Land Management and Biodiversity
Jervis Bay Regional Alliance PO BOX 21 VINCENTIA 2540
Biodiversity Reforms - Have Your Say, PO Box A290, Sydney South, NSW 1232, 28th June 2016. The Jervis Bay Regional Alliance (JBRA) is an environmental advocacy group covering the coast from Culburra Beach to Sussex Inlet and the catchments and ecosystems of Lake Wollumboola, Jervis Bay and St Georges Basin. The JBRA’s charter includes advocacy for environmental, social and cultural heritage, as well as visual quality of the coast. Sound planning decisions at all levels of government are key areas of concern for our group. The JBRA strongly opposes the draft Local Land Services Amendment Bill and Biodiversity Conservation Bill and we urge the government to withdraw this poorly-designed legislation. Because we oppose the reforms and believe that they are entirely unfit for purpose, our submission does not answer the questions posed by government. Rather we will draw attention to several areas of concern. We note that this morning NSW Farmers have withdrawn their support for the proposed reforms. Given that NSW Farmers were the primary drivers of the reforms, yet their extreme position reflects the view of only a small proportion of farmers, this is an excellent opportunity for the NSW government to implement reforms that are fit for purpose—protecting the environment for future generations and ensuring farmers, the vast majority of whom want to care for nature, are supported to farm sustainably. We further note that the reforms lack any scientific credibility: the letter from The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, sent to all MPs in May, opposed the reforms on the basis that the Panel recommendations were not implemented in full. This letter was also signed by Professor Hugh Possingham, the highest profile member of the panel. The concerns raised by the Wentworth Group included broad-scale land clearing, the lack of a third category on the NVR map, serious flaws in the Private Land Conservation funding model and increased greenhouse gas emissions as key concerns. The reforms are also opposed by the Royal Zoological Society of NSW which contains may respected scientists. The JBRA urges the government to develop science-based legislation to protect the environment and enable sustainable farming. JBRA is deeply concerned that these laws will lead to increased land clearing and associated environmental degradation because of the similarity between the proposed legislation and that passed in Queensland by the Campbell Newman government—particularly in regards self-assessable code-based clearing and the mapping of unregulated land. The legislative changes in Queensland changes led to a dramatic increase in land-clearing rates which has both destroyed precious environments and undermined federal efforts to tackle climate change.
1
We object to the fact that we are being asked to comment on legislation without much of the necessary detail. For example the Native Vegetation Regulatory maps are not yet available and there is no information on the private land conservation funding strategy, and therefore no way to assess how effective it may be. There is also substantial detail missing from the self-assessable codes, which are a key area of concern for the JBRA. The JBRA is of the view that climate change, the impacts of which will be worsened by land clearing associated with the new laws, should be the primary consideration when seeking to provide leadership to the farming community. The failure of the reforms to consider climate change therefore do not consider the greatest challenge to farmers and are therefore an example of poor leadership. Our key concerns in the new legislation are: 1. The lack of explicit consideration of climate change, and the fact that increased clearing as a result of the reforms will drive both regional climate change and national emissions. Historic land clearing has already contributed to increased temperatures, longer, hotter droughts and reduced rainfall in NSW. 2. The Native Vegetation Regulatory Map (NVR Map). i. 67% of clearing in Queensland has occurred on ‘Category X’ land, equivalent to Category 1 in NSW and has been of ‘high value regrowth’. The mapping of post-1990 regrowth as Category 1 will therefore likely result in this being heavily cleared in NSW as was the case in Queensland. 26-year old regrowth may have significant biodiversity value—in coastal areas of NSW such regrowth may resemble a forest— and treating such vegetation as dispensable is a huge missed opportunity to protect recovering native vegetation and reward farmers for doing so. Furthermore, identifying an arbitrary year means that at any point in future, post-1990 vegetation may be cleared regardless of ecological condition. ii. The failure to map a third category of land—off limits to development—as recommended by the Independent Review Panel (the Panel) means that there is no certainty for environmental protection. It also means that the recommendations have not been implemented in full by government as previously stated. iii. Because regulated land (Category 2) cleared under codes is remapped Category 1, there is in reality scant protection for any type of land under the proposed approach. 3. The removal of the ‘maintain or improve’ principle: the Panel recommended that the maintain or improve principle be moved from a site scale to a regional scale, yet the government has removed it entirely. The maintain or improve test is key to ensuring development does not come at too high a cost and that unacceptable development does not occur. This test must be reinstated. Again this demonstrates the government’s failure to implement the recommendations in full. 4. The self-assessable codes permit broad-scale land clearing: for example, the ‘equity’ code allows 500ha to be cleared in every three year period on properties with a high proportion of native vegetation, to a minimum retention of 10%. Oversight by professionals is necessary to ensure that important vegetation is not lost. 5. The codes can be exploited by unscrupulous developers in the coastal zone: coastal land can be cleared under codes (e.g. system efficiency code) provided the primary purpose of the land is agriculture. This means that land can be cleared under codes, and potentially rezoned at some point in the future to permit development that may not have otherwise been acceptable on environmental grounds. 6. The new laws will almost certainly clash with the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) via two ways: 2
i.
