National Farmers Federation

Transcription

1 National Farmers Federation Submission to the National Wildlife Corridors Plan Advisory Group for the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan 20 April 2012 Prepared by Charles McElhone General Manager, Policy Page 1

2 Member Organisations Page 2

3 Contents National Farmers Federation Introduction Principle based approach rather that Legislation Voluntary Participation by Private Landholders Funding Governance and planning Monitoring and evaluation Conclusion... 7 Page 3

4 National Farmers Federation The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) is the peak national body representing farmers and, more broadly, agriculture across Australia. It is one of Australia's respected lobbying and advocacy organisations. Since its inception in 1979, the NFF has earned a reputation as a leader in the identification, development and achievement of policy outcomes - championing matters affecting farmers and dedicated to the advancement of agriculture. The NFF is dedicated to proactively generating greater understanding and awareness of farming's modern role, contribution and value to the entire community. One of the keys to the NFF's success has been its commitment to presenting innovative and forward-looking solutions to the issues affecting agriculture, striving to meet current and emerging challenges, and advancing Australia's vital agricultural production base. The NFF's membership comprises all Australia's major agricultural commodity groups. Operating under a federated structure, individual farmers join their respective state farm organisation and/or national commodity council. These organisations collectively form the NFF. The NFF has implemented a re-structure of the organisation. Through an associate category, this has enabled a broader cross section of the agricultural sector to become members of the NFF, including the breadth and the length of the supply chain. Each of the state farm organisations and commodity councils deal with state-based 'grass roots' issues or commodity specific issues while the NFF represents the agreed position of all at the national and international level. Page 4

5 1. Introduction The NFF welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan (the Plan). The NFF understands that implementation of a National Wildlife Corridors Plan was part of the Australian Labor Party s 2010 Federal Election Commitments (known then as Green Corridors ). NFF notes that the purpose of the Plan is to guide environmental management and biodiversity works and investment at the landscape scale. In this submission, NFF identifies a number of principles for wildlife corridors, and NFF acknowledges that the Plan currently enshrines those principles and as such is supported. However, any final plan that seeks to move away from these principles, including the use of legislative measures and any move away from the voluntary participation of landholders, risks the withdrawal of the NFF s in principle support. 2. Principle based approach rather that Legislation The purpose of the Plan is to guide environmental management and biodiversity works and investment. To achieve this purpose, NFF believes legislation is not required. Firstly, legislation is administratively expensive, time consuming and can lead to future churn when changes are required. Secondly, agriculture is wary that legislation that has good intent may be misinterpreted to achieve other outcomes. Thirdly, that legislation may be targeted for regulatory creep over time, including at local, state and federal levels. As alternative to legislation, NFF supports a principle based approach to the Plan that must: Be strictly voluntary and incentive based; Have no impact on property rights; Ensure threats from invasive species and fire are managed, coordinated and appropriately funded; Identify and secure long-term resourcing for the management and funding of identified corridors; Ensure corridors replicate the natural environment; Is evidence based and provides continuity; Does not create perverse outcomes (e.g. wrong species in wrong area, prohibiting natural movement of water, impacts on groundwater); Have strict criteria and processes for identifying future corridors; Is equitable for all parts of the community (agriculture, urban, rural, mining and conservation); and Have appropriate governance structures and mechanisms to deal with liability of any potential unmanaged risks. NFF considers these broad principles are currently enshrined in the Plan and NFF would support this approach. However, any changes to the Plan that does not support these broad principles, including the use of legislative measures, jeopardise the support of NFF members and agriculture in general. Page 5

6 3. Voluntary participation by Private Landholders NFF advocates voluntary participation by private landholders that has no impact on property rights. There are numerous reasons why farmers or landholders would want to be part of the Plan. NFF considers some of these could include: The necessity for legislation; Support for incentive based programs or public good payments; Recognition of stewardship and the goodwill of communities; Market opportunities for carbon and biodiversity; and Effective resources for management of weeds, pests and fire. Participation must be voluntary and any landholder who does not want to be part of the program should not be forced to be included. Similarly, a person who wants to be part of the program must be supported to participate. Regardless of the desire of landholders in proposed corridors, there must be no impact on property rights. The question arises as to what happens to landholders who maybe hemmed in. A firm strategy must be developed to avoid perverse outcomes for or on non-participating landholders. 4. Funding The funding for implementation of the Plan requires long-term support. One observation made by many landholders is that 13 per cent of Australia s land mass is in the National Reserve System and a further 17 per cent in other protected areas, minimal use and water yet this is often poorly resourced, managed, afflicted by pests and weeds and has a lock up and leave mentality by governments. The timescale of funding and management is long-term. For success, there is a requirement for ongoing management and funding to be considered in the timescale of wildlife corridors i.e. what is considered an established wildlife corridor and what is considered as an effectively managed corridor. NFF advocates that funding should support an ongoing incentive based scheme or the establishment of a program to support the conservation management this may be competitive programs or stewardship programs, however a source and ongoing level of funding is required for program success. 5. Governance and planning Governance and planning is going to be critical to the success of the program. As stated in the Plan, the national network of wildlife corridors will depend on collaboration to ensure effective cross-jurisdictional and cross-regional planning, management and performance reporting. Managing the interests and priorities of landholders and stakeholders requires support of the principles on page 30 of the Plan. Page 6

7 In relation to issues raised by NFF members, invasive species and fire management plans feature highly. The question arises as to who will be responsible for creating, implementing, managing and funding these plans. If it will be the landholder then how will they be supported? In a given corridor, there is a risk these management issues could become the responsibility of non-participating landowners within the corridor. It is unclear from the plan how this can be prevented, or how to ensure participation remains voluntary and property rights are not impacted. This issue needs to be resolved to ensure an equitable outcome for all members of the community. Similarly, a person, / landholder or community involved may need access to nonparticipatory landholders to manage these issues. Legal and regulatory issues around access to private property need to be considered, as this currently poses a challenge to landholders trying to manage weeds or feral animals. Wildlife corridors may create the potential for greater human-wildlife conflict. For example, corridors could provide increased access to private land for native animals that impact production such as kangaroos or wild dogs. In planning corridors, it will be critical to identify and address potential conflicts that could arise. Issues of governance, including clearly defined roles and responsibilities, ensuring participation is voluntary, and limiting the impacts on non-participating landholders poses to be the most challenging aspect of the Plan. 6. Monitoring and evaluation Governance, monitoring and evaluation need careful thought and consideration. Governments have invested significant resources over recent decades to address community concerns about the environment. Understanding whether this investment has achieved any positive improvement is unavailable let alone the impact of legacy management since European settlement. Governments must agree on an approach across all investment activities, and across all jurisdictions that will enable monitoring of effort, evaluation of the outcomes and an understanding of what needs to be done where in future. Failure to fund and establish good effective monitoring and evaluation is critical to understanding success not just of the Plan but all natural resource management investment. 7. Conclusion The Plan represents the Australian Government s strategy to restore and manage ecological connections in the Australian Landscape via a collaborative, voluntary whole-of-landscape approach. The NFF supports the need for involvement in the draft Plan and corridor activities to remain voluntary, and seeks clarification of how the Plan will interact with local, regional and state planning and native vegetation regimes, and that weed and pest animal management must be a key priority. However, the NFF and its Members reject the suggestion that overarching legislation is required indeed, for many in the agricultural sector, reference to legislation may be a killer blow. Page 7

8 Page 8