Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations

Background The removal of native vegetation has been regulated in Victoria since 1989 through the planning system A permit is required to remove, lop or destroy native vegetation unless a right or exemption exists The current policy settings (Victoria’s Native Vegetation – A Framework for Action) have been in place since 2003 A consultation paper (Future directions for native vegetation in Victoria) outlining proposed reforms to Victoria’s permitted clearing regulations was released in September 2012 On 22 May 2014, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change released the final package of reforms for incorporation into planning schemes The new arrangements will commence in September 2013

The current policy settings The currently policy settings for permitted clearing are included in Victoria’s Native Vegetation – A Framework for Action (NRE, 2002) which were incorporated into planning schemes in The Framework: –introduced a statewide objective for biodiversity (net gain) and for permitted clearing (no net loss) –established methods/concepts to measure and classify different types of native vegetation (conservation significance, best and remaining habitat, habitat hectares) –introduced the three step approach ‘avoid, minimise, offset’ to the permit process –established rules for the ‘like-for-like’ offset arrangements The requirements of the Framework were used as the basis for determining obligations under state controls for the purposes of the Melbourne Strategic Assessment.

The permit process Pre applicationApplicationDecision makingIf permitted, offset Landholders plan their project with regard to expected costs and regulatory outcomes. Landholders submit information on characteristics of the native vegetation to be removed. Landholders demonstrate avoidance and minimisation. Government determines whether avoidance and minimisation is sufficient. Government decides whether or not to grant the permit. Landholder undertakes offset on their own land or purchases an offset from a third party. Government undertakes activity to monitor and enforce permit conditions.

Future directions for native vegetation in Victoria On 14 September 2012, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change released a consultation paper. Key issues: –confusion regarding the objective of the regulations –coarse/subjective systems of measurement and classification –costly information requirements, particularly for low impact permits –no clear decision guidelines for application of mitigation hierarchy. –unworkable offset arrangements: costs not proportionate; prices volatile; compliance low –unclear roles and responsibilities between state and local government. The consultation paper proposed four priority reforms and five supporting reforms. More than 200 submissions were received in response to the consultation paper from stakeholders and members of the community.

Issues with the permit process Pre applicationApplicationDecision makingIf permitted, offset × System complex to understand and navigate × Costly and subjective × Lack of clear guidance × Subjective given lack of guidance × High cost and difficult to source × Cost and difficulty of compliance makes enforcement difficult Landholders plan their project with regard to expected costs and regulatory outcomes. Landholders submit information on characteristics of the native vegetation to be removed. Landholders demonstrate avoidance and minimisation. Government determines whether avoidance and minimisation is sufficient. Government decides whether or not to grant the permit. Government undertakes activity to monitor and enforce permit conditions. Landholder undertakes offset on their own land or purchases an offset from a third party. × Difficult to assess given lack of guidance

Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations Four priority reforms: –Priority reform 1: Clarify the objective of the native vegetation permitted clearing regulations –Priority reform 2: Improve how biodiversity value is measured and defined –Priority reform 3: Incorporate risk and proportionality in decision making –Priority reform 4: Ensure offsets provide appropriate compensation to the environment. Five supporting reforms: –Clarify roles and responsibilities of state and local government –Better regulatory performance –Improve offset market functionality –New approaches to compliance and enforcement –Continuous improvement.

Priority reform 1: Clarify the objective of the native vegetation permitted clearing regulations Address confusion regarding the scope and focus of the regulations Achieved through amendment of the Victoria Planning Provisions and new incorporated document –objective amended to ‘no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity’ –native vegetation clause refined so biodiversity objective is distinct but considered but alongside other native vegetation objectives (e.g. amenity) –corresponding amendments made to the State Planning Policy Framework regarding biodiversity Will support greater transparency and accountability particularly between state and local policy.

Priority reform 2: Improve how biodiversity value is measured and defined. Address concerns regarding the cost and accuracy of existing systems of measurement and classification Move from reliance on information collected at site level and take advantage of mapped and modelled values provided by spatial layer: –streamline site assessment methods to focus on the collection of raw data at the site level –adopt modelled outputs for landscape scale information, such as strategic biodiversity value and habitat importance for rare or threatened species Designed to support consistent application of rules and address concerns regarding cost and assessor variability Supported by commitments to periodically update spatial layers to incorporate known changes, new data and improved analytical approaches.

Priority reform 3: Incorporate risk and proportionality into decision making Address lack of consistency in regulatory outcomes. Introduce risk-based pathways for assessment of permit applications. –enable landholders to self-assess their risk-based pathway using location and basic proposal information Align application, mitigation and offset requirements to reflect risk and proportion of impact. –no additional information required, no mitigation required and general offset requirements for low risk-based pathway permits –site-based validation, mitigation and offset requirements in proportion to risk and impact for moderate and high risk-based pathway. Designed to minimise administrative burden and ensure compliance costs (in the form of offsets) are proportionate to impact.

