Why is there so much concern?

Clearing of about 420 000 hectares in 1998-99 has a major impact on the both the Queensland Murray Darling Basin, and the emission of carbon dioxide, and has caused loss of biodiversity. Australia is 5th in the world in terms of clearing, with 85% of this being for pastoral use and 9% for cropping. However, much of the clearing is not on family farms but on large pastoral companies’ leases or freehold. Under the new Qld. Vegetation Management Act on freehold, only endangered ecosystems lands are protected, a tiny percentage of the state.

In 100 years, 20% of all birds in Queensland will be lost. There are time lags before extinction’s become evident following clearing, of perhaps 20 to 100 years, so it is hard to convince people to stop clearing. New research indicates that every tree supports about 30 species of animal – many of them small invertebrates (animals without backbones) such as slaters, ants, cicadas and butterflies. Start multiplying the numbers of trees being pulled and you get the idea of how many other species we will be losing!

World climate is changing, warming up. 25% of the gases, which are causing such warming, would drop if tree clearing stopped. Vegetation management rather than vegetation clearing is one highly recommended method of reducing carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

We do need a new land ethic – a new way of repairing the past damage. We do need a framework that is not merely a short-term cycle. We do need the realisation that it is not just trees that have to be conserved – it is the retention of grasslands, the heath, the groundcover that is just as important to prevent soil degradation and erosion. It is also important to interpret these values in relation to new farming methods and land use.

Why is Wildlife Queensland (WPSQ) involved?

Background: WPSQ is one of the oldest and conservative conservation groups in Queensland, being founded in 1962 by the poet Judith Wright, artist Kathleen McArthur, scientist David Fleay and publisher Brian Coulston. Individual membership is about one thousand, and there are 24 branches scattered across the State, including four with major landholder interests – Tully, Bundaberg, Upper Dawson/Taroom, and Dalby/Darling Downs. All of our members and Branches have had the opportunity to comment on the debate as to how vegetation on private lands should be managed. We have negotiated actively in meetings with other conservation groups, with landholders especially canegrowers and graziers, with politicians and government officers in DNR, and this is an on-going process. The amended Vegetation Management Act 2000 is not our favoured position, but is a compromise reached by the Premier, administrators and major agricultural groups. Most conservation groups have withdrawn from the current process of vegetation management working groups and committees across the state, but WPSQ members have voted to remain in the process so as to achieve at least some of the following objectives.

WPSQ wishes to achieve key objectives through our participation in the vegetation management process:

• The long term reduction in clearing across all land tenures and all types of ecosystems;
• The maximum protection of wildlife in the short and long term;
• The maintenance of ecological processes;
• The nomination of maximum areas of high nature conservation value, the declaration and protection of the areas vulnerable to land degradation and delineation of ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems and centres of endemism (only found in that locality);
• The establishment of effective codes and guidelines for assessing clearing applications, so as to protect the land, reduce salinity and acid sulphate soils hazards and allow sustainable use of the land;
• An increased understanding of the terminology, the Act itself and its shortcomings, and the methods of protecting and enhancing biodiversity;
• Development of networking and communication skills, capacity building of people involved, particularly in conflict resolution, consideration of alternative outcomes and technical skills in map and data reading;
• Access to detailed technical information about vegetation and other data sets;
• Further research by WPSQ and other groups in areas where no RVMP group or conservation representatives exists;
• An acceptance by stakeholders of the need for legislative controls or agreements and incentives about vegetation management on private land as well as leasehold land.

Participation in the Vegetation Management Committees and Working Parties is seen by WPSQ individuals and Branches to contribute to these wishes.

There are a few difficulties preventing us from achieving these objectives immediately:

1. The lack of resourcing, training and education of landholders, developers in urban and rural/urban areas, conservationists and indigenous groups;
2. The lack of conflict resolution and communication skills by DNR, EPA, major landholder groups, indigenous people and other groups such as conservationists. These skills may prove essential if local and regional vegetation management is to be effective.
3. The RVMP demands funds and personnel. The new system established under the Vegetation Management Act does not allow for an appropriate increase in DNR and EPA trainers, officers or data modellors. Nor are conservationists being resourced to educate, acquire, interpret and utilise data, and to monitor progress of policy, administration and the legislation;
4. The research required by the Herbarium and DNR Regional offices are barely financed by the State so is limited. Yet, vegetation mapping of many areas is incomplete and in the case of North and northwestern areas is at too small a scale to be useful for planning. Access to data from CSIRO, DNR and EPA data and integrated satellite imagery (GIS) should be made available to all stakeholders;
5. Fast-tracked salinity hazard mapping will not be released until at least March 2001. The scope of salinity assessment is not yet known;
6. No lists of ‘areas of high conservation value’ or of areas where there are endangered species of plants and animals have been made available by government;
7. Restricted trust between government, conservationists, landholder groups means negotiations will take a long time, and may break down.

