As the biodiversity legislation debate heats up in NSW as outlined in this story in The Guardian last week Conservation groups storm out of consultations over land-clearing law
Conservation groups have stormed out of consultations with the NSW government over an overhaul of land-clearing laws they say have been a sham and will fast-track bushland destruction in the state.
The move could reignite one the biggest environmental battles in New South Wales in recent years.
The Baird government is in the final stages of scrapping the Native Vegetation Act, which prevents the broadscale clearing of native vegetation by demanding that farmers “improve or maintain” the environmental outcomes of their site.
As predicted the good news stories are few and far between. Young Farming Champion and Fitzroy Basin Association Senior Project Officer Bronwyn Roberts will be devastated to see the story that I have rebloggged below from The Conversation .
I spoke to Bron last month to get her views on the Queensland native vegetation laws and she is sooooo proud of the 3000 farmers she works with and their commitment to Best Management Practices ethos of continuous improvement
As I have said a number of times this year – who will be prepared to accept the moral responsibility for throwing our farmers into the negative spotlight on biodiversity conservation – War has been declared – who will wear the responsibility for the collateral damage . If there was anything positive our leaders can learn from Gallipoli it was Churchill should have taken his own advice
“It should be remembered that it is no longer possible to force the Dardanelles, and nobody would expose a modern fleet to such peril.” Winston Churchill 1911
Yes the laws need reforming but for some reason some of our State Farming Organisations seem to be under the impression that farmers enjoy going to war to make it happen – its up to us to ensure our representatives understand politics is the art of the possible – trying to achieve the impossible is bad for our health and our image
The following text is a reprint of the same piece in The Conversation 22nd February 2016
Queensland land clearing is undermining Australia’s environmental progress
Land clearing has returned to Queensland in a big way. After we expressed concern that policy changes since 2012 would lead to a resurgence in clearing of native vegetation, this outcome was confirmed by government figures released late last year.
It is now clear that land clearing is accelerating in Queensland. The new data confirm that 296,000 hectares of bushland was cleared in 2013-14 – three times as much as in 2008-09 – mainly for conversion to pastures. These losses do not include the well-publicised clearing permitted by the government of nearly 900 square kilometres at two properties, Olive Vale and Strathmore, which commenced in 2015.
Alarmingly, the data show that clearing in catchments that drain onto the Great Barrier Reef increased dramatically, and constituted 35% of total clearing across Queensland in 2013-14. The loss of native vegetation cover in such regions is one of the major drivers of the deteriorating water qualityin the reef’s lagoon, which threatens seagrass, coral reefs, and other marine ecosystems.
The increases in land clearing are across the board. They include losses of over 100,000 hectares of old-growth habitats, as well as the destruction of “high-value regrowth” – the advanced regeneration of endangered ecosystems.
These ecosystems have already been reduced to less than 10% of their original extent, and their recovery relies on allowing this regrowth to mature.
Alarmingly, our analysis of where the recent clearing has occurred reveals that even “of concern” and “endangered” remnant ecosystems are being lost at much higher rates now than before.
While this level of vegetation loss and damage continues apace, Australia’s environmental programs will fall well short of achieving their aims.
Neutralising our environmental programs
Land clearing affects all Australians, not just Queenslanders. Australia spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year trying to redress past environmental damage from land clearing. Tens of thousands of volunteers dedicate their time, money and land to the effort.
But despite undeniable local benefits of such programs, their contribution to national environmental goals is undone, sometimes many times over, by the damage being done in Queensland.
Take the federal government’s 20 million trees program. At a cost of A$50 million, it aims to replace 20 million trees by 2020 to redress some of the damage from past land clearing.
Yet just one year of increased land clearing in Queensland has already removed many more trees than will be painstakingly planted during the entire program.
The Australian government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) is paying billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions from industry. But the carbon released from Queensland’s land clearing in 2012-2014 alone is estimated at 63 million tonnes, far more than was purchased under the first round of the ERF (at a cost to taxpayers of A$660 million).
Species cannot recover if their habitat is being destroyed faster than it is being restored. But under Caring for our Country and Biodiversity Fund grants, the extent of tree planting to restore habitat across Australia reported since 2013 is just over 42,000 hectares – an order of magnitude less than what was cleared in Queensland alone in just two years.
And it will be many decades before these new plantings will provide anything like the environmental benefits of mature native vegetation.
Land clearing between 2012 and 2014 in Queensland is estimated to have wiped out more than 40,000 hectares of koala habitat, as well as habitat for over 200 other threatened species. Clearing, along with drought (which is also made worse by clearing), is the major cause of an 50% decline in koalas of south-west and central Queensland since 1996.
