THE QLD VEG ACT FAILS TO RESOLVE VEGETATION PROTECTION IN QLD

THE QLD VEG ACT FAILS TO RESOLVE VEGETATION PROTECTION IN QLD

ALERT

September 8, 2000

info@brec.ozecol.org
http://brec.ozecol.org

THE QLD VEG ACT FAILS TO RESOLVE VEGETATION PROTECTION IN QLD

Despite some more areas to be protected in SEQ

By proclaiming the gutted Vegetation Management Act, the Premier has failed to deliver for the wildlife and the people of SEQ. The amount of vegetation protected is insufficient for the future survival of our wildlife, the health of our catchments or the protection of our coasts. The VMA will only stop 13.9% of the 10,949 ha of annual tree clearing in the SEQ bioregion.

Out of 2.68 Million Ha of remnant vegetation in SEQ Bioregion some 146,600 ha will be protected by the Qld Vegetation Management Act (VMA) or 5.4% of remnant vegetation.

Little extra vegetation will be protected in Brisbane City(2%), Gold Coast City (0.2%) or in the Beaudesert(2%), Redcliffe(0%), Kilcoy(2.1%), Maroochy(4.25%), Pine Rivers(0.94%) and Redlands Shires(0.68%).

In the 18 Local Authorities making up the SEQ2001 Region some 40,623 ha will be protected which is only 5.1% of the 798,551 ha of remnant vegetation leaving 105,000 ha of "Of Concern" ecosystems unprotected.

No measures for ongoing management of retained vegetation has been delivered, all references to financial incentives and structural adjustment funding have been removed from the Freehold Vegetation policy.

Table 1 Outcomes using Draft VMA Regulation 2000

Table 2 STATE OUTCOMES Qld Vegetation Regulation 2000
The Way Forward ?

More Implications in SEQ

The VMA fails to protect urban land from degradation which includes all land designated for urban, future urban or rural residental purposes. This means the VMA will not stop clearing on slopes, acid sulphate soils or in areas that would lead to salinity in urban areas.

The VMA Section 84(1)f and h make most tree clearing unassessable in SEQ.

If IPA says that something is "exempt development" a planning scheme cannot make it assessable. The legal question is does this mean all tree clearing under Sec84 a-h is unassessable or exempt development under IPA ? If this is so then councils will find it hard to expand beyond the bare minimum under the VMA.

There has been no explanation of how the broader components, if any, in the Regional Vegetation Management Plan(RVMP) can be acted on by Local Authorities. No mechanism is detailed to implement RVMP outcomes if assessment is not triggered. Assessment will only be triggered for endangered ecosystems which means the RVMP will have no real effect of vegetation management in this region.

Despite Sec 7 the VMA, IPA and the Amended Local Govt Act will restrict future measures by councils to protect vegetation such as local laws, VPOs. This will stop some councils from protecting against "pre-emptive" clearing .

Back to Whats New Back to News Back to BREC Contents

Table 1 Outcomes using Draft VMA Regulation 2000

Vegetation Protection Outcomes of the Amended Vegetation Management Act By Local Government using Draft VMA regulation 2000
	Woody		Endangered	VMA %Veg	OC Veg	% Veg
	Veg97	Clear97	Ha 1995	Protected	Ha 1995	Of Concern
BEAUDESERT	152,824	131,925	2989.2	1.96%	16,765	10.97%
BOONAH	69,058	79,109	2166.4	3.14%	7,845	11.36%
CABOOLTURE	66,119	58,884	3935.3	5.95%	5,729	8.66%
CAMBOOYA	16,752	46,264	NA	NA	NA	NA
CITY_OF_BRISBANE	57,444	59,541	1137.8	1.98%	1,618	2.82%
CITY_OF_CALOUNDRA	72,016	40,564	3252.3	4.52%	4,353	6.04%
CITY_OF_GOLD_COAST	78,047	66,765	154.5	0.20%	800	1.03%
CITY_OF_IPSWICH	70,317	106,646	4715.2	6.71%	6,353	9.04%
CITY_OF_LOGAN	12,463	12,339	1196.2	9.60%	308	2.47%
CITY_OF_REDCLIFFE	1,486	2,603	0	0.00%	200	13.42%
CITY_OF_TOOWOOMBA	6,012	5,639	NA	NA	NA	NA
CROWS_NEST	70,838	91,779	NA	NA	NA	NA
ESK	192,190	206,171	6876.2	3.58%	31,688	16.49%
GATTON	101,722	55,783	4999.3	4.91%	7,001	6.88%
KILCOY	91,362	52,842	1954.9	2.14%	4,843	5.30%
LAIDLEY	27,522	42,167	788.6	2.87%	2,958	10.75%
MAROOCHY	78,142	37,912	3317.9	4.25%	3,437	4.40%
NANANGO	75,088	97,847	NA	NA	NA	NA
NOOSA	57,519	28,964	2464	4.28%	10,694	18.59%
PINE_RIVERS	45,518	31,679	428.4	0.94%	488	1.07%
REDLAND	36,279	17,666	247.3	0.68%	873	2.41%
ROSALIE	44,806	175,003	NA	NA	NA	NA
TOTAL	1,423,271	1,448,344	40,624	2.85%	105,953	7.44%

THE WAY FORWARD ?