Issues WPSQ is still working on:

1. Getting the vulnerable vegetation "of concern", that is between 10% and 30% of vegetation remaining, included within the Act to allow sustainable management.

The exclusion of ‘not of concern’ (31% or more of regional original vegetation still retained) negates much of the Act. Responsible landholders will do all they can to retain this vegetation, even retaining up to 50% of their original vegetation. Key farmer groups also support that the ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems should be protected, though clearing in certain circumstances (eg if heavily infested with weeds) should be permissible. However, the Queensland government has still not put into the Act the words that would be acceptable to some farmer organisations (QFF) on such protection.

Species loss is far greater when less than 30% of an eco system remains.

2. There is a great need for preservation of regrowth, noting that The Vegetation Management Act (2000) defines "regrowth vegetation" as "vegetation that is not remnant vegetation". Note that the Act defines "Remnant vegetation" as

• "Remnant vegetation", for an area of Queensland within a Regional ecosystem map, means the vegetation mapped as Remnant vegetation on the map.
• "Remnant vegetation", for an area of Queensland for which there is no regional ecosystem map, means the vegetation, part of which forms the predominant canopy of the vegetation—
  • covering more than 50% of the undisturbed predominant canopy; and
  • averaging more than 70% of the vegetation’s undisturbed height."

Between 1995-97 over 31 % of all tree clearing or about 105,000 ha/years was regrowth vegetation.

WPSQ, with Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) are likely to call strongly for the protection of regrowth vegetation, especially where

• regrowth may form effective corridors with remnants (clumps and strips and riparian zones (vegetation along waterways) or
• areas are classed as areas of high nature conservation value (endangered and ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems), areas where there are rare or endangered plants and animals, wetlands, areas of high species diversity or centres of endemism (species only found in that place). Areas which also prevent salinity, or soil degradation, and of important social value (archaeological, indigenous or landscape sites) and those sites of importance for protection biodiversity (eg breeding sites) should also be protected.
• subdominant endangered and ‘of concern’ Regional ecosystems.

Property and local vegetation management plans would identify such areas, and establish criteria and management guidelines for these.

What is happening now?

Negotiations with other stakeholders are on going. We are participating in a joint forum with Agforce, QFF, and Qld. Conservation Council early in the New Year to sort out some issues.

In early November 2000, the Federal Government made a public commitment to provide funding additional to the salinity package to address the issue of land clearing in Qld. The Prime Minister wrote to Premier Peter Beattie stating that "the Commonwealth would be prepared to offer assistance with compensation for land clearing restrictions but only on a basis that will:

• achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the reduction achieved from the implementation of Queensland’s existing legislation;
• and secure a cap on the rate of clearing as an essential means of achieving a significant greenhouse outcomes".

Discussions between both the State and Federal Governments have begun, though the Commonwealth has described them as a "kite flying" exercise. Late in November, an unofficial offer by the Commonwealth was made of a 250,000 ha/year cap (which did not include Re-growth vegetation) plus a carbon trading/buy back scheme for native vegetation. Conservationists will not accept this level of cap as a clearing cap of 250,000 ha/year of remnant native vegetation is not a reduction but an increase. Ideally, the cap should decrease over time so that the federal government policy of ‘no net loss of native vegetation’ could be achieved. There is also no avenue for the protection of biodiversity values.

The issue of permits for clearing already in existence but not used requires resolution under the cap scheme.

Various organisations, including QFF, Agforce, Canegrowers, and state and national conservation groups are continuing to negotiate with state and federal governments on the cap, and provision of incentives (‘compensation’) (see below). There must be a link established between vegetation management and the drop in greenhouse emissions, plus the need to preserve Australia’s biodiversity.

Carbon Credits

• The provision of ‘carbon credits’ for those landholders that have removed productive paddocks from use to replant with trees beyond a duty of care is still being investigated by the Greenhouse Unit of the federal government. This remains an uncertain proposal.