The loss of remnant habitat, especially from forests along waterways, means more habitat fragmentation. This is a further threat to many species of wildlife, and it hampers our ability to adapt to a rapidly changing climate.
The federal government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to improve reef water quality. Yet ongoing land clearing in reef-draining catchments will reverse many of the gains these programs aim to achieve. Last year, Queensland’s Auditor-General reportedthat stronger legislation would be essential to reducing harmful catchment runoff to the Great Barrier Reef.
Prevention is better than cure
We live in an era of tightening carbon budgets, declining land-production capacity and rapidly deteriorating biodiversity, including in iconic places such as Great Barrier Reef. The evidence is clear that we cannot continue to degrade our environment without severe consequences.
It is far more efficient to prevent environmental damage than to try to reverse it later.
For example, the cost of stabilising river-banks following deforestation can range from A$16,000 to A$5 million per kilometre. Natural ecosystems contribute enormously to the economy in ways that are often unrecognised.
We are running up a large environmental debt that will eventually have to be paid by all Australians, one way or another.
And some damage, like the loss of a species, is irreversible.
Previous native vegetation laws had successfully reduced land clearing, but were reversed in 2013 by the former Newman government.
The current Palaszczuk government in Queensland has repeated its election promise to re-strengthen native vegetation protections. The amendment bill is due to be introduced to parliament within weeks.
But the minority government relies on the votes of cross-benchers to pass its legislation–so for now, the future of some of Australia’s most precious environmental assets remains uncertain.
A 
“… in the last decade we’ve definitively answered the question that the world’s climate is changing. What keeps me up and night and I think what keeps most of the country up at night is what are we going to do about it? How are we going to mitigate it?” – CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall, ABC’s 7.30, February 4
Perversely, I’m pleased CSIRO chief Larry Marshall is lying in bed worrying about how to mitigate the effects of climate change. I’m only glad he’s not a farmer like me, because I doubt he’d cope.
Standing in the paddocks of my Gippsland dairy farm, I guess I have an advantage over Marshall because it’s here that the rubber of climate change adaptation hits the road.
This is one of the worst seasons on record around here and the only thing that has made it survivable has been good, early planning.
We sold 10% of our cows and planted turnips for summer feed almost two months earlier than usual to eke out moisture deep in the soil. We pushed bloody hard to get an irrigator up and running so we could offer the cows a lush oasis of millet with water from our farm dam.
Most importantly, we were quick to speak with our bank manager and buy hundreds of tonnes of extra hay and silage. It was not a pretty plan. It was a survival plan in the teeth of a failed season and a milk price that is below our break-even point.
We are still a long way from next Spring but the survival plan is getting us through. I can’t imagine how we would have managed without it.
Central to our planning were the CSIRO’s soil moisture maps and Pastures from Space. Combining the two tools, we could see that not only were our pastures notgrowing in the peak of Spring, there was little chance they could. The soil was powder dry all the way down to a couple of metres. That can only be fixed by weeks and weeks of rain.
In other words, we knew we were stuffed early enough to do something about it, thanks to the CSIRO. It’s survivable if we plan early, plan well and it doesn’t happen too regularly.
Still raw with the discomfort of this experience, I was gobsmacked to hear Larry Marshall say the climate change question has been answered; I realised he’d never make a farmer.
The big question for me looms large: how common will this type of season be in the future?
The climate modelling is neither detailed or accurate. All we know is that, since I was a little girl in the 70s, it’s been getting steadily drier around here and the scientists say it will continue to become drier, warmer and increasingly unpredictable. That’s nowhere near enough information to make good decisions.
To be frank, we don’t even have a worthwhile forecast for the next fortnight or the three months ahead. The Bureau of Meteorology’s oft-reported seasonal outlook is so unreliable here, it is literally as credible as tossing a coin.
I guess farmers are used to running blind into the next season and getting through when things don’t pan out well, but a long term climate shift is not something you can manage by buying in extra hay.
If this type of season begins to roll around every five to 10 years rather than every 20 to 50, it’s no longer going to be viable to keep doing what we’re doing. And it takes years to reshape a farm. I need to know whether we should be working towards farming cows, canola or cacti sooner rather than later.
Farmers are innovators by nature. Rather than simply howling to the wind when it’s all too late, I will do something about it. What, for sure, I don’t know. Cuts to the CSIRO’s climate and land and water divisions will make finding the answers – and making milk Australian families can afford – ever more difficult.