1. Russell Costello

2. Victoria’s native vegetation regulation history 1989Native vegetation retention controls introduced 1997Victoria’s 1 st Biodiversity Strategy – net gain  Net gain in planning scheme 2000 – but no method 1999National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Native Vegetation - (ANZECC 1999) 2002 Native Vegetation Framework – policy & method 2003 NVF incorporated into Victorian Planning Provisions  EVC mapping, benchmarks & habitat hectare manual 2006 DSE guide, practice notes and offset gain guide  BushBroker – native vegetation credit trading register  CMA Native Vegetation Plans 2008 NVPP provision clause 52.16  Exemptions review 2010 Clause 15.09 replaced with c12.01 Biodiversity 2011 New WMO and bushfire exemptions replace 2009 temps

3. Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management FRAMEWORK Government policy - applies to agencies regardless of whether a planning permit is required It is incorporated in the Victorian Planning Provisions and referred to by several planning provisions. Therefore it is also statutory policy Status of the Framework Goal: '…to achieve a reversal, across the entire landscape, of the long term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to net gain.’ However, we are still in “net loss” (DSE web 2008) It provides for net gain to be achieved through the Three-step Approach – Avoid, Minimise, Offset

4. The 3-step approach Avoid losses Is there an alternate site? Change the layout? Use different methods? Is the land suitable in the first place Minimise unavoidable losses Redesign, smaller or different footprint, etc target clear or more degraded sites Offset any permitted losses Actions to increase the extent and quality of native vegetation either on the property or offsite Page 23 Framework, c12.01-2 and c52.17 of the planning scheme

5. Example of avoid & minimise Avoided Minimised Lost

6. Examples of minimise and not Minimised Not minimised

7. Framework defines “bioregion” – 28 in Vic

8. Bioregions divided into Ecological Veg Classes The Framework defines EVCs as its veg type mapping unit – all must use this. EVCs are not veg communities. They have veg, soils, topo & climate of similar characteristics. An EVC of the same name in a different bioregion is considered a different EVC EVCs are not veg communities. They have veg, soils, topo & climate of similar characteristics. An EVC of the same name in a different bioregion is considered a different EVC

9. Bioregional conservation status (BCS) of EVCs Each EVC is assigned one of 5 classes of Bioregional Conservation Status with the Bioregion Endangered Vulnerable Depleted Rare Least Concern Bioregional Conservation Status of an EVC is used with the habitat score to determine the Conservation Significance of a site. Increasingly threatened

10. Framework defines quality assessment The Habitat Score and Habitat hectares (HHa) If 5 hectares were proposed to be cleared, the loss in Habitat hectares would be: 2.4 HHa Its a measure of quality-quantity and tradeable like carbon credits

11. An EVC benchmark

12. Habitat Score Sheet

13. Determining conservation significance 1.EVC conservation status x Habitat score 2. Habitat for threatened or rare species 3. Other attributes eg RAMSAR site Highest CS determines the overall CS CS of Scattered Trees –Use a habitat score = “0” NV Framework – process to determine conservation significance (CS) - Appendix 3, Table 5, page 53 There are three triggers

14. ‘ ‘ The responses ’ - the “so what!” - Table 6 page 54 Planning response to conservation significance “Very high” Clearing not permitted (unless exceptional circumstances apply) “High” & “Medium” Clearing generally not permitted “Low” Clearing may be permitted (as part of a sustainable land use option)

15. Offsets: Like-for-like rules Determining the offsets in habitat hectares Multipliers for “very high” and “high” Like-for-like rules for the offset (see also the role of the regional native veg plans) Very highMediumLowHigh Conservation Significance

16. Key Framework about offsets Offsets: gains of secure & ongoing nature Offset plan duration: gains realised within 10 years There must be a direct link between the loss and the offset optimise conservation outcomes (P23) as close as possible to the loss – particularly for H & VH CS (P25) Specifies role of ergional NV Plan in offset requirements Appendices 4 & %, Tables 6 & 7 – offset criteria

17. DSE Guide 2007 Not an incorporated or referral document. Does not bind Council but DSE must follow it. Purpose: Guide to DSE staff in responding to referrals Follows c52.17 – not good for overlay (ESO, VPO) decisions Can be useful to somewhat predict DSE’s likely response Provides useful explanations of: Patch versus scattered trees (& degraded treeless veg) use of habitat default scores where a measure is not valid Best 50% habitat decision tree Responses - exceptional circumstances/generally not permitted Types of offset and the 4 types of gain available (maintenance gain, improvement gain, security gain & recognition of past management) Useful glossary

18. VCAT interpretation often sets new guides EG Villawood Properties v Greater Bendigo CC - Maiden Gully P1063 [2005]. The Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal said: A) We should consider all vegetation in urban subdivision lots as effectively lost. B) We should use a 2-stage approach to offsets: 1. The permit decides if and how much vegetation can be cleared. 2. Permit includes a condition requiring a 2 ndry consent for an offset management plan.

19. Is it all too complex for you too? Time to Review

20. What’s happening – review? Yes – internal DSE team – no outside input yet Nothing new since Nov 2011 09/05/12

21. Possible Improvements Simplify and clarify!!! Some of the wording is woefully written for clarity and simplicity. Simplify the HHa method – particularly understorey & recruitment. ½ to ¾ hour for understorey for little effect on score – usually =15. (Should there be more emphasis on diversity in the score? Should weed presence be a separate component or a multiplier on understory quality? etc) Improve treeless veg method – current grassland method over-values poorly- diverse grasslands and fails to distinguish highly-diverse ones from low-diversity ones. Gives a higher score to a grassland than a similar quality grassy woodland would get!! Develop a statutory wetland method of habitat assessment. Change Table 5 to better reflect true conservation significance eg We need Low & Medium CS for Endangered & High BCS. Do we need an area component to conservation significance ? Is a tiny area as valuable as a similar-quality extensive one? Other refinements??

22. More possible refinements More precise guidance on the planning response to clearing the various classes of conservation significance. We need a more rational protection for old trees (reflecting their faunal value) – currently only value for re-establishing an EVC recognised). Currently, huge trees from least concern and depleted EVCs have low CS unless VROT present. More rational gain types reflecting real increases in extent/quality (prior management???, 40% security gain for a state reserve??) Include the key offset guidance from the DSE guides in the statutory policy. Less prejudice against revegetation, particularly buffering, infilling or linking remnants – we need gains in extent! And it would make finding some types of offsets easier and just as valuable.