Yesterday NSW Natural Resources Minister Ian Macdonald unveiled the new regulations for the state’s Native Vegetation Act 2003. The regulations will come into effect on December 1.
The story goes that the NSW Farmers Association ‘capitulated’ on the Act on the promise that the regulations would be more reasonable.
Now it looks like the regulations transfer responsibilities to local ‘Catchment Management Authorities’ with farmers developing and getting their ‘Property Vegetation Plans’ endorsed by these boards that I understand include local ‘wise men’, greens and bureacrats.
According to yesterday’s press release there will be no more broadscale tree clearing, there are offset provisions (farmers can cut down trees in one area if it is absolutely necessary, if they agree to plant more somewhere else), and it all comes with $436 million for those disadvantaged, download file with media release and ‘details of package’.
The ‘compensation packages’ could be seen as very generous. At least relative to Quensland where landholders have got not much more than a ‘poke in the eye’ by way of ‘compensation’ for the latest round of restrictions.
Landholders’ Institute Secretary Ian Mott puts the legislative agenda in a ‘so how many trees will really be saved for how many dollars’ context with a piece he wrote today titled, NSW Virtual Vegetation Policy, download file .
Mott makes some good points including that:
Sparks & wildfires lost 770,000ha to hot (habitat destroying) fires in 2003 while State Forests NSW only lost 70,000ha. …
But what has this got to do with clearing controls? Well, it is all about character, scale and intensity of impacts and the capacity of wildlife to recover from those impacts.
Landsat tells us that over the past two decades, total clearing in NSW has only been about 16,000ha of which about half is regrowth clearing that will still take place. Another 25% is clearing for power lines, roads and infrastructure so this leaves a net 4000ha of annual ‘habitat destruction’ that will be covered by the new legislation. Note that no attempt has been made to quantify forest expansion to derive a net figure.
Dr John Benson, of the Botanic Gardens, has provided most of the key factoids on which the NSW policy process has relied on from SEPP 46 to the more recent changes. It was he who provided the notorious 150,000ha annual clearing estimate to the NSW Vegetation Forum. He used data from the Moree Plain and extrapolated for the entire State. It was he who, in “Setting the Scene”, his backgrounder for the 2003 legislation, advised the government that there had been 35 million ha of clearing prior to the mid 1930’s. But he then failed to include a total on a table showing cleared area in each bioregion. This missing total of 28 million hectares would have made it clear that there had been an increase in forested area, net of clearing, of 7 million hectares over the past 7 decades. That is, 1 million hectares of expansion per decade or 100,000ha of extra forest a year.
In my own district (Byron Shire) the aerial photos confirm that private forest has trebled in area (net of clearing) since 1954 and the annual clearing rate is less than 2% of the average annual expansion rate for the past half century.
But “don’t you worry about that”, the new legislation comes with a $460 million budget over 5 years (essentially a reallocation of the old DLWC budget) and this works out to about $23,000 per hectare of ‘saved’ private forest.
And if $23,000/ha is an appropriate, cost effective and responsible public outlay for protecting habitat then what is the Premier, the Minister and the policy doing about the 700,000 hectares lost to government exacerbated wildfires? At those costings it came to $16.1 billion in damage to publicly owned habitat?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Another job for Greenpeace, dob in an illegal logger from NSW!
Regulations and more regulations – more freedom reduced. Ultimately it will morph into a totalitarian state.
Ah it’s about time they reined them in NSW – haven’t NSW farmers basically clearfelled what’s west of the range. And what are we developing this land for anyway – so they can get more drought aid, increase salinisation, increase soil acidity, and remove even more water from a beleaguered river system. At least Queensland has most of it trees left.
Byron Shire BYRON SHIRE !!!! indeed – how boutique is that ? It’s probably all macadamias anyway.