We want to get "Of Concern" ecosystems protected and the land degradation trigger back into urban areas. We are encouraging local groups to write letters and call thier State members.
The State Government should fund the protection of Of Concern ecosystems by itself rather than just wash its hands.
Declarations of High Conservation Values(HCV) and Lands Vulnerable to Degradation(LVD) need to be prepared an submitted to the State Government as a matter of urgency . This is one of our only hopes to broaden the protection of SEQ vegetation, most of which is "Not of Concern".
The State government should recognise vegetation currently protected by Local Government planning schemes and policies to be automatically declared HCV as they have already been through a public consultation process.
The State Government should detail how councils can regulate vegetation management activities that are not development under IPA ie act on the Regional Vegetation Management Plans.
We are also asking for substantial local government package to help protect vegetation.

For More Information Contact

BREC Coordinator Michael Petter on 39015577 or 38990537 AH

Back to Whats New Back to News Back to BREC Contents

Table 2 State Outcomes Qld Vegetation Management Regulation 2000

Data from Herbarium Aug 2000 Clearing rates 95-97 and Est 2000 Remnant Areas

Biogeographic Region	Est 2000 Remnant Protected Freehold	Est 2000 Remnant Protected Leasehold	Est 2000 Remnant in Reserve	Total Est 2000 Remnant Protected	Total 2000 Veg Remnant	% Area Est 2000 Remnant Veg	%Est 2000 Remnant Veg Protectd
North West Highlands	0	0	291,259	291,259	7,281,484	99.55%	4.00%
Gulf Plains	0	0	877,949	877,949	21,948,715	99.76%	4.00%
Cape York Peninsula	0	213,841	1,572,501	1,786,342	12,096,163	99.42%	14.77%
Mitchell Grass Downs	0	133,932	416,202	550,133	20,201,296	83.53%	2.72%
Channel Country	0	4,600	1,663,871	1,668,471	23,769,590	99.81%	7.02%
Mulgalands	40,422	50,376	514,470	605,268	15,310,724	82.76%	3.95%
Wet Tropics	4,000	25,600	563,548	593,148	1,153,200	58.13%	51.43%
Central Mackay Coast	22,620	116,108	331,052	469,780	1,039,364	72.00%	45.20%
Einasleigh Uplands	0	89,000	332,456	421,456	11,081,880	93.43%	3.80%
Desert Uplands	423	113,948	168,331	282,702	5,646,988	80.32%	5.01%
Brigalow Belt	320,242	1,359,588	2,998,066	4,677,897	14,394,965	39.53%	32.50%
Southeast Qld	92,628	50,396	1,063,688	1,206,713	2,445,089	39.36%	49.35%
New England Tableland	20,000	2,723	74,042	96,765	266,009	34.32%	36.38%
Totals	500,336	2,160,112	10,867,436	13,527,883	136,635,467	78.66%	9.90%
			reserves includes state forests as well as conservation and national parks
Biogeographic Region	% Area of Bioregion protected	Annual Clearing (95-97)	% annual clearing (95-97) stopped by VMA	Unprotectd OC Remnants	Annual OC Clearing FH 1997	Annual OC Clearing(95-97) as % of OC remaining
North West Highlands	3.98%	420	0.00%	0	NA	NA
Gulf Plains	3.99%	3,399	0.00%	0	NA	NA
Cape York Peninsula	14.68%	1,730	0.00%	44,550	NA	NA
Mitchell Grass Downs	2.27%	16,734	12.31%	152,195	7,750	5.09%
Channel Country	7.01%	1,886	0.00%	50	NA	NA
Mulgalands	3.27%	40,549	6.00%	208,847	8,526	4.08%
Wet Tropics	29.90%	1,778	0.00%	31,000	NA	NA
Central Mackay Coast	32.54%	4,392	43.85%	9,449	1,029	10.89%
Einasleigh Uplands	3.55%	4,277	0.00%	8,000	NA	NA
Desert Uplands	4.02%	29,268	4.77%	30,936	695	2.25%
Brigalow Belt	12.85%	132,848	29.42%	937,318	30,556	3.26%
Southeast Qld	19.42%	10,949	13.9%	237,676	3,278	1.38%
New England Tableland	12.48%	1,150	15.93%	59,139	614	1.04%
Totals	7.79%	248,263	20.38%	1,719,159	49,170	2.86%