Land Clearing Campaign

Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 09:11

The broadscale clearing of native vegetation is devastating to native wildlife and plants and produces millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases. TEC is playing a major part in the campaign to end clearing in New South Wales, by lobbying government; debating the issue in the media; and participating in extensive negotiations with government and other stakeholders to develop new laws to ban the clearing.

Our work has so far led to the Sinclair Report which set out new controls on clearing and established landscape restoration programs; and the Native Vegetation Act, Regulation and Assessment Methodology. We have been successful in obtaining the removal of exemptions from clearing controls, which were being abused by coastal developers.

Despite the advances, more needs to be done. TEC is campaigning for improvements including:

• a strong compliance and monitoring system;
• curbs on the use of rotational agriculture, that converts remnant vegetation to regrowth and makes it easier to clear;
• urgent review of so-called invasive scrub clearing, which can create a cover for the return of broadscale clearing;
• controls on private native forestry, which is currently unsustainable and not subject to acceptable environmental prescriptions;
• increased protection for native grasslands;
• new urban planning controls that put development in already cleared locations and protect remaining native vegetation, especially along the coast.

Offsets

The idea of allowing some development with vegetation damage by offsetting with compensatory measures is gaining in popularity with government. Environment groups have concerns.  In NSW the most recent proposal is called 'biobanking'.

Biobanking was developed by the NSW Government during 2006 and legislation was passed by Parliament.  It aims to apply an environmental assessment methodology to urban, mining and industrial land clearing proposals to assess what offsets may be required.   The developer then needs to buy biodiversity credits based on native vegetation that meets the offset and needs to be better protected or managed.

That's the theory but will it work?  Environment groups don't think so as the government's model is optional (developers can cherry-pick weaker processes and bypass biobanking).  We are also concerned about 'red flag' areas - which should not be developed under any circumstances. On the other hand a better methodology for assessing impacts and offsets has been developed by the department and could be used more widely compared to the ad hoc, weak approaches to date.

Biobanking also creates a separate set of rules for land clearing to those (stricter) rules that apply to farmers.  It's not equitable.

Reports:

Biobanking Methodology Review (12/12/07)

Biobanking - Red flag variation concerns (21/11/07)

Biobanking critique (2006)

In 2002, the peak environment groups issued a critique about offsets.