In my last blog post, I alluded to the fact that Local Government is not always your friend. For several years, Local Government (LG) have been preventing clearing of regrowth under the guise of “Regionally Significant Vegetation”.  That’s all well and good as it keeps vegetation linked across catchments, the landscape and in country prone to erosion.

Very broadly, I do support the preservation of “Regionally Significant Vegetation” …..providing Local Government don’t overstep their level of authority. Where I don’t support it is when the landowner has a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) agreement in place with the State Government and the Local Government believe they can override State Government Legislation. (More detail on PMAVs next blog and why a landholder needs to be on top of their game…..new legislation and other Legislation means new traps to be aware of even if you do have a PMAV). For those that don’t know, a PMAV is a way of ensuring that regrowth doesn’t get mapped and stays as Cat X country that you can manage at your own discretion.

In the last couple of years, Local Government have tried to get away with saying their mapped regionally significant regrowth over-rides a State Government PMAV. Unfortunately, instead of State Government standing up and supporting the landholder, they have pulled back and seemingly let Local Government get away with it. This means that when the landholder goes to treat their regrowth, which under a Cat X PMAV they are permitted to do, Local Government believe they can override a State Government and tell the Landholder they can’t clear.

My message is this, “tell the State Government that when they change our constitution, only then can they over-ride the State. Under our constitution, Federal overrides State and State overrides Local.

In the last couple of years, I have gone to bat for several Landholders when LG have tried this stunt (and it is a stunt). Every time, LG has backed down because they know they cannot override a State issued PMAV.

The next step is where it gets interesting. Because the LG know they can’t override a State issued PMAV, they do the “dog act” and report the landholder to the Commonwealth for illegal land clearing. Under the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth regulators are obligated to investigate. If the regrowth happens to fall under the Commonwealths Threatened Ecological Community (TEC)  / Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) definition or contain Eucalypts that could potentially contain Koala food trees, the Landholder has to provide a “please explain” or demonstrate by the engagement of an ecologist / botanist, that the area in question does not fit the criteria of  MNES / TEC / Koala Habitat.

My advice to any landholder who finds themselves in this situation is to engage the services of an ecologist (preferably an impartial one with common sense) or at the very least, as evidence, take a few geo-referenced and dated photos at BOTH ground level and via a drone BEFORE starting management of the regrowth. 

When Tanya Plibersek was Minister for the Environment and Water, there was the suggestion that there should only be a single level of Environmental Compliance with the Commonwealth being that single level.

While the Commonwealth has always played a role in vegetation management….most notably with Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs), the Commonwealth has quietly expanded their authority with vegetation compliance at state level.

It’s not well known that the Commonwealth now has a number compliance teams on the ground investigating alleged vegetation clearing. Previously, their areas of concern focused on MNES and TEC’s, however it would appear now that the Commonwealth are investigating and issuing fines and rehabilitation orders on any vegetation clearing that has been reported to them.

The Commonwealth may use State mapping as a guide, but they have their own set of rules which are not clear or well documented.

Keep in mind that the Commonwealth doesn’t recognize PMAV’s where there is TEC or MNES vegetation, doesn’t differentiate between Cat C (High Value Regrowth), Cat B (Remnant) or even unmapped regrowth Cat X. From discussions with members of their compliance teams, my biggest concern is that as far as they are concerned, ANY vegetation that contains Koala food trees (ie Eucalypts), mapped or not, regrowth, remnant or Cat X…. can’t be touched because “it’s Koala Habitat”. 

Just recently, a landholder from the broader SE Qld region contacted me because someone reported to the Commonwealth that he was illegally clearing vegetation….that someone was the Local Government…..but more on that later.

