Introduction

The Brisbane Region Environment Council believes that the only long-term way to protect native vegetation is through incentives, regulation and cultural change. VMAC is involved some fundamental decisions about Queensland and the future of its wildlife. It is highly unlikely that wildlife will survive into the long term with the proposed reserve system of just 4% of the State.

If the relationship from the southern mallee is shown to be applicable in Queensland the state reserve system would result in the extinction of at least 47% of the States species. If we retained 10%, we could lose 37% of species and if we retained 30%, we could still lose 20% of species. To BREC, this is an ethically unacceptable outcome.

VMAC is in fact deciding what share of Queensland will be left for the nature.

BREC believes that this level of removal (70%) will, in addition to outright species loss, result in serious disruptions to ecological processes. Some of the processes that will be disrupted include fauna migration, soil formation, food webs, nutrient cycling, biogeochemical cycles and local atmospheric regulation.

These impacts will also then flow on to riverine and coastal waters, hydrological cycles both surface and sub surface will be disrupted and altered.

Other environmental problems such as accelerated erosion, salinity, degradation of soil structure and health will be made worse.

While BREC strongly wishes to avoid those consequences we realise that the social, cultural, political and legal changes to reverse this trend will not happen overnight, within a year or perhaps even within decades. Nevertheless, we must start somewhere and start to turn towards something more sustainable that delivers a balanced outcome for both us and for the rest of nature. Vegetation management systems should be linked to a comprehensive Statewide, Regional and Local "State of the Environment" reporting systems that can provide information to guide land managers and decision-makers.

BREC request that the VMAC and staff seriously consider the strategies we have repeatedly tabled which are briefly listed below. We believe that these strategies will start to reverse our current perilous course and have a positive economic and social effect.

We support the general thrust of the current version of the proposed freehold tree clearing policy. We do believe however that in the interim arrangements the policy should focus on native vegetation, as there are other services and support for dealing with non-native vegetation.

Furthermore, we believe it is essential to maintain people, with sufficient quality of life and resources, in the landscape to assist in its care and sustainable development. A sufficient financial commitment will have to be made to ensure that this is achieved.

The Governments failure to communicate the scope of the VMAC discussions is leading to panic clearing in a number of areas. Ambit claims and inflammatory rhetoric from both sides are only exacerbating the destructive impacts on biodiversity and natural processes.

The failure of two levels of government to indicate a serious financial commitment will only further erode any consensus and goodwill that has been established.

The assertion that incentives/assistance (in-kind or cash) will not be made available in the transition to comply with regulations is dangerous and unworkable. It is an abrogation of the states responsibility to help clean up the mess that its policies, advice and support has created over the years.

BREC will not make many detailed comments until we have seen the policy as decided at VMAC#5. We will however note that the riparian corridors outlined in the policy are not achievable in the SEQ area and as written will inflame an already bad political situation. The width of riparian corridors should take into account existing native vegetation, nature conservation values, stream order, 50-100 yr flood lines, acid sulphate soils, surge lines etc.

The state interests as defined discriminate against wetlands, billabongs and parcels of remnant ecosystems under 20ha and riparian zones under 200 m wide. Mapping of these areas is virtually non-existent and needs to be done at 1:25,000 at least ASAP.

Parts of SEQ bioregion are in a clearing crisis particularly in lowland and coastal areas. There are a number of "endangered" and "of concern" regional ecosystems that will disappear if current clearing rates continue. Recent SLATS data quite clearly indicates that SEQ vegetation removal is accelerating. From this data, it would seem that progressively the Burpengary Creek (2014), Pumicestone Passage Creeks (2028), Caboolture River (2036), Broadwater Creeks (2036), Bulimba Creek (2058), Oxley Creek (2072) and Mooloolah River (2088) would all have NO vegetation apart from reserves. We also suggest VMAC consider the results of:

Lastly, while administrative simplicity is desirable it is futile if policy objectives will not be achieved.

Yours for nature

Michael Petter

Coordinator BREC

This would allow conservation and ecotourism activities to occur on pastoral leases in addition to grazing.

The land manager voluntarily retains vegetation needed for the maintenance of productive capacity and the avoidance of land degradation. Transitional payments could be available for establishment costs of new management practices. Tax and rate relief could be available for retained areas.

Management of vegetation retention beyond what is retained under property management plans might attract annual government payments. This would allow the creation and management of a sizeable off reserve conservation system.

State Government and local Councils raise levies and either acquire or lease lands for nature conservation. A 99ys lease with first option to buy could obtain Land for nature conservation. These lands could be managed by not for profit trusts or governments.

Non park lands needed for the maintenance of ecological systems could be set aside by developers and managed by local authorities for nature conservation. These areas could be protected by infrastructure agreements. The marginal cost of managing these lands could be covered in Infrastructure charging.

For "Endangered", "Of Concern" and "Rare" ecosystems clearing should not be permitted.

Regrowth of "endangered" ecosystems should not be cleared

Regrowth on "environmentally sensitive" lands should be retained.

Clearing regrowth "of concern" ecosystems should be minimised

Land Trusts buy or receive donated land and establish covenants and Voluntary Conservation Agreements. These lands are then on sold.

Landholders would receive rate and valuation relief for parts of the property covered by State or local conservation agreements or covenants. Local governments with small rate bases would receive assistance from other governments to implement this option. Valuation relief reduces one of the drivers for more intensive developments on areas of lower intensity use.

A transparent and accountable system of development offsets could allow developments to retain more native vegetation. The offset would mean an area in another location could be provided or that an increased density of development could be allowed in a smaller portion of the land.

A tax deductable charitable trust could be used to receive domestic and international donations along with a commitment for the government to provide some matching funds. These funds could then be delivered through existing schemes, both government and non-government, to assist with the implementation of some of the above strategies.

A package of state and federal funding for land trusts, valuation and rate relief, local vegetation mapping, regional nature conservation mapping and transition costs of vegetation management laws.

NB Payments per hectare are indicative only. Per hectare payment would vary with land systems and management required

Assumes

1. Urban/PeriUrban 5% of study area
2. 15% of PeriUrban gets urban catchment payment NOC ecosystems
3. 10% of Rural gets rural catchment payment NOC Ecosystems
4. 75% of Rural OC Ecosystem gets Nature Conservation Payment
5. 20% of OC Ecosystem gets Carbon Credit Payment
6. 5% of Urban Area gets Nature Conservation Lease