And Louis – you’re in trouble again too – your piece “Life and its effect on the environment ” was utter rot. The Sahara is in the tropics and it suffers from a severe deficit of luxuriant tropical life – heat helps – but only if you have the water too ! Notice how nature is not uniform across the world in its delivery of essential elements of life. What a pity and therefore whoops for the hypothesis. And Antarctic waters have lots of life despite it being a tad cold !
To Phil – farmers have not clearfelled west of the range – perhaps you should venture over the mountains at some stage and see for yourself. Oh, and any development that does occur happens so you can have your wheat bix or corn flakes for breakfast, put on your clean cotton shirt and woollen socks, pull on your leather shoes and go to work. You can then enjoy your lentils for lunch (or lamb chops, or salad or whatever type of food you enjoy). That’s what farmers do.
Lamb chops for dinner OK, but don’t like wool socks and leather boots – hate lentils too ..
Personally have spent a lot of time in the area.
And drive the Newell highway and you’ll see more paddocks than forest. Except while you bounce roos off the bull bar in the Pilliga.
So what proportion of native vegetation exists in NSW west of the range in cropping areas – how much is now under the plough ?? And if we’re invoking the national interest theme – how much under the plough has been maintained in good condition and and in good faith.
Plenty of thickening in the Pilliga scrub and the Cobar woody weeds degradation patch perhaps. But if it’s able to be cultivated for wheat or cotton – it’s in trouble.
And what level of drought aid is reasonable. Would have thought that the 1 in 20 rule over the last 15 years would have paid out enough now for at least another 100 years. So no more claims till 2105.
The question is: when is enough enough. Is not the Basin developed beyond reasonable capacity already? And who benefits from the land clearing – Mum & Dad operations or Corporates?
I’ve got plenty of time for agriculture. But change is needed.
You really need to get off the Newell to see the real west. And the west goes a lot further west than the Newell and the Pilliga.
Land under the plough is probably in much better condition now than it was 30 years ago – new technology (conservation farming)and awareness by farmers has stopped mountains of topsoil moving.
Thickening of the Pilliga is not good – it will simply provide more ground fuel for the next wildfire – all land needs to be managed for environmental outcomes rather than political expediency.
Better land management means less reliance on drought aid, but we still need a safety net for teh big one (which is what we are still in, despite the recent short term relief).
The question you should be asking is “who benefits from agriculture??” rather than who benefits from land clearing. The whole community benefits from healthy nutritious food, and that is what agriculture provides. Yes change is needed, but it must be done in a way that encourages farmers to change rather than penalises them for failing to change.
Rick – sorry I didn’t simply mean my experience of the area was limited to the Newell motel stretch.. plenty west, south and east of the line.
And as I said I’ve plenty of time for agriculture. Including new agricultural technologies such as GM crops. And those of us who like to eat are inevitably involved in agriculture in some way.
But I think the political tide has turned in the cities. e.g. the last drought we had gone from sympathy that characterised the Farmhand appeals of previous years to scrutiny over why aid was required “again” so soon. Discontent over perceived agrarian socialism – the bush capitalising gains and socialising losses starts to preoccupy the minds of urban voters with the prolonged intermittent drought.
That’s why climate change maybe so important to Australian farmers. Also a reason I debate the case on this blog to at least look at some facts and make some research assessments.
And voters (perhaps motivated by Rog’s evil-doing greenies) are asking for other dividends from agricultural landscapes too – people expect some representative native vegetation left.
The toll of past ignorance of land management is still equilibrating in the landscape. Perhaps much of the sediment in the system is from clearing 150 years ago. I reckon the hydrological balance is still working its way out as well.
There’s a considerable existing toll from salinity and soil acidity. Tablelands has its dieback problems. Western Division its land degradation and woody weeds. But now good to get of the rabbits eh?
And maybe the Pilliga needs a better fire regime. But more fire what revert it back to grassy woodlands not forest. So what happens to the Cypress Pine industry ? Clearly the Pilliga isn’t pre-European and is unlikely to get back there anyway.
