I've been exploring and investigating native vegetation clearance issues for
some time now and it seems to me that the question of balanced argument and
common sense could also be squarely aimed at the farming lobby.
Recent publications I have investigated - such as the Productivity Commission
Inquiry Report No. 29, 8 April 2004, Impacts of Native Vegetation and
Biodiversity Regulations - clearly demonstrate, in concrete statistical terms,
that only a miniscule number of referrals have been received under the
Enviornment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 that are to do
with land clearance in agricultural areas. This suggests that "on the ground"
there are few if any constraints with any real impact on the viability of
farming interests broadly speaking. Yet farming lobby groups continue to
assert that the EPBC Act is having major impacts on farming activities which in
their view should be compensated from THE PUBLIC PURSE! Consequently, some of
us here may want to argue that there is a risk that farmer-friendly political
spin, nothing more and nothing less, will dominate policy and legislative
formulation. Perhaps it will become very important for people to more
convincingly and effectively demonstrate that this spin is without foundation
in terms of science (agricultural and environmental) and economics.
In my view, after reading a stack of such documents, there is much missing from
policy debate and very limited scope for contributions from non-farm connected
groups and individuals. Debate and discussion is clearly skewed in favour of
the opinions of "everyday ordinary farmers" and other sympathetic individuals.
And watch carefully as arguments start to grow in status regarding the
commercialisation of biodiversity: making money out of threatened species is on
the agenda and the agricultural lobby appears exremely interested in evaluating
prospects in this regard. Perhaps what is needed is a much more public,
prominent alignment of argicultural and conservation groups on key issues?
Maybe it is now time that we all joined the National Farmers Federation.
Craig Williams
>>> Bob Cook <> 12/09/04 12:59 PM >>>
Thank you, David, for expressing well a concern I am sure many of us have.
On this forum, it is probably true to say that we are all concerned about
land clearing, pesticide use, shooting, 4WD overuse, feral animals, National
Park preservation, etc, etc. But far too often well meaning people will
just pick up on an opinion expressed on a forum like this and race off with
petitions, letters to Ministers or into the media, without doing what David
urges - explore and investigate the issue - from all sides - first.
Many, many times, the pleas of "conservationists" are ignored or, even
worse, ridiculed because the arguments and facts are not well understood and
are not well represented by these (well meaning) folk. Unfortunately, the
whole cause of moderation and common sense in conservation is then damaged
and given less credibility, through the media and politicians, into the eyes
of "the man in the street", i.e. the people who really need to be convinced.
I rarely follow up on the requests on this forum to send letters, etc., as I
do not have all the facts. If it really concerns me I will learn more and
then act if I believe there needs to be action.
Please, explore and think first - act later!
Bob Cook
Mildura
Victoria
-----Original Message-----
From:
Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, 9 December 2004 12:00 PM
To:
Subject: [BIRDING-AUS] Re: landclearing - and the future of birds in nsw
The draft Regulation and other documents will not deliver on the
Governments promise to end broadscale landclearing for the following
reasons:
Ø There is no ban on clearing of remnant vegetation. Instead, a system of
offsets has been introduced which will mean that putting a fence around one
patch of remnant vegetation can be used to gain approval to legally clear
another area of remnant vegetation.
Ø In addition, there are numerous loopholes and flaws that will allow
extensive clearing without any environmental assessment or approvals being
required. Added to this is the fact that core provisions are essentially
unenforceable.
I think the above is a bit simplistic and, perhaps, even a bit misleading.
If you are interested in this subject I suggest you do a bit of research
rather than accepting the opinion of others (including myself). It's
interesting that some green groups are not happy with the new regulations,
particularly as they supported them not so long ago. It seems they have
something in common with the farmers who are also not happy.
The new system is not a perfect one but I think it will deliver an end to
broadscale land clearing in NSW. Why? Because the system in place to
deliver the offsets mentioned above (through Property Vegetation Plans)
requires the farmer to work through a series of processes before the Dept of
Infrastructure & Natural Resources (DIPNR) can give the green (or red) light
to the development. To say that putting a fence around one patch of remnant
veg will allow another patch to be cleared is reducing the case to it's
simplest. A number of conditions must be met before such an offset is
allowed. The farmers aren't happy because they can see that these
conditions are going to be very difficult to meet and that, in essence,
broadscale land clearing will cease.
I'm not sure what the loopholes and flaws mentioned above are. It would
be nice if these loopholes and flaws were explained rather than just
expecting one to accept that they exist.
The impacts from clearing native vegetation are severe and many are
irreversible - the destruction of wildlife and habitat, erosion, widespread
salinity, the release of greenhouse gases, and the extinction of species.
And yet this regulation gives more of the same and will not solve the
problem of landclearing.
The clearing of native vegetation, along with the lack of regeneration, is
a major issue in the long term survival of our birds. It is the primary
reason why Regent Honeyeaters (and many other woodland birds) are now
endangered. The new regulations are far from perfect but I think they will
fulfil one thing, the end to broadscale land clearing in NSW. What I think
may happen in the future is that the system proposed will be overhauled to
make it more workable. The one advantage of this is that it will allow
those interested in the conservation of our woodlands to get their head
around the problem and come up with some workable solutions.
Cheers
David Geering
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
delete the message. Views expressed in this message may be those of the
individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the NSW Department
of Environment and Conservation.
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
