Tree protection laws face the axe

BY KENJI SATO

Farmers and developers will be able to clear more land under a proposed overhaul of NSW biodiversity laws, which would introduce more “flexible” land clearing regulations.

The proposals were outlined last week in the State government’s draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill and Local Land Services Amendment Bill, which would replace the existing Native Vegetation Act and parts of the Threatened Species Act.

Under the new laws, biodiversity would be treated on a state level, rather than a local level, with a biodiversity offsets scheme. Farmers and developers would be able to remove trees and “offset” the biodiversity loss by planting trees elsewhere, paying money into a fund for biodiversity projects, or by trading “biodiversity credits” with other developers.

Dr Leigh Martin, ecologist from the Total Environment Centre, told City Hub that the new offset scheme was an attempt to replace irreplaceable ecosystems under what he calls an “apples and oranges, or apples and cash” deal.

“The crucial principle of offsets is that the offsets should be of a similar community type and similar quality in the area that is being developed or cleared. But under this policy, they don’t need to satisfy this strict like-for-like test.”

Dr Martin told City Hub that the new biodiversity credit system was “essentially meaningless” because head authorities, such as the Minister for the Environment, would have full discretion in deciding how many credits would be required to offset.

Shadow Minister for the Environment Penny Sharpe said the draft biodiversity bills would give too much power to government agencies, and that they were “biodiversity conservation bills in name only”.

“This process has been driven by an ideological obsession of some elements of the National Party whose only aim is to rip up the existing laws,” she said in a statement.

“Mike Baird has capitulated to the National Party and has extended his war on trees to all of NSW.”

Nationals leader and Deputy Premier Troy Grant said that abolishing the Native Vegetation Act would protect the environment and gives farmers a “fair go”.

“For too long the burden of these laws has rested on the shoulders of farmers – and I am proud we are one step closer to repealing this legislation and delivering on the independent panel’s recommendations to reform land management in this state.”

Derek Schoen, the Associate President for NSW Farmers, said that red tape around land clearing had been threatening the livelihoods of struggling farming families.

“The Native Vegetation Act has hampered efficient and effective farming practices for over two decades. There are groups that want to see even more restrictive new laws. Interestingly these people are not the ones bearing the costs of this flawed legislation, or dealing with the environmental damage it causes,” he said.

NSW Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi said that similar laws in Queensland, which loosened regulation around land clearing, proved to be “the ingredients of environmental disaster”.

“When the Queensland Government made it easier to clear land, there was a doubling of land clearing and the removal of almost 300,000 hectares of bushland, 20 times the size of the Royal National Park in Sydney. On top of this there was the release of 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, further exacerbating climate change.”

“Expanding the deeply flawed biodiversity offsetting system in NSW is completely misplaced and will only lead to even greater environmental devastation.”

“Making clearing land easier will be an absolute disaster in a state where sixty-one per cent of the original native vegetation of NSW has already been cleared, thinned or significantly disturbed, most of it in the last 50 years.”

The government has promised $240 million over five years for private land conservation and $100 million for a “Saving Our Species program”. Farmers would also receive money for maintaining native plants and trees on their land.

But Kate Smolski, CEO of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, said that the Government was merely swapping legal protections for financial incentives, an ideological move that “will not compensate for the increased clearing that this bill will allow”.

“It is unacceptable to trade binding legal protections for funding promises that are not enforceable by law. Governments have a record of dishonouring funding commitments and raiding the budgets of environmental agencies when tax revenues decline. A funding promise is worthless without a legislative guarantee. We need both.”

“What this bill is really about is facilitating fast development, removing any impediment to development by lowering protections for native bushland and wildlife habitat.”

The Biodiversity Conservation Bill and Local Land Services Amendment Bill were put up for public display last week, and will be open for submissions until 28 June.