I guess if you’ve bought land and now can’t develop it – it’s an issue. Would a conservative administration compensate those so affected? After all it’s their carbon reserves (in trees) that are allowing urban Australians to have their energy rich lifestyles and keep the carbon accounts balanced.
I think we need new system of land management and a more adaptive nimble agriculture. How won’t be easy.
But it’s not all biophysical. The issues of the ongoing drift of youth from rural towns, rundown in services and health of rural Australia are also problematic.
Why is it that all sorts of urban leftist greens spend so much of their time extolling the importance of safety net issues and social conscience but then turn into rabid economic darwinists whenever it looks like a farmer might get access to the same safety net? Bit of a double standard there, don’t you think? Especially when one considers the $ millions that went to Mitsubishi to keep a vehicle plant in SA.
When urban times are tough a business can work fewer hours, lay off staff, and even close down and the working capital, the equipment etc, will still be intact and the owner can get the dole despite the fact that he has an empty shop or workshop. Not so a farmer in drought. The workload actually increases, and the working capital, the cows, simply die if you try to mothball them. And even though the farm business is making temporary negative income, and the business is not operating, they cannot get the dole like many urban business owners I have known. This constant tight arse carping about drought relief betrays a squalid case of urban bigotry.
Howl at the unfairness and the moon as much as you like – it appears that our producers need assistance more often than 1 in 20. Fine if we’re all happy to vote for it. Hey I might too.
Or perhaps we have experienced climate change and drought will now be more frequent (avalanche of stones and tomatoes from right stage !)
BUT – I think you’ll find the urban tide has now turned and the “majority” are unconvinced. The hard question is why isn’t agriculture like any other business – if the panel beater can make ends meet or carpet cleaner has no clients – tough luck.
And does drought assistance prolong the inevitable. Does assistance reward land degradation and flogging the paddocks. Does drought feeding pay?
And you can get the dole for Exceptional Circumstances despite having high assets. Of course you could argue about the criteria but that’s another debate.
At last we hear of govt compensation for the conservative grazing of native pasture . its about time . For those farmers convinced to buy a bigger tractor by their mates or their banker this is the only way to stop a lot of them from figuring out some way to “clear” either mechanically or chemically, fragile and increasingly rare pasture species .
Farmers and their organisations should insist that their retention of perrenial species in a ecologically responsible and thoughtfull way should also give them an ANNUAL and NON tradeable carbon credits cash income that is permanently attached to their titles .
Why isn’t agriculture like any other business Phil? Because any other business can turn the machine off and minimise costs until the next upturn. In agriculture the cows can’t eat the bare dirt that is left behind when the urban public refuses to cull or supplement the feed of it’s Kangaroo herd. Yet, if he sells his cows, even at drought prices, he will get hit with a humungous tax bill.
Drought aid is ultimately a form of urban welfare. Take any economic model, factor in the total amount of drought aid, and then extract the huge collapse in farm values that would take place if it were not available, and see how that flows through into reduced urban employment.
Those complaining about drought aid have the intellectual penetration of a cost clerk.
Ian – I can sympathise personally but the urban tide (i.e. most of us) has turned politically I feel. I would personally vote to support the bush ethos but many won’t and now don’t. Compassion fatigue.
Suburbia don’t buy it anymore. Arguments go – if the business is that hard – sell it and move the capital. There are kangaroo quotas – you can cull. And you do have access to income equalisation deposits – which the industry have not always treated responsibly.
New Zealand doesn’t have drought aid does it? In South Africa you have to run recommended stocking rates.
And what proportion of farmers access the aid – the marginal ones or best operators.
Ian – what argument should we seriously put to government to keep the level of support. And if the climate trends are any guide – look forward to more extremes and more droughts. Think Federal Treasury will walk away at some point – I bet they will if the trends keep going.
Agriculture needs to get on the front foot with a new outlook. And it ain’t easy I admit !
