does effective policy change require a change in culture? some observations from the south...
TRANSCRIPT
Does effective policy change require a change in culture?
Some observations from the South Australian native vegetation management program
Tim DendyManager, Sustainable Landscapes, DWLBC
June 2007
Photos: J Quarmby, P Lang, J van Weenen – provided by P Copley, Senior Ecologist, DEHCartoons: Tim Dendy
• Initial challenge• Incentives & disincentives• Legislation change• The need for new initiatives
Observations will cover
Initial challenge1970s – general concern
about the pace of land clearing
1970s – Land degradation evident
Initial challenge
Initial challenge
1970s – Native plants and animals at risk
Pterostylis cucullata
Delmar impar057
Swamp antechinus
Caladenia woolcockiorum
EP Yellow Tailed Black Cockatoo
Mallee fowl
1970s:> 75% of Agricultural Regions cleared
The publication of this map appeared to be the key tool in raising awareness and general support for action.
Initial
challenge
1980 – Voluntary Heritage Agreement/incentive
scheme – interim measure
• Native vegetation proposed for clearance assessed for its significance
• Landholders encouraged to not clear significant areas
• Incentives (or removing disincentives) provided:• relief from local and state government rates and charges
• fencing subsidies
• grants for management of native vegetation
• management advice
• New legal agreement tool – heritage agreements• The first agreement mechanism binding successors in title to
positive management actions
• Provided security for government investment in off-park conservation actions
Incentives
Was there a changeIn culture?
1980 – Voluntary Heritage Agreement/incentive scheme – interim measure
Challenges• Program unsuccessful in stemming the rate of clearance
• 190 applications to clear assessed:• only 5 applied for a heritage agreement• only 3 entered into a heritage agreement
• Incentives not sufficient to change behaviour of people wanting to clear land
Positives• Program popular with many landholders – particularly in
rural/urban fringe – large number of applications
• Heritage Agreements paved the way for use of ‘conservation covernants’ across the country
• Generally accepted that incentives needed to be supported by controls
Incentives
1982 – New government sought introduction of controls within six months of election.
• 1983 - Clearance controls first introducedClearance prescribed as a change of land use – required approval of SA Planning Commission
• Introduced overnight – no consultation – aim to avoid panic clearing
Legislation
LegislationChallenges
• Significant increase in applications to clear
• Perverse outcome – landholders advance clearing program
• Approval – 50% of area applied for – I.e. clearing rate increased
• Initial significant adverse reaction from farming sector – particularly concerned about lack of compensation
• Controls could only stop clearing – could not require management.
• Significant resources required to manage unforseen number of applications
Positives
• General bipartisan political acceptance that controls needed
• SA Farmer organisation cooperated with Government to develop new legislative controls
1983 – Planning controls
Was there a changeIn culture?
1985 – Native Vegetation Management Act
• Controls tightened – no link to planning legislation• Decision based on value of native vegetation
• Right to payment (compensation) if land placed under a Heritage Agreement (loss in value of the land) – aim to not set a precedent under planning legislation
• Decisions by a 5 member authority• Included representation from farmer and conservation interest
groups
Legislation
1985 – Native Vegetation Management Act
Legislation
Challenges
• Approx $80 m spent on payments 1985 – 1991 (budgeted for approx $15m)
• Some landholder concern that less land approved for clearance
• Some concern that heritage agreements not ‘voluntary’ – concern for future management
Positives
• General SA Farmer organisation and bipartisan political acceptance for legislation
• SA Farmer organisation recognises the need to manage retained native vegetation
Was there a changeIn culture?
1991 - present – Native Vegetation Act
• Controls tightened• Decision (7 member council) based on value of native vegetation
for:• biodiversity conservation• controlling land degradation and water quality• amenity
• Proposed land use required to be sustainable
• Payments (compensation) no longer a right
• From 2002
• Council may not approve clearance of broadacre native vegetation
• clearance to be offset by a significant environmental benefit
• Exemptions expanded to allow greater flexibility (inc broadacre native vegetation)
• From 2004
• Initiative introduced: building better relationships with landholders to achieve improved biodiversity outcomes
• Recognise that to improve biodiversity - need to also increase farm income
• Supported by admin and legislation change
Legislation
Was there a changeIn culture?
1991 - present – Native Vegetation Act
Legislation
Challenges
• recent desire for ‘sea change’ has resulted in significant pressure from developers to relax the controls
• Conservation interests concerned – too much clearance possible
• continued biodiversity loss: offsets may not result in better biodiversity outcome; short-term loss expected
• monitoring and compliance needs adequate resourcing
Positives
• General support from farmers and mining sectors
• Offsets arguably provides a system that at least reduces the conflict between development and conservation outcomes
• assist in holding the line against future loss of biodiversity
• potential environmental gain
So the question remains - have
we changed culture through
these policy initiatives?
YES –there has been
progressivesupport forbiodiversity
conservationinitiatives
Do we needto do more?
Perceived pressures on biodiversity if only rely on controls
Focus of clearance controls and reservessystem– holding the line
Focus of other initiativesEg nature linksRecovery of extinction debt
What can we do to accelerate landscape scale effort?
• Encourage and support further cultural change
• biodiversity valued by all sectors as an asset
• business opportunities for biodiversity management
• look for innovative solutions, partnerships, collaboration
• multiple benefits
Supported by:
• sustainable source of funding
• knowledge – how best to restore ecosystem function
• planning – where best to restore (regional NRM planning)
• new tools & policy options – legal instruments etc
• legislative support
The need for new tools
Or we can follow Noah’s solution!