The Commonwealth's Biodiversity Certificate Scheme - What Might It Mean For Land Owners?

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.