Thanks, Phil. The Roo cull is often less than 10% when the circumstances call for 80% destocking. Up to 80% can die in a drought anyway. I agree with you on urban perceptions and I don’t think there is any point in rural people trying to push the proverbial up the hill.
But if urban people seriously think farmers are a burden, or a luxury they will no longer indulge in, then they should have no qualms with the new non-metropolitan state, or states, that have had majority support at the past three AGMs of NSW Farmers.
Can I assume that you will be a pro-secessionist voter? Nothing succeeds like secession.
Ian – with a properly put argument I think urban dwellers can have great empathy with the bush.
And it is beyond money – it’s also into national indentity and ethos.
Generous responses by suburbia and governments of both colours in many droughts have shown this. And I think cooperation between states, suburbia and the bush on forest firefighting shows considerable national unity. Similarly with cyclones and floods.
But that doesn’t mean dialogue on better land management and new agriculture cannot be had, positions accomodated, and changes made.
I’m a federalist when it comes down to it. And surely our urban and rural futures are interlinked now and in the future. I’d like to think so at least.
P.S. OK macropod management needs much better thought – agree.
I am sure you would agree, Phil, that one of the first duties of an electoral majority is to maintain a proper regard for the rights and liberties of all minoritiies. And it is very clear to most in the bush that this proper regard, on the part of the urban majority to the rural minority, has suffered some serious erosion of late. Indeed, it is quite clear that even the capacity to empathise with the bush is seriously degraded. And history is full of examples of the danger a minority is exposed to when this capacity to empathise has gone.
I, too, am a federalist. But a fully functioning federalism must be capable of delivering representative government to each community of interest. We don’t have a functioning federalism in Australia. All we have is a collection of British style unitary states, each with a dominant, hegemonic capital and subordinated regions. And the interests of those capitals are no longer dependent on the well being of the regions. Even the Brits are reforming their system with a process of devolution.
If you want to understand the role of a dominant capital as causal agent in regional decline then take out your calculator. We know that state government expenditure is 15% of GDP. We also know that at least 20% of that expenditure is on “head office” functions that involve no expenditure in the regions. That amounts to 3% points of GDP that leaks from the circular flow of the regional economy each year(cycle). So just key in 0.97 x 1.0 and then keep keying the “=” button for twenty hits. This will leave you with the number 0.54379 and this 54% represents the comparative size of the regional economy after 20 years of reverse multiplyer effect. It means, in the assumed absence of federal transfer payments etc, that the local economy must grow by 3% p.a. in real terms just to maintain the status quo. And in a state like Qld, where regional population is a third of the total, then the metropolitan economy is getting an annual boost of 1.5% over and above productivity growth. It will be 1.3468 or 35% bigger than the initial position by doing nothing at all.
The only conclusion is that regional decline is directly linked to the political structure that has been imposed on those regions. Drought relief is peanuts in comparison.
Ian – excellent discussion on social/regional economics.
So what can be done to improve the urban/rural divide?
Good fences make good neighbours. Exercise the provisions in both State and Federal constitutions and create new states that reflect community of interest. Match the state to the state of mind.
Jennifer,
Please explain ? There is no money for farmers in this package. The Catchment Management Authorities get Million $120.00 for their operational costs the rest goes to the Dept. The Minister, John Williams, and NSW Farmers, and the ABC are misleading the public.
It is important to clarify this point as many think farmers are being paid money and are ungrateful.
In spite of this we would rather have our right to farm back – forget the money or lack of. In addition to the $ 435 Million there is an amount of about $25 million that may be available as at June next year of which a third will be available to buy out dissatisfied farmers at a price if they meet certain conditions. – This will buy about 10 farms! However this is not part of the legislation and they are not bound…….
Nsw State Forests
The aim of the survey is to understand who is visiting State forests, which State forests are theThe Tathra Times Local Online N…
Nsw State Forests
The aim of the survey is to understand who is visiting State forests, which State forests are theThe Tathra Ti…
boring