Decision making under current policy settings Permits to remove native vegetation are typically small: -90 per cent of DEPI- referred permits have 24 per cent of impact. -DEPI-referred permits account for only one third of permits (remaining permits are decided by local government) No differentiated pathway to guide assessment and decision making Uncertain and unpredictable outcomes and disproportionate costs, particularly for small impacts.

Risk-based pathways in practice Risk determined by: Location risk (from location risk map) Extent risk (size of clearing) Risk-based pathways enable landholder to get a clear indication of their likely regulatory experience using basic information. Risk-based pathways improve certainty, reduce costs and support proportionate decision making.

Priority reform 4: Ensure that offsets provide appropriate compensation to the environment Address concerns regarding offset market functionality –difficult to source cost-effective offsets, particularly for small impacts –offset market subject to delays, volatile prices –low levels of compliance with offset obligations Redesign offset requirements to reflect significance of impact: –general offset: For impacts deemed to be low or not significant, offsets focused on securing high value biodiversity assets. –specific offset: For significant impact on species habitat, offsets need to specially compensate for that impact. Supported by establishment of low cost compliance pathways including over-the-counter schemes, property vegetation plans.

The reformed permit process Pre applicationApplicationDecision makingIf permitted, offset System accessible and easy to understand. Landholders able to get an understanding of their likely regulatory experience through provision of basic information. Risk based pathways for assessment. Majority of applications able to be completed without specialist advice. Application of mitigation based on risk and impact Clear link between information provided and decision making process Costs designed to be proportionate to impact Improved compliance with permit conditions due to proportionate outcomes and well functioning offset arrangements. Landholders plan their project with regard to expected costs and regulatory outcomes. Landholders submit information on characteristics of the native vegetation to be removed. Landholders demonstrate avoidance and minimisation. Government determines whether avoidance and minimisation is sufficient. Government decides whether or not to grant the permit. Government undertakes activity to monitor and enforce permit conditions. Landholder undertakes offset on their own land or purchases an offset from a third party. Clear decision guidelines regarding any mitigation requirements

What the reforms mean for planning Change to the biodiversity clause 12 in SPPF –clearly sets objectives and expectations for strategic planning and site based decision making –‘no net loss’ stated as the objective for permitted clearing (not ‘net gain’) –removal of Biodiversity Strategies sub clause Changes to clause Native vegetation –‘no net loss’ as the stated objective in this clause –biodiversity considerations made separate from other native vegetation management objectives –embeds risk-based pathways for application requirements and decision making guidelines

Benefits of the reforms for local government Clearer process for applying the state’s native vegetation biodiversity requirements No specialist knowledge required to apply rules in relation to biodiversity for low-risk applications Increased support available for local government: –strategic planning for biodiversity –compliance and enforcement of native vegetation rules –setting up over-the-counter offset schemes

Next steps Information sessions for local government to be held around Victoria Period for councils to familiarise themselves with the changes Training to be provided by DEPI Amendments to take effect in September 2013

Supporting reforms Supporting reforms have been identified to support the implementation of the regulations and improve performance of the regulatory system. 1.Define State and Local Government planning roles 2.Better regulatory performance 3.Improve offset market functionality 4.New approaches to compliance and enforcement 5.Continuous improvement

Benefits of the reforms Better targeted environmental outcomes: –improved systems of measurement and classification to support identification of important native vegetation –clear link between risk and impact of a proposal and the decision making guidelines –increased compliance with offset obligations due to new rules A system that is accessible and easy to understand –clearer guidance and information about processes –reduced complexity in understanding and meeting obligations Improved certainty for landholders and the environment: –provision of upfront information to support awareness in the community –improved regulatory design regarding information, decision making and compensation Reduced costs to the community –streamlined information requirements to reduce reliance on costly specialist advice –offset arrangements designed so that costs are in proportion to impacts and rules are simplified to support compliance.

Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations Overview: Minister’s foreword Summary of documents Implementation schedule Summary of consultation process: Summary of consultation process Key issues raised regarding priority reforms Response on how they are dealt with in the reforms Amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions: Guide to the changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions Biodiversity information tools for use in native vegetation decisions Provides a summary of the biodiversity information tools (spatial layers) that have been developed to support the reforms Communication and information documents

Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations Biodiversity assessment guidelines Replaces Framework as incorporated document in the VPP Outlines objective, application requirements, decision guidelines and offset obligations Native vegetation gain scoring manual Outlines offset standards, scoring system and arrangements for establishing offsets. Regulatory documents