Before I get right into this, I’ll set the scene:
• The property in question was a large rectangular block
• Over 1,000ha in center of the block was Cat X and PMAV’d with mid dense retained mature Eucalypts.
• Around the perimeter of the block were corridors of remnant eucalypt woodland mapped as Cat B with the blue hashed Essential Habitat overlay for Koala (see map).
• On the north of block was a small watercourse and  an area of Blue Gum on Alluvial Flats (see red circled area on the map). Under the Commonwealths legislation, forest blue-gum on alluvial near a watercourse is a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC). This was mapped as Cat X and PMAV’d as well.
• As is common on many properties in the region, Lantana is a major issue.
• The landholder wanted to get a small dozer in to push up the lantana and burn it so he could then control it by chemical means. He did not want to clear ANY trees.
• Just to make sure he was doing everything legally, he contacted the Department of Resources. He had it in writing that he could clear everything that was Cat X, but as he said to them in the email, “The stock needs the trees for shade so I’m not touching a single tree…..just the lantana”. 
• He then went to the Local Government to make sure he wasn’t breaking any local laws (despite State Govt overriding any local vegetation laws). He had it in writing from the Local Government that as it was Cat X, they had no concerns. A MAJOR point here….after he left the Local Govt office, it was the LG environment officer who reported him to the Commonwealth for intent to clear Koala habitat. The LG is NOT your friend….more on this in the next Blog.
• At the same time, he was pushing the lantana (this was in October ), a zoo  / Koala sanctuary contacted the landowner to ask if they could harvest Eucalypt branches for their population of Koala. His response….”go for it”.
• The landholder pushed up the lantana on the Eucalypt country as well as the lantana on the alluvial blue gum flats.
• No native vegetation was touched on the watercourse at all. Not a single native tree or shrub was touched in the Eucalypt woodland, in the blue gum on alluvial and most certainly, no vegetation at all (including weeds) in the Cat B with blue Koala overlay was touched.
• In February the following year (5 months later), the landowner gets a very disturbing letter from the Commonwealth telling him he is to be investigated for illegal land clearing and that substantial fines may apply as well as a rehabilitation order.
At the end of February, four people from the Commonwealth organized a property visit to “investigate the illegal clearing of Koala habitat” …..despite not a single native species being cleared. Of those four, two were Commonwealth Vegetation Compliance Officers and two were supposedly ecologists.

They walked the entire block with me as the ecologist representing the landholder as well as the landholder himself. They photographed everything and took copious notes……BUT…..they never even walked through or went near the blue gum on alluvial flats that was the TEC…..which should have been their prime concern.

During the walk through, I saw on the ground a very recently deceased Yellow-Footed Antechinus. The two ecologists pounced on it and proclaimed….” see what land clearing does…..it kills the wildlife”. I very happily informed them that the lantana control was completed in October, this was now end of February and that the deceased Yellow-Footed Antechinus had died only an hour before. I then turned the still limp animal upside down and showed them the extended ball -sack / scrotum and explained that the male Antechinus only has one good shag a year and dies while doing the deed. As ecologists, they should know this.

The four Commonwealth people spent all day on site. They photographed everything and took copious notes, but never once ventured on to the Forest Blue-Gum on Alluvial……which should have been their only reason for being on the property as it was the TEC.

I asked them a number of times why they were investigating PMAV’d grazing country that wasn’t a TEC and were focusing on grazing lands. Despite asking the question numerous times, they declined to answer, until the end of the day when I pressed them for a response……and here is their very concerning response; “Any vegetation that the Commonwealth feels is Koala habitat or contains Koala food trees, irrespective of it being PMAV Cat X, is protected and cannot be cleared….not a single tree”. I then stood there and waved my arms to the broader cleared country and posed the statement / question, “ so all this surrounding cleared country with dotted trees, is, in the Commonwealths opinion, Koala habitat and cannot be maintained? Their response “well….yes….its Koala habitat”.

Before the Commonwealth people left, I asked another question (not expecting to get an answer). I asked, “who reported the landholder for alleged land-clearing”. Surprisingly, they openly said that it was Local Government who reported the landholder……this was despite the LG putting it in writing they had no concerns with what the landholder was planning to do. More on Local Government is my next Blog.

The clincher to this is that it took the Commonwealth many months to get back to the landholder…..many months where the 80 year old gentleman sweated out it out on what was going to happen to him. The letter the Commonwealth sent back months later told him he was not in breach of any Commonwealth legislation……..however, “we would like you to consider putting the property under a vegetation protection order”. My response to the Commonwealth was less polite.
​

A few months back in a post, I mentioned the potential introduction of a Commonwealth backed “Biodiversity Certificate Scheme” (BCS) ….a scheme similar in context to the “Carbon Credit Scheme” (CCS). Several landowners have contacted me wanting to know more. I’ve held off because detail is still lacking, and I didn’t want to be the bearer of incomplete or false information.

From the Commonwealths own site Biodiversity certificates to increase native habitat and support Australian landholders | Prime Minister of Australia (pm.gov.au), there is a simple couple of paragraphs.

“The Albanese Labour Government has today announced the creation of a Biodiversity Certificates Scheme. The scheme recognises landholders who restore or manage local habitat and grants them biodiversity certificates which can then be sold to other parties. This will operate in a similar way to our current carbon crediting legislation. The scheme will make it easier for businesses, organisations and individuals to invest in landscape restoration and management.

As companies look to invest in carbon offsetting projects like tree planting, we need to make sure there is a path for farmers and the environment to benefit. We need to protect waterways, provide habitat for native species, reduce erosion, protect topsoil, improve drought resilience and create shelter for livestock.

A biodiversity market will also promote management of existing, remnant vegetation that provides habitat for native species. As the recent State of the Environment report found, Australia’s environment is poor and deteriorating and government cannot foot the bill alone.

The markets for biodiversity and carbon credits will operate in parallel, both regulated by the Clean Energy Regulator. 