Provision of incentives

• WPSQ has avoided using the word ‘compensation’, preferring ‘incentives’ to reward those landholders, including urban developers, who have acted responsibly and not cleared and who have retained areas of high conservation value. These incentives could include rate reductions, conservation covenants, provision of carbon credits, and financial awards for ‘best practice’ and possible interest rate reductions. There should not be incentives provided for landholders merely complying with general duty of care –good land management practices should be expected of landholders (including rural/urban land developers).
• Legal advice indicates that there is apparently no case for compensation being automatically paid for the value of future uses in return for lost "rights". The original decisions by the State Vegetation Management Advisory Committee in 1999 was that the retention of endangered ecosystems are part of the "Duty of Care" of the landholder, and therefore are not be able to be ‘compensated’.
• However, there are strong reasons to support financial assistance to manage and expand any retained vegetation. But, neither state nor federal governments have provided money neither to repair decades of clearing nor to protect endangered ecosystems with fencing and weed control. With other conservationists, we do not support compensation for losing the right to clear Remnant Ecosystems.
• However, QFF sees the buy back of clearing permits by the Commonwealth as the key mechanism for reducing clearing rates, not the use of a clearing cap. Queensland Farmers Federation (QFF) has released their principles for compensation under the Vegetation Management Act (1999). This includes full compensation for loss of value of the property resulting from protection of "endangered", "of concern" ecosystems and areas of "high nature conservation value". QFF accepts there is a general environmental "duty of care" which does not need to be compensated. This concept of "duty of care" relates to land degradation issues, such as salinity and erosion and not specifically to biodiversity protection

Salinity

• The Commonwealth Government's National Dryland Salinity Program has predicted that if present land management practices continue (including clearing of native vegetation) in 50 years 3,100,000 ha of agricultural land in Queensland will be effected by dryland salinity. This could make Queensland equal second with Victoria with the worst dryland salinity problem in the country. Parts of inland Queensland are already showing signs of increased salinity and scalding. One of the best ways of preventing salinity is to retain deep-rooted vegetation. A state map of Salinity hazards is expected in March 2001.

No indigenous involvement

The indigenous people have not been effectively involved in water and vegetation issues and no resources have been provided to consider Aboriginal use of the land over thousands of years to current problems.

Conclusions

Finally, a comment from the Premier, Peter Beattie on behalf of the Queensland Government in response to a questionnaire from the Queensland Conservation Council. Here are some edited highlights (quoted from QCC, December 2000):

It is unfortunate, but the questionnaire is inaccurately optimistic about the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to compensation for tree clearing. The Queensland Government is currently engaged in negotiations with the Federal Government on the compensation issues, but there is certainly no "package" on the table. As such, the negotiations have a long way to progress before the Queensland Government might confidently answer your questionnaire that presupposes a far greater level of certainty than is presently the case.

Whilst the proclaimed Vegetation Management Act 1999 does not include express provisions for compensation, my Government does appreciated that there will be some landholders who are severely affected by the new laws. The Federal Government has clear national responsibilities in this area through matters relating to greenhouse, salinity and biodiversity. It is for this very reason that I have campaigned for the Federal Government to jointly fund financial assistance. When the Federal Government accepts these responsibilities and brings forward an appropriate position, my Government will finalise its position.

I am committed to protecting Queensland’s native vegetation and I am willing to examine a wide range of options to do so. It is apparent that the Commonwealth supports a cap on tree clearing to deliver a positive greenhouse outcome. How such a cap, that appears to have no regard for biodiversity principles, would operate under Queensland legislation is a complex issues. The Government is looking at such issues in the process of negotiating with the Commonwealth.

The Queensland Government appreciated the threat salinity may pose to Queensland’s natural resources. The recent National Land and Water Resources Audit suggests three million hectares of Queensland farming land could be salt affected within 50 years. It is imperative then, that Queensland takes action to prevent salinity as the experience of Australia’s southern States shows prevention is a less costly exercise than reparation. I have publicly indicated that Queensland stand ready to play a cooperative role in addressing the salinity and related water quality issues raised by the Prime Minister. My Government is currently working with the Commonwealth to design an agreement that delivers strong natural resources management outcomes for Queensland.

Peter Beattie MP, Premier. 11 December 2000

What Can We Do?

We can’t leave it all to the politicians, administrators and technocrats!

• Become informed. Talk to others, read, browse the internet if we have it, ask questions of local DNR, EPA/Parks and DPI officers, Greening Australia, CSIRO and Bushcare.
• Contribute to the Regional Vegetation Management process and develop local methods of saving trees, scrub and ground cover. Be active in Landcare and Bushcare.
• Ask local politicians what they are doing about tree clearing in Queensland.
• Support, and possibly donate money or land to increase the acquisition of and management in National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Land Trusts on both public and private lands that will increase biodiversity potential.
• Donate funds to assist conservation groups such as WPSQ to develop alternative viewpoints and to remain involved and influencing the legislation.

Useful Links

• Total Clearing Queensland 1991-99 and useful updates from the Brisbane Region Environment Council.
• Australian Conservation Foundation
• Department of Natural Resources
• Agforce
• CSIRO

Wildlife Queensland - April 2004