Clearing of threatened ecological communities can occur via codes, yet many woodland communities are protected under the EPBC Act. Clearing of threatened ecological communities should not be permitted under any circumstances; ii. Species protected under the EPBC Act may lose important habitat, thus undermining recovery efforts. Local examples in the JBRA area include yellow-bellied gliders and greater gliders to name but two. We strongly condemn the permitted 7. The repeal of the Native Vegetation Act (NVA) is a major concern as the NVA has been successful in reducing clearing rates and has therefore saved the lives of millions of animals. Furthermore, the NVA has been identified in the NSW State of Environment Report (2015) as a key piece of legislation to protect soils, reverse soil degradation and help sustainable land management. The removal of a piece of legislation that is so important to farmers is selfdefeating. 8. The JBRA does not object to funding Private Land Conservation (PLC) and notes that the Great Eastern Ranges (GER) Initiative has a presence in the Jervis Bay area. However, in the absence of regulation preventing broad-scale land clearing such as the NVA, we strongly oppose the proposed PLC funding because it has become a taxpayer subsidy to the farming community to clear land. This is not a good use of public money. 9. The reforms contradict existing policy: i. They clash with the EPBC Act; ii. They undermine Commonwealth policy on climate change; iii. They repeal the NVA which is important for farmers; iv. They will accelerate Key Threatening Processes such as the loss of hollow-bearing trees, clearing of native vegetation and removal of dead wood and trees; v. They undermine efforts by government to increase connectivity (e.g. via the GER) and native vegetation on farms by promoting the planting of paddock trees. 10. The reforms have an unrealistic expectation of offsetting to deliver good outcomes. There are multiple problems with offsetting in the reforms including: i. The difficulty in recreating nature undermining the potential success of offsetting; ii. Time lags between lost habitat and replacement habitat; iii. Violation of no net loss (protecting intact vegetation as a set-aside is a net loss); iv. A lack of red flags where clearing cannot be permitted; v. The use of ‘supplementary measures’ in lieu of genuine offsets; vi. A provision to offset offsets; We reiterate our recommendation that the NSW Government withdraw this legislation, to engage in a fresh round of consultation that is not driven by extreme elements and to develop legislation that will both protect the environment and permit a flourishing and sustainable agricultural sector. Yours sincerely,
Dr Oisín Sweeney Chair, Jervis Bay Regional Alliance T: E: 3
Biodiversity Reforms - Have Your Say, PO Box A290, Sydney South, NSW 1232, 28th June 2016. The Jervis Bay Regional Alliance (JBRA) is an environmental advocacy group covering the coast from Culburra Beach to Sussex Inlet and the catchments and ecosystems of Lake Wollumboola, Jervis Bay and St Georges Basin. The JBRA’s charter includes advocacy for environmental, social and cultural heritage, as well as visual quality of the coast. Sound planning decisions at all levels of government are key areas of concern for our group. The JBRA strongly opposes the draft Local Land Services Amendment Bill and Biodiversity Conservation Bill and we urge the government to withdraw this poorly-designed legislation. Because we oppose the reforms and believe that they are entirely unfit for purpose, our submission does not answer the questions posed by government. Rather we will draw attention to several areas of concern. We note that this morning NSW Farmers have withdrawn their support for the proposed reforms. Given that NSW Farmers were the primary drivers of the reforms, yet their extreme position reflects the view of only a small proportion of farmers, this is an excellent opportunity for the NSW government to implement reforms that are fit for purpose—protecting the environment for future generations and ensuring farmers, the vast majority of whom want to care for nature, are supported to farm sustainably. We further note that the reforms lack any scientific credibility: the letter from The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, sent to all MPs in May, opposed the reforms on the basis that the Panel recommendations were not implemented in full. This letter was also signed by Professor Hugh Possingham, the highest profile member of the panel. The concerns raised by the Wentworth Group included broad-scale land clearing, the lack of a third category on the NVR map, serious flaws in the Private Land Conservation funding model and increased greenhouse gas emissions as key concerns. The reforms are also opposed by the Royal Zoological Society of NSW which contains may respected scientists. The JBRA urges the government to develop science-based legislation to protect the environment and enable sustainable farming. JBRA is deeply concerned that these laws will lead to increased land clearing and associated environmental degradation because of the similarity between the proposed legislation and that passed in Queensland by the Campbell Newman government—particularly in regards self-assessable code-based clearing and the mapping of unregulated land. The legislative changes in Queensland changes led to a dramatic increase in land-clearing rates which has both destroyed precious environments and undermined federal efforts to tackle climate change.
