An interesting article appeared
in the Australian Farm Institute's February “Ag Forum”, expressing
farmers’ frustration over the on-going biodiversity protection laws that
prevent them doing whatever they want on their properties. Nevertheless, the
author, Mick Keogh, does accept that retention of biodiversity is, "an
outcome which is unquestionably a ‘public good’ – the benefits of which are
enjoyed by the entire community".
I was surprised however, at his
subsequent claim that, “environmental groups have never acknowledged the
glaring inequity associated with imposing these bans (and their associated
cost) on privately owned farmland”. I admit that consideration of who bears
the cost of maintaining biodiversity levels is probably not a top priority for
the average conservationist. However, as a local environmentalist, I'd like it
on record that I have frequently advocated for stewardship payments to be made
to landowners for protection of native vegetation, and also for more support
from governments to prevent exploitation by powerful retail chains. After all a
cash-strapped landowner is less inclined to adopt more expensive beneficial
environmental practices.
Environment groups have also
urged Government to introduce carbon trading, providing landowners with an
additional income stream by retaining native vegetation.
In compiling submissions on
biodiversity matters, both to State and Federal Governments, I have repeatedly
proposed that farmers, who find themselves owning land that is no longer viable
because of a changing climate, be offered the opportunity to manage their
properties for biodiversity and carbon storage, thus assisting government to
meet its international commitment to emissions reduction.
Many farmers are already
receiving drought relief, and other tax-payer funded support and many will
never be able to recover financially. Therefore paying them to remove
livestock, and instead manage pest animals and weeds while nature recovers,
would not only benefit the planet, but provide those landowners with a renewed
sense of purpose as well as an income.
Finally, it should be stressed
that mankind is dependent on biodiversity for our very existence. So with much
of that biodiversity occurring on private land, if we need to pay to protect
it, so be it.
-
John Edwards
This post originally appeared in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on 7th March, 2016.
