Submission. Specific concerns - Missing Information

Transcription

1 Submission As an Ecologist/Environmental Scientist working on the NSW Far North Coast in both local government and private consulting over the past 20 years, I provide the following comments and recommendations as a submission to the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016, Local Land Services Amendment Bill 2016 and relevant supporting material. I support the submission from NOROC and Byron Shire Council and add to the matters therein below. Specific concerns - Missing Information The information provided to date on the reform package is perhaps equal to that expected of a green paper, where a white paper and significant additional consultation is still to come. It is not clear why the usual stepped process is not being undertaken with such significant legislative changes. The result is that the process appears rushed and somewhat exclusive. This significantly impacts the ability of all stakeholders, including councils, to understand and provide meaningful feedback on the proposed reforms. Fundamental resources required to understand and provide informed feedback include: o The Native Vegetation Regulatory Map. o Associated State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) detail, including the ability of Councils to define locally relevant biodiversity within a DCP and how this may interact with the SEPP as an overriding legislative instrument. In this regard, the criteria developed for the application of Environmental Protection Zones on the NSW Far North Coast of NSW is stringent and must be demonstrable; therefore these areas (at least E2) should not be subject to assessable clearing but should be protected. o Definition and map of Areas of Outstanding Biodiversity Value adoption of current critical habitat only as the definition is inadequate and not supported. This definition should be expanded to include areas such as the Great Eastern Ranges, RAMSAR wetlands, existing National Parks and Nature Reserves and corridor connections between the coast and ranges at least. o Definition and map of threshold values. Suggestions have been made that SEPP 14, SEPP 26 and core Koala habitat are likely to be contained within this definition. Difficulties with these components are that: SEPP 14 mapping has been revised but not exhibited for comment on its local accuracy; SEPP 26 mapping is more than 20 years old and no longer represents the extent of Littoral Rainforest (particularly at Broken Head in Byron Shire where former regrowth is now forest). Core koala habitat as defined under SEPP 44 (itself undergoing reassessment) has been shown to be legally problematic and unable to

2 o o o protect koala populations into the future even on a local shire basis. How can core koala habitat be adequately mapped at a state level and what level of survey and period of review is proposed for such maps? Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) and site-restricted species and communities do not appear to be intended for inclusion. Thus in Byron Shire, the highly restricted EEC Dwarf Graminoid Clay Heath and its associated characteristic threatened species are not flagged for protection and would appear able to be traded for other communities, likely to result in local extinctions over time. Coastal EEC s on the far north coast have been shown to be greater than 70% cleared and consistently under pressure from development. If not included, at what point is over-clearing regarded as too much? Definition of serious and irreversible impacts it is imperative that the only criteria by which biodiversity impacts are considered too great and thus development may be refused is clearly defined and stringent. Definition and ability of Councils to locally define avoid and minimise impacts, particularly since the example given at the Coffs Harbor workshop did not avoid or minimize in any appreciative way at all. crucial detail to be included in the Regulations are missing and an overview of the intent should be included. Additional important and related legislative changes that impact the Biodiversity reforms are still being formulated; including detail and regulation relating to the Coastal Management reforms, biodiversity SEPP reviews and associated maps. Recommendations: 1. The Biodiversity Reform package should be re-exhibited and a further consultation period provided once each of the above-listed fundamental components has been completed. 2. EECs and geographically-restricted species should be included on the threshold values map. Biodiversity Assessment Methodology (BAM) A consistent, universal, repeatable and robust biodiversity assessment technique is welcomed. Accurate state-wide vegetation mapping of OEH s Plant Community Types (such as the Queensland Regional Ecosystem mapping) would be a very valuable background tool to reduce costs and add certainty to proposed developments. Site-based vegetation mapping would then consist of tweaking accepted vegetation types and extent from

