Just a quick round of thank
you: Southern Dandenongs Landcare, Jordan Crooka, Bruce Lindsay of the Environment
Defenders Office and Yasmin Kelsall of the Victorian National Parks
Association for the detailed talk last night.
It would appear that by reducing the situations in which a permit
is required, making it easier to obtain a permit, using a risk based approach
and also changing the language used that the new guidelines will have the
overall effect of discounting the importance of local habitat for increased
biodiversity.
Whilst I agree that the permit
process certainly needs streamlining for areas of minor, low impact clearing,
and that a consistent approach is required, I believe that the suggested changes
to the guidelines that we have so far seen in consultation will do very little
to secure the remainder of our indigenous vegetation.
The new guidelines seem to base the majority of the decision
making on NaturePrint - a mapping tool which will be used to provide information
on vegetation and biodiversity through mathematical modelling. One of the aims is to reduce the time and
manpower involved in the permit process.
The NaturePrint map has been created using existing information on
where rare and threatened species exist.
It takes into account the vegetation classes, possible bio-links between
these spots, and includes areas where land has already been cleared, but where
fauna may move through. This information
was then used to create mathematical models, effectively extrapolating from
existing data, which were used to build the NaturePrint map.
NaturePrint uses a risk based
approach to denote areas which have a high biodiversity value, or where rare
and threatened species currently exist in numbers and are therefore deemed
strategic sites.
This approach seems fine in
principle, but I was able to immediately think of a number of inherent
problems:
1. only
limited new flora and fauna surveys were undertaken, mainly on public land,
therefore the data base is likely out-dated;
2. using
mathematical modelling means an error rate will have been built in to allow for
discrepancies in data. That discrepancy
could literally mean the difference between life and death;
3. mathematical
modelling depersonalises the process.
Once this happens, it can be very hard to grasp the realities of a
situation;
4. this
system will concentrate efforts in the areas believed to be at high risk, or of
strategic importance, and reduces the perceived importance of others.
Effectively, it pre-conditions us to accept loss of biodiversity in the areas
deemed to be low risk, because we’ve been told that they are less important;
5. the use
of a risk based approach is concerning because of the way we perceive such
systems. To have a risk based system,
you must categories areas of low, medium and high risk. The danger is that, once the areas of low
risk drop off the scale because they’ve been cleared, the areas of medium risk
are re-categorised so that some are then deemed ‘low risk’;
6. and
finally, you cannot effectively manage what you don’t actually measure!!
 |
| Shows the areas of high contribution of natural values in red and areas of low contribution are unshaded. The unshaded areas are those deemed 'low risk'. |
Er.... a 'low contribution'?
Surely where remnant vegetation exists in towns this needs to be
protected? What about the small stands of Cyathea cunninghamii and C. x
marcescens that exist in Belgrave, Kallista and other towns throughout the
Ranges? They are listed as vulnerable in Victoria and are listed as
threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. In the Dandenongs they exist with a scattered
distribution, often in pockets of remnant vegetation in our private gardens.
These pockets of tree ferns and other vegetation provide important
ecological niches for the continued survival of the flora that for so long
we've worked to eradicate from our landscapes. They are the habitat for
large numbers of native birds, animals, insects etc and provide stepping stones
or stop off points for those passing through our towns. Without them, we
create islands where our flora and fauna remain trapped and at risk of reducing
the gene pool, thus lowering the biodiversity.
Doesn't the existing extent of clearing in urban areas make those
areas 'high risk' and in need of protection?
Small areas add up. In the Dandenongs where we have a large
volume of privately owned land and a number of towns, the majority of the
vegetation is not protected.
 |
| Coloured areas show public land. Slightly shaded are built up areas. |
As is typical of the behaviour
of industry and government, the review of the guidelines reduces everything to
economics. Visit the NaturePrint
site and read the blurb... it talks about cost, emerging environmental
markets, world markets, commodity prices, land values, cost-effective
biodiversity outcomes, best value for money outcomes... I could go on.
If you want to talk economics,
let’s talk about the value of what comes to us from nature and doesn't get
priced. What about the nutrients the vegetation of the Dandenongs captures
from the sun and air? We have a lot of native legumes in Australia that
convert atmospheric nitrogen to a form readily available to plants. What
does nitrogen fertiliser cost these days...?
What about the moderation of temperature and control of water
cycles and rainfall that our forests give us? The Dandenong Ranges are
strewn with horticultural enterprises, orchards, food producers... how
much money do they save every year because of the moderating effects of our
vegetation? What do individual
households save in power and water bills?
What about carbon capture? Our vegetation and the soil it protects holds
onto carbon and prevents it from being released into the atmosphere. Clear land and it’s not long before the
organic matter and carbon held there oxidises and is lost to the air as carbon
dioxide. How much will it cost to
reverse the damage?
What about the habitat provided for the birds, bees and other
insects that pollinate our food and horticultural crops? For too long we’ve considered this a free
service, benefitting from having over 2/3 of our food crops pollinated for
us. Remove the habitat and you lose the
service, at what cost?
What about the problems caused by clearing: water runoff,
flooding, nutrient overload in our creeks, erosion, loss of fertile top soil,
saline soils, land degradation, the cost to local communities who can no longer
produce their own food, the cost to local businesses who have to close and move
elsewhere...?
Then there is also the much more intangible financial benefits of
all our greenery: the social, cultural and psychological. How can
you cost that?
Once you look at things in this way, you then need to start
considering the costs of restoring our environment once
the consequences of loss becomes evident. I can guarantee you that this costs more to
rectify than to prevent.
YOU can help ensure that the future guidelines on vegetation
clearing do not reduce the status of our local environment to penny pinching.
Check out this link,
read the document for yourself and then submit your comments to: nativevegetation.review@dse.vic.gov.au
Whilst you’re at it, don’t
forget to copy in your local council, your local MP, Ryan Smith the Minister for
the Environment and Climate Change and Lisa Neville the Shadow
Minister for Environment and Climate Change.
No comments:
Post a Comment