Over coming months we will be consulting widely on the detailed rules for scheme – for example the rules on how biodiversity benefits should be measured and verified”.

As some will be aware, I’m an accredited Carbon Planner. Just recently, I completed a number of courses, and received accreditation, to be able to generate  biodiversity values from a property evaluation that can be used to generate biodiversity credits. The company I selected for Biodiversity Credit accreditation was the company I’m led to believe is the Commonwealths favoured organisation for generating biodiversity credits. (I hope I’m right because it was expensive and very time consuming).

As with the Carbon Credit Scheme, I’m cautious about the Biodiversity Credit Scheme. Some time back, I took a couple of landholders down the Carbon Credit path. I was very sceptical then (and told them so) ….more so now. My advice to landowners is to go into the CCS with eyes wide open, ask every question you can think of and “get all responses in writing and signed”. As my old Dad used to say, “Trust no one and cover your ass”.

In regards the Biodiversity Credit Scheme, from the limited available information, my concerns are:

• Will the Biodiversity Credit Scheme be compulsory or voluntary?

• Who has access to your property data?

• Is the organisation who collects your property data for the generation of biodiversity credits obligated to pass across your data to the Commonwealth?

• Who determines the value of the credits generated from your property?

• Will a landowner’s ability to sell commodities be tied to biodiversity credits generated and how the Government perceives  management of your properties natural attributes?

• It will be an expensive exercise to get a property evaluated for Biodiversity credits initially and then complete follow-ups. Who pays? Will the sale of credits offset those costs?

• To generate biodiversity credits, what process is going to be used to collate the data required to generate credits i.e. AgCare, BMP, AfN, BioCondition, GBM etc?

• After field data is collected and biodiversity credits allocated, will this work in the landowners favour or against the landowner. My concerns relate to the Commonwealths own webpage wording….. “We need to protect waterways, provide habitat for native species, reduce erosion, protect topsoil, improve drought resilience and create shelter for livestock. From an environmental and sustainability perspective, yes, this is exactly what we should all be aiming for in property management…..BUT, is there a point where the Government, not the landowner,  determines the when / how and the implications if you don’t comply? What, if after completing a biodiversity audit, the Government deems your property as “unsustainable” or “not of an acceptable standard”.

• The Commonwealths comment on their webpage “A biodiversity market will also promote management of existing, remnant vegetation that provides habitat for native species. Again, YES, everyone should be aiming to protect and enhance habitat for native species, and certainly the vast majority of landholders I work with do exactly that….but that brings me to my last point;
​
• QLD, as do all States, have their own vegetation management legislation. Under that legislation, there is clear definition between what is deemed remnant, what is deemed regrowth and what is deemed Cat X (cleared) productive country. In many cases, a PMAV has been put over the land to lock in Cat X country so that regrowth and remnant doesn’t encroach on productive country….and this is where a problem might occur. 

During the previous 12 months, it has been bandied around by the Commonwealth’s Minister for Environment & Water, that the Commonwealth is considering revoking State vegetation legislation and giving the Commonwealth, via the EPBC Act, all-encompassing powers relating to vegetation, environmental and biodiversity management. Bear in mind that the Commonwealths definition of regrowth and remnant is very different to the Queensland’s definition. Further to that, the Commonwealth already has compliance teams on the ground over-riding State legislation. Unfortunately, I’ve already experienced firsthand how these Commonwealth compliance teams are operating ….more on that in future blogs.

Now, think for a minute, what the implications might be for your carbon and biodiversity credits. My advice again is “if you decide to go down this path, go in with eyes wide open, don’t be coerced by what money you might receive for the credits, ask the hard questions, be suspicious, ensure you put your own conditions in any agreement and get all answers to your questions in writing. Read the fine print in the management agreement numerous times.

For example, a biodiversity evaluation on your property generates 500 biodiversity credits. The biodiversity evaluation and the subsequent report identifies that by introducing management actions such as fencing the watercourse, managing vegetation differently, altering stocking rates, providing habitat for native species, reduce erosion, protect topsoil, improve drought resilience, create shelter for livestock etc, you could generate an additional 600 biodiversity credits, this would give you a goal to work towards that increased your income potential and also markedly improves biodiversity values. Id hazard to say, most landholders might be open to this concept.
​
However, if the Government was going to use the big stick approach to force landowners to improve biodiversity values by locking down country, remapping vegetation, fines or notices to improve biodiversity by xyz actions, how many landowners would be interested?
Generating biodiversity credits or certificates has the potential to be a great scheme with positive outcomes for landowners, developers, flora, fauna, habitat, watercourses, soil etc and how they function in the broader landscape, “if”…..its done with the right intent, follows sound practical advice, has  the right people leading the scheme, the right people collecting biodiversity data in the paddock…..and MOST importantly, the Government cannot alter the management agreement unless your 100% in agreeance.