3 available maps, rather than the onerous process proposed in starting from scratch each time using the BAM. Far North Coast Councils have invested in vegetation mapping (some to PCT types) which could be provided as a subset of a state-wide system. Targeting investment at accurate mapping is considered a better alternative than the proposed BAM and accreditation requirements. The Biobanking Assessment Methodology is an existing system that has delivered adequate biodiversity outcomes, albeit with limited take-up to date. The differences between BAM and BBAM have not been explained but use of the most lenient category of assessment methodologies out of the current three available (major projects) appears likely to reduce standards and minimize required offsets in comparison to BBAM. It is considered that the BBAM standard is relevant and should be retained and that the market will develop quickly if credits are required for offsets. BBAM has the ability to define low condition vegetation and this should be the only threshold method applied. On the NSW far north coast, minimum lot sizes of 40 hectares are the largest available. Due to the significance, limited extent and high conservation value of all remaining native vegetation communities in good condition, a nil threshold should be applied before the relevant assessment methodology is applied. The proposed system represents a cost-shifting to local government in assessing Biodiversity Assessment reports, a function currently undertaken by OEH using their specialist expertise. Additional funding and resources should be allocated to OEH to fulfill this function in a timely manner. Recommendations: 3. Resources should be applied to producing an accurate state-wide vegetation mapping system to Plant Community Types, similar to Queensland s Regional Ecosystem mapping. 4. The BBAM should be retained as the assessment methodology. 5. On the NSW far north coast, a nil threshold should be applied before biodiversity must be assessed using the relevant methodology. 6. OEH should remain the assessing officers for BAR s. Approved statements would then accompany development applications. Offset Strategy The hierarchy proposed to retire credits; make a payment to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust to find the credits; to fund other biodiversity conservation actions; or finally to undertake alternate actions if approved by the Minister is not supported. Credit retirement of like-for-like species and communities on a local or possibly regional basis is supported. State-wide species credit trading is not supported. Such a scheme is likely to result in local extinctions where development pressure is high, such as coastal communities generally.

4 If like-for-like species or ecological community credits cannot be found, it is likely that they may not be available, or that landowners with potential credits may not wish to facilitate loss of biodiversity elsewhere. This needs to operate as a hold-point to clearing. Payment of funds to the BCT in order that they seek out the required credits is not fundamentally opposed and would appear a logical way for a body with the expertise and established contacts to assist the offset process. However, if such a payment represents the end of developer obligations and thus clearing can occur and development can commence; local extinctions are again likely. Take as an example a site-limited species or community that may represent an absolute constraint to date. Recommendations: 7. Offsets should be like-for like only. If such offsets cannot be found then this is a clear indication that the relevant species or community needs to be retained. 8. Offsets should be at least demonstrated to be available, preferably locked in before development can commence. 9. Other biodiversity conservation actions should be required to offset indirect impacts of development but not direct impacts. 10. Mining should be required to rehabilitate land as a fundamental part of approvals and this work should not be available for use in credit trading. LLS Amendment Act In a global market, Australian agricultural products are recognized as superior for their product quality and high production and food safety standards. The removal of the previous Native Vegetation Act requirements to consider soil, water and salinity impacts is not agreed. Such spillover effects from land clearance have the ability to discredit NSW farmers and do not accord with the ESD principle of intergenerational equity. Land clearing codes for equity and efficiency are not agreed, have not considered other benefits provided such as soil-holding capacity, nutrient cycling, pest control, shade and windbreak gains and likely to lead to reduced farm productivity in the longer term. The argument that trees cannot be cleared and there is too much red tape is untrue and arises from loss of funding to (then) CMA s. A third category of land is needed in the Native Vegetation Regulatory map to cover areas of high biodiversity value such as EECs, otherwise almost all native vegetation is able to be cleared and offset. This is a clearer and upfront way to consider high biodiversity values, as opposed to the proposed threshold values map which does not appear to apply to rural land and LLS assessment. Recommendation:

