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!