1. BIOSIS RESEARCH PTY. LTD. Natural & Cultural Heritage Consultants A DECADE OF NET GAIN Aaron Harvey aharvey@biosisresearch.com.au www.biosisresearch.com.au

2.  More than 50% of Victoria’s native vegetation has been cleared, including 80% of the native vegetation originally found on private land.  Native Vegetation Management Framework (NVMF) primary goal: “A reversal, across the entire landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to a Net Gain.”  Three step approach.  The Net Gain objective has revolutionized and underpins the fundamental shift we have seen in environmental policy over the last 25 years.  Victoria has led the way with environmental policy and legislation in Australia and the NVMF has set the benchmark. Introduction

3.  Not necessarily more work, rather the focus of our work and our workforce has changed.  Twice as many botanists as zoologists – not necessarily a bad thing!  Loss of botanists from the industry as a result of “net gain fatigue”.  Reduction in botanical skills (or at least a lower emphasis).  A disproportionate focus on native vegetation as a surrogate for biodiversity values for a site, the exception to this is where threatened fauna is recorded. What does the NVMF mean for consultants

4. Australian Context

5.  Voluntary offset scheme that has limited legislative implications/requirements (TSC Act).  By entering into a BioBanking statement additional assessment of impacts to threatened species is not required.  Scheme sets out the methodology for determining cost of offsets and funding for management of offset sites (BB Trust Fund).  BioBanking methodology is highly complex and in some regards more involved than a habitat hectares assessment (  GIS).  Methodology is often applied to major projects (at the request of the NSW State Government).  As of 8 May 2012 only 9 completed BioBanking projects have been finalized. However a much greater number of negotiated outcomes have been finalized. BioBanking – NSW (&ACT)

6.  Queensland Government Environmental Offset Policy (2008) (QGEOP) – overarching framework for environmental offsets in QLD. It outlines the principles for using environmental offsets and guidance on when offsets should be used.  Four specific offset policies support the QGEOP: 1.Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (2005); 2.Mitigation and Compensation for Works or Activities Causing Marine Fish Habitat Loss (2002); 3.Offsets for Net Benefit to Koalas and Koala Habitat (2010); and 4.Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy (2011).  Each policy specifies the manner in which offsets can be provided (i.e. a land based offset and/or a monetary contribution).  QGEOP provides guidance for the provision of offsets where more than one policy has been triggered. Offsets – QLD

7.  South Australia - Accredited assessors identify Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) ratios when assessing losses for a vegetation clearance application.  Simplified system with less detail required for a general proposal e.g. want to build a road but not yet doing the vegetation clearance application. A proposal for offset is required at the application stage.  Tasmania - relates mostly to mapped threatened communities.  Vegetation Condition Manual (TasVeg) based on the VQAM. South Australia & Tasmania

8.  Western Australia – applications to clear native vegetation assessed on 10 principles.  A condition of approval “may” include the requirement for a permit holder to plant in other areas, to monitor operations, to conduct environmental risk assessments, to enter into a conservation covenant or agreement to reserve, or to implement an environmental management system.  Northern Territory – has Land Clearing Guidelines under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme’ (2010). Has no offset policy with the Planning Scheme being introduced in 2009. WA & NT

9.  Equality between / across projects.  Higher degree of scrutiny and consistency for assessments via a defined methodology for assessing sites.  Provides certainty (e.g. due diligence).  Theoretically reduces declines in extent and quality of native vegetation in Victoria.  Has become the accepted standard for quantifying and mitigating impacts. Pros of the NVMF

10.  Perceived complexity can result in an inconsistent application of the NVMF.  Monitoring, enforcement and auditing has been very poor.  Inequality as a result of incorrect/poor assessments.  Inconsistent and unclear offset market.  Ongoing losses of native vegetation (First Approximation Report).  Technical grey areas: wetlands, crown land, dynamic systems, temporary (partial) loss, averaging of scores (lower quality often dragged up and higher quality often dragged down). Cons of the NVMF

11.  Two (2005 & 2010) Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) Inquiries have looked at the NVMF.  Reduce complexity by simplifying and clarifying without losing the intent of the NVMF.  Invest in additional support and training (e.g. cert. of competency).  Improved use of strategic planning instruments (e.g. SIAR).  Continue to educate the community and consultants and engage with industry (e.g. WGR). Improvements / solutions