Natural Asset Management - May 2013

• The introduction of new clearing purposes under the Act for high-value agriculture and environmental works (such as land rehabilitation).

• The removal of regrowth regulations on freehold and indigenous land, but the retention of controls on regrowth control on leasehold land and in reef watercourses.

• New provisions to allow for the creation of self-assessable codes for routine management activities such as weed and pest management, fodder harvesting and thinning. This will allow landholders to undertake vegetation management activities without the need for government involvement or assessment, provided they comply with code requirements.

• The creation of simplified state-wide vegetation maps to clearly define areas where regulations will apply. The new maps are intended to lock in regulated and non-regulated vegetation into the future, giving landholders greater certainty that the vegetation community boundaries won't change and providing greater security when developing long-term property plans.

• The removal of the guide to sentencing under the existing Vegetation Management Act which is intended to provide more consistent and equitable penalties in cases of inappropriate clearing.

FNQROC did not prepare a submission in regard to the proposed amendments; an LGAQ submission prepared from a local government perspective which can be viewed here.

Below are some of the pro's and cons of the amendment I gleaned from the 150 odd submissions made. Note these are for information purposes and provide a cross section of views from responses in regard to the proposed changes and are not intended to provide a policy position of FNQROC or its member councils. It must be pointed out that the period of 12 business days (including the Easter break) was one of the most common comments made across submissions and no doubt accounts for the relatively low number made given the potential significance of the amendment. By and large all local governments who commented were concerned with the lack of consultation in the development of amendment. They also expressed concern that the potential implications and outcomes (which will influence outcomes across multiple legislations) have not been thoroughly considered or consulted.

Some common concerns raised in regard the amendment (in no particular order) include:

The Bill amendment was not accompanied by the required codes and guidelines for it to be implemented. It is difficult to comment on potential implications without the clear operational direction these would provide.

Some of the streamlining intent of the amendment may create unintentional confusion (principally in regard to the QLD Nature Conservation Act but also the Commonwealth EPBC Act) by giving a false impression that additional permissions are not required in some circumstances.

It comes as no news that the mapping on which the VMA is based is often identified as being inaccurate and several stakeholders suggest that future versions of the Regional Ecosystem mapping be released for public comment prior to adoption. The current and proposed new process to revise VMA mapping and PMAV are not clear and many propose this should be rectified within the amendment.

'Sustainable land use' is a pivotal concept within the amendment yet is not defined in clear terms and requires a definition to guide implementation. The introduction of the 'four pillars' in the supporting policy to the bill without a clear definition of the above potentially contradicts the original purpose of the Act.

There was some criticism of the revisions to the sentencing guide under the Act, specifically the inclusion of the 'mistake of fact' defence from the criminal code and the removal of provision to forfeit leasehold subject to repeat breaches of the act

Removal of protection of high value (endangered vegetation and essential habitat) regrowth and the removal of protection of watercourse regrowth in non GBR catchments and Wild Rivers vegetation provisions raised concerns in regard to biodiversity retention and water quality

Locking in regulated and non-regulated mapped vegetation in the proposed amendments does not account for the dynamic nature of vegetation structure over time and detracts from the usefulness of the current vegetation mapping for purposes other than the administration of the Act.

Some common elements supported in the amendment (in no particular order) include:

The inclusion of self-assessable codes will allow a reduction of red tape in processing applications by identifying common activities which relate to vegetation management in regard to property maintenance (fence lines and infrastructure) and management (firebreaks, vegetation thinning and woody weed control)

The ability to clear vegetation to develop high quality (irrigated and non-irrigated) production areas. There is an application process to meet the criteria which can also ultimately be declared at the discretion of the executive

The locking in of regrowth vegetation as that which was present in/prior to 1989/1994 and moving the remainder to a revised (non-protected) category X which will no longer be subject to VMA

The ability to integrate other streams of income into on-farm operations more readily i.e. timber production or fodder harvesting

The creation of greater certainty in the legislative (protected/unprotected) status of vegetation displayed through a simpler map product. This will allow more thorough forward planning in property management. One of the primary concerns raised by landholders was the continual additions and expansions of areas protected under VMA

Watch this space...

Upcoming events:

NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub Conference - May 7-9 Cairns

Land Protection Co-investment Think Tank – May 10, Brisbane

National Gamba Grass Taskforce – June 15-16, Darwin

FNQ Pestfest 2013 (incorporating the FNQPAF, CYPPMAG and Gulf Catchments Pest Taskforce): May 21-23, Mareeba

Pond Apple Working Group: June 19, Cairns