NSW BIODIVERSITY REFORMS CRITICISED BY SOME FARMERS

 The NSW Government’s proposed biodiversity reforms have been criticised by conservationists and scientists who fear that the weakening of native vegetation laws will lead to an increase in  widespread land clearing and an acceleration of  native flora and fauna extinctions. 

 

These reforms replace other legislation including the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

They have also been criticised by some farmers for similar reasons.

Towards the end of June Inverell beef farmer Glenn Morris rode his horse across the Harbour Bridge to draw attention to the problems he saw with the new legislation.

He said that soil and vegetation  were not the most popular things to talk about “but if we don’t start getting a culture of respect and love for nature, we’re in big trouble.” 

Echonet recently reported on a statement from a group of farmers calling on the state government to make significant changes to the proposed legislation - the Local Land Services Amendment Bill and the Biodiversity Conservation Bill.

These concerned farmers, including two former Young Farmers of the Year and a former regional director of the NSW Agriculture Department and CEO of Landcare, are urging the government to set bold goals for improving native vegetation and farm sustainability. They  want the new laws to ensure that soil health, salinity and water quality are protected and that there is a significant increase in funds for stewardship and private land conservation.

.

Northern Rivers Macadamia farmer Pam Brook is concerned that the proposed legislation will lead to more land clearing rather than regenerating and restoring farmland.  She points to her experience where the reintroduction of rainforest on her property paid big dividends.

“In the early days we used spray for everything,” she said. “One of the things we’ve discovered with the rainforest is that it’s a great source of predator bugs and insects that provide a rich balance for our macadamia orchards.”

Another statement signatory, Alstonville avocado farmer Michael Hogan pointed out, “Any stock and station agent will tell you that a well-treed property will attract a higher price than a cleared farm.”

            - Leonie Blain

 

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on August 15, 2016.

LAND CLEARING AND BIODIVERSITY IN NSW

The first of the NSW Government’s biodiversity reforms went on public exhibition on May 3 for eight weeks.  These proposed new laws are to replace other legislation including the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

The draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill and the draft Local Land Services Amendment Bill are the first parts of the reform package to be released.

The stated purpose of the reforms is to “cut red tape, facilitate ecologically sustainable development and conserve biodiversity across NSW”.  

The cutting of red tape purpose is the result of the National Party promise to farmers that they would repeal the Native Vegetation Act.  The new rules will specify a system of self-regulation for farmers wanting to clear land – a system that the Government says will provide them with greater flexibility. 

Self-regulation is a mantra of government in the 21^st century.  It may be inspired by the desire to cut red tape for consumers as well as cutting costs for government agencies or, as a cynic may suspect, to allow “open slather” where there is usually very little checking by government agencies of whether the letter or spirit of the law is being met. Whatever the Government’s motive, self-regulation is wide-open to abuse.

Whether the new system will “facilitate ecologically sustainable development and conserve biodiversity” is very doubtful. 

Conservationists believe that the Government’s proposed changes to land clearing will endanger more species and lead to further carbon emissions.

There is concern that there will be increased clearing. We could see a similar devastation of native vegetation to that occurring in Queensland following the Newman Government’s weakened clearing laws. Almost 300,000 hectares of bushland were cleared there in 2013-14.

According to NSW Environment Minister Mark Speakman this won’t happen because there will be “a wider range of checks and balances in place to make sure that what we might have seen in Queensland does not happen in NSW.”

The checks and balances will need to be carefully designed and properly funded if the new rules are not to lead to broadscale land clearing.

-          Leonie Blain

This  post originally appeared in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on 9th May, 2016.

FARMING AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION

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.