapping of ecological communities throughout NSW, to determine what activities can be performed without serious ecological consequences. It is essential to identify land with high conservation value and ensure that clearing is not allowed in such areas. This can be supported by the funds that were intended for this purpose but it now seems more likely that they will be employed to compensate for the activities of the very people that will be destroying the NSW landscape.
The concept of offsetting for the destruction of an ecological community is usually ridiculous. When you destroy significant habitat it’s gone. Protecting something of equal value doesn’t bring it back and if it’s of equal value it should be protected anyway.
I’m also concerned that the role of the Environment Minister will be significantly downgraded to a point of irrelevance. The idea that the Minister for Primary Industries along with Local Land Services will be the primary regulator of land clearing activities is truly appalling.
The proposed changes are being driven entirely by a small, vocal and no doubt, politically connected group of landowners that resent any control over their activities whatsoever. They are the very people the landscape needs to be protected from.
If these laws are to have any credibility they should be withdrawn in their current form and revised with the assistance of credible scientists with expertise in ecological management principles. Such assistance has been entirely disregarded. Yours sincerely
David Butler
Biodiversity Reforms – Have Your Say PO Box A290 Sydney South NSW 1232
Submission on proposed changes to NSW biodiversity and conservation laws. Dear sir/Madam Please accept this document as a submission re. The NSW Government’s Draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016 and the Draft Local land Services Bill 2016. It seems clear that the proposed changes are intended to weaken existing environmental legislation and facilitate substantially unregulated exploitation of the natural environment of NSW.
Current laws, in particular, The Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 have been remarkably successful in protecting Native vegetation and consequently, fauna, previously threatened by loss of habitat.
Relaxation of land clearing laws in Queensland, passed by the previous Liberal National Government has resulted in an orgy of ecological destruction that will inevitably lead to numerous local extinctions. In addition the changes have resulted in an estimated 36 million tonnes of carbon pollution. This is especially outrageous, considering the reduction in land clearing underpinned Australia’s carbon emissions reduction strategy when presented to the UN.
Prior to the gazetting of the current conservation legislation, land was being cleared in NSW at the rate of 100,000 ha per year, resulting in some of the most degraded landscapes in the country. A couple of decades ago a drive in the NSW countryside would reveal an endless landscape blighted by salinity, erosion, weeds, Eucalyptus Dieback and severely damaged rivers. Whilst evidence of that era still exists the improvements are obvious and substantial, with clearing rates in recent years being approximately 12,000 ha per year.
Responsible landowners are not unreasonably impacted by current legislation but there will always be a significant number of landowners that have no interest in the ecological health of their property. This is particularly relevant when land holdings are constantly being consolidated into larger and larger blocks and more and more land is owned by huge, often foreign owned, corporations.
The proposal to introduce self- assessable codes that facilitate broadscale land clearing is utterly insane. It may well be appropriate to introduce codes that allow minor clearing for basic management procedures, such as fencing or the erection of farm buildings but I suspect such activities are not impacted much by existing legislation.
It is especially outrageous that this legislation is even being considered, without first completing mapping of ecological communities throughout NSW, to determine what activities can be performed without serious ecological consequences. It is essential to identify land with high conservation value and ensure that clearing is not allowed in such areas. This can be supported by the funds that were intended for this purpose but it now seems more likely that they will be employed to compensate for the activities of the very people that will be destroying the NSW landscape.
The concept of offsetting for the destruction of an ecological community is usually ridiculous. When you destroy significant habitat it’s gone. Protecting something of equal value doesn’t bring it back and if it’s of equal value it should be protected anyway.
I’m also concerned that the role of the Environment Minister will be significantly downgraded to a point of irrelevance. The idea that the Minister for Primary Industries along with Local Land Services will be the primary regulator of land clearing activities is truly appalling.
The proposed changes are being driven entirely by a small, vocal and no doubt, politically connected group of landowners that resent any control over their activities whatsoever. They are the very people the landscape needs to be protected from.
If these laws are to have any credibility they should be withdrawn in their current form and revised with the assistance of credible scientists with expertise in ecological management principles. Such assistance has been entirely disregarded. Yours sincerely
David Butler