1
We object to the fact that we are being asked to comment on legislation without much of the necessary detail. For example the Native Vegetation Regulatory maps are not yet available and there is no information on the private land conservation funding strategy, and therefore no way to assess how effective it may be. There is also substantial detail missing from the self-assessable codes, which are a key area of concern for the JBRA. The JBRA is of the view that climate change, the impacts of which will be worsened by land clearing associated with the new laws, should be the primary consideration when seeking to provide leadership to the farming community. The failure of the reforms to consider climate change therefore do not consider the greatest challenge to farmers and are therefore an example of poor leadership. Our key concerns in the new legislation are: 1. The lack of explicit consideration of climate change, and the fact that increased clearing as a result of the reforms will drive both regional climate change and national emissions. Historic land clearing has already contributed to increased temperatures, longer, hotter droughts and reduced rainfall in NSW. 2. The Native Vegetation Regulatory Map (NVR Map). i. 67% of clearing in Queensland has occurred on ‘Category X’ land, equivalent to Category 1 in NSW and has been of ‘high value regrowth’. The mapping of post-1990 regrowth as Category 1 will therefore likely result in this being heavily cleared in NSW as was the case in Queensland. 26-year old regrowth may have significant biodiversity value—in coastal areas of NSW such regrowth may resemble a forest— and treating such vegetation as dispensable is a huge missed opportunity to protect recovering native vegetation and reward farmers for doing so. Furthermore, identifying an arbitrary year means that at any point in future, post-1990 vegetation may be cleared regardless of ecological condition. ii. The failure to map a third category of land—off limits to development—as recommended by the Independent Review Panel (the Panel) means that there is no certainty for environmental protection. It also means that the recommendations have not been implemented in full by government as previously stated. iii. Because regulated land (Category 2) cleared under codes is remapped Category 1, there is in reality scant protection for any type of land under the proposed approach. 3. The removal of the ‘maintain or improve’ principle: the Panel recommended that the maintain or improve principle be moved from a site scale to a regional scale, yet the government has removed it entirely. The maintain or improve test is key to ensuring development does not come at too high a cost and that unacceptable development does not occur. This test must be reinstated. Again this demonstrates the government’s failure to implement the recommendations in full. 4. The self-assessable codes permit broad-scale land clearing: for example, the ‘equity’ code allows 500ha to be cleared in every three year period on properties with a high proportion of native vegetation, to a minimum retention of 10%. Oversight by professionals is necessary to ensure that important vegetation is not lost. 5. The codes can be exploited by unscrupulous developers in the coastal zone: coastal land can be cleared under codes (e.g. system efficiency code) provided the primary purpose of the land is agriculture. This means that land can be cleared under codes, and potentially rezoned at some point in the future to permit development that may not have otherwise been acceptable on environmental grounds. 6. The new laws will almost certainly clash with the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) via two ways: 2
i.
Clearing of threatened ecological communities can occur via codes, yet many woodland communities are protected under the EPBC Act. Clearing of threatened ecological communities should not be permitted under any circumstances; ii. Species protected under the EPBC Act may lose important habitat, thus undermining recovery efforts. Local examples in the JBRA area include yellow-bellied gliders and greater gliders to name but two. We strongly condemn the permitted 7. The repeal of the Native Vegetation Act (NVA) is a major concern as the NVA has been successful in reducing clearing rates and has therefore saved the lives of millions of animals. Furthermore, the NVA has been identified in the NSW State of Environment Report (2015) as a key piece of legislation to protect soils, reverse soil degradation and help sustainable land management. The removal of a piece of legislation that is so important to farmers is selfdefeating. 8. The JBRA does not object to funding Private Land Conservation (PLC) and notes that the Great Eastern Ranges (GER) Initiative has a presence in the Jervis Bay area. However, in the absence of regulation preventing broad-scale land clearing such as the NVA, we strongly oppose the proposed PLC funding because it has become a taxpayer subsidy to the farming community to clear land. This is not a good use of public money. 9. The reforms contradict existing policy: i. They clash with the EPBC Act; ii. They undermine Commonwealth policy on climate change; iii. They repeal the NVA which is important for farmers; iv. They will accelerate Key Threatening Processes such as the loss of hollow-bearing trees, clearing of native vegetation and removal of dead wood and trees; v. They undermine efforts by government to increase connectivity (e.g. via the GER) and native vegetation on farms by promoting the planting of paddock trees. 10. The reforms have an unrealistic expectation of offsetting to deliver good outcomes. There are multiple problems with offsetting in the reforms including: i. The difficulty in recreating nature undermining the potential success of offsetting; ii. Time lags between lost habitat and replacement habitat; iii. Violation of no net loss (protecting intact vegetation as a set-aside is a net loss); iv. A lack of red flags where clearing cannot be permitted; v. The use of ‘supplementary measures’ in lieu of genuine offsets; vi. A provision to offset offsets; We reiterate our recommendation that the NSW Government withdraw this legislation, to engage in a fresh round of consultation that is not driven by extreme elements and to develop legislation that will both protect the environment and permit a flourishing and sustainable agricultural sector. Yours sincerely,
Dr Oisín Sweeney Chair, Jervis Bay Regional Alliance T: E: 3