5 11. Category 3 vegetation, including EECs, CEECs and habitat for geographically-restricted species should be included on the Native Vegetation Regulatory Map, with clearing prohibited in this category except for exceptional circumstances. 12. Codes that facilitate broadscale clearing should be removed. 13. The soil, water and salinity factors should be retained in the LLS amendments to protect important productive farmland. 14. Funding should be restored to LLS to enable timely and appropriate assessment of native biodiversity potential clearing in the rural landscape. Climate Change Implications Australia signed the Paris Agreement last year committing to reducing Carbon emissions. The lack of restrictions on land clearing as outlined in the Biodiversity reform package can only lead to a direct and immediate increase in clearing and thus a spike in emissions, as was shown when similar relaxations occurred in Queensland. Recommendation: 15. Climate change implications should be a fundamental consideration of the Biodiversity reform package and penalties or trading required to avoid or minimize broad-acre land clearing. Indigenous Values Indigenous heritage values associated with biodiversity and the landscape have not been recognized anywhere in the Biodiversity reform package. Recommendation: 16. Indigenous representatives should be invited to working groups and expert panels to provide much needed expertise on sustainable land management. Conclusion - Biodiversity Review Panel report It is understood that the basis for biodiversity legislation review was the Independent Biodiversity Review Panel Final Report of December The independent panel was tasked to pursue: better environmental outcomes (and better monitoring and documentation of progress) reduced compliance burden and greater potential productivity gains for regulated parties

6 minimal increase in program delivery and administration costs to NSW taxpayers (but some reallocation of effort). I consider that none of the points above are likely to be achieved with the currently proposed legislation because: Environmental outcomes not all of the recommendations were adopted within the reform package. For example, the panel recommended a third category of land to be included in the Native Vegetation map to cover areas of high biodiversity value such as EECs, yet this was omitted such that almost all native vegetation is able to be cleared and offset. environmental outcomes are uncertain because vital information and maps are yet to be produced (e.g. areas of outstanding biodiversity value are yet to be defined; serious and irreversible impacts are not defined and not avoided; avoid and minimise is not defined and apparently not necessary (if the Coffs Harbour workshop example given is considered as best practice) and too many alternatives to providing offsets are proposed where like-for-like is not available. Payment of money into a Trust Fund in order for the Fund to find an offset where not readily available may be a viable proposition if the offset must be found before clearing can take place. local biodiversity will be unequally impacted in areas of high development pressure, such as the east coast where, on the far north coast at least, little unconstrained land is available due to previous development and biodiversity losses. funding for private land conservation is time-limited and dependent on political will, rather than enshrined in the legislation. Reduced compliance & greater potential productivity The LLS Amendment Act removes former Native Vegetation Act provisions which required consideration of soil, water and salinity controls with regard to clearing. When these triggers are no longer important, loss of soil, increased salinity and pollution of natural waterways can only be the likely results. While increased farmland may result from native vegetation removal in the short-term, loss of productive topsoils and healthy waterways will almost certainly be the long-term results. In a global market, Australian agricultural products are recognised for their high quality, production and food safety standards. The reform package risks NSW agriculture in the long term Increased efficiency as assumed by the new code does not equal increased farm productivity. Compliance may be reduced simply because there is so much apparent scope to justify clearing that little compliance action will be taken even where biodiversity impacts may be serious and irreversible, contrary to principles enshrined in ESD. Program delivery and administration costs

7 The introduction of the compulsory BAM assessment methodology and associated training requirements increases complexity of assessments and will increase program delivery and administration costs and timeframes, particularly to local government. The Biodiversity Review Panel Final Report also stated that: our goal must be to minimise future losses of native biodiversity. While there is a delay between habitat degradation and extinctions, by aiming to conserve habitats in good condition, we can reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. We believe that this can be done at the same time as reducing regulation and improving social and economic outcomes. I also consider that this can be done; however, the current approach is too lenient to do so and will very likely result in local species extinctions. Overall, the approach taken in the reform package is considered to represent the commodification of biodiversity where assumptions are made using a managerial approach derived from economic theory over science and the prevention of significant biodiversity impacts as a first consideration. Recommendations to improve the package toward improved environmental outcomes and support for ecologically sustainable development are provided throughout this submission. Recommendation 17. That working groups be formed with representatives from all stakeholder groups (including local government) at a regional scale (e.g NSW North Coast) to review and rewrite the proposed biodiversity reforms to achieve the stated aims of the Review.