| |
 |
Briefing Note
Vegetation
Clearance in Queensland – Updated
Why Land
Clearing?
Vegetation
clearance and accompanying habitat loss has been happening
in Queensland at a rapid rate for many years.
Vegetation clearance
is driven by the imperatives of economic development. In Queensland
the extension of pastoral activities is the main reason for the
massive clearance of native vegetation. During the period 1999-2001,
94 percent of woody vegetation change was due to clearing for
pasture [Department of Natural Resources, Statewide Land
Cover and Trees
Study (SLATS) 2003]. Arguably, pastoral activity should not be
occurring on some of the arid marginal land that is being cleared
in Queensland. It is just not suitable for a sustainable pastoral
industry. Other farming activities and urban development in coastal
areas also contribute to this high rate of land clearance, although
to a lesser extent than pastoral activity.
 The
most recent official figures estimate that between August 1999
and August 2001,
1,136,000 hectares were cleared in Queensland.
The rate of vegetation clearance reached a record 758,000 hectares
the first year and 378,000 hectares were cleared in the next
year
[SLATS 2003]. The SLATS document attributes the decline in
the clearing rate to the proclamation of the Vegetation
Management Act 1999. The peak during the first year could
be attributed to “panic
clearing”.
More than
75% of Australia’s land clearing
occurs in Queensland. Most of the land clearing occurs in the
brigalow and gidgee open
forests and woodlands. Where the dominant vegetation type is
brigalow, estimations show that of the original six million
hectares, only
about 5% remains [State of the Environment Report 2001 (SoE)].
Nearly half of the State’s land clearing is accounted
for in the Murray-Darling river system found in the southern
part of
Queensland. The areas most at risk are in the Murray-Darling
catchment, the Fitzroy catchment and the Burnett catchment.
Re-vegetation
initiatives in comparison with clearance rates are limited.
In 1998 Prime Minister John Howard pledged to plant one billion
trees
over a ten-year period across Australia. It is now estimated
that this number of trees is needed in the Murray-Darling
Basin alone
(The Age, 29/5/99).
In the State's "frontier" past,
most people did not fully appreciate the consequences that
would accrue as a result
of widespread land clearance. Scientific knowledge was limited
and the domination of nature was a key and unquestioned tenet
of the "frontier" ethos. Times have changed. Much more
is now known about the natural world and the importance of preserving
biodiversity. There is much greater appreciation of the inter-connectedness
of all creation and of how one intervention in an eco-system
can radically alter that eco-system and place it, and others,
at serious risk.
The Effects
of Vegetation Clearance
...
stopping the broad-scale destruction of remnant native
vegetation is the single most important action the Queensland,
New South Wales and Tasmanian governments can take to
protect the future of Australia’s landscapes.
Blueprint
for a Living Continent – A Way Forward
from the
Wentworth Group
of Concerned Scientists
November 2002, p 11 |
There are
many adverse effects of vegetation clearance, especially because
of the magnitude of clearing that has been occurring
in Queensland. The main ones are:
a) Loss
of Habitat and Biodiversity
The State
of the Environment Australia 1996 (SoEA) suggested that: The
loss of biological diversity
is perhaps (Australia’s)
most serious environmental problem. Whether we look at wetlands
or saltmarshes, mangroves or bushland, inland creeks or estuaries,
the same story emerges. In many cases, the destruction of
habitat, the major cause of biodiversity loss, is continuing
at an alarming
rate.
Dramatic
changes in vegetation-cover (through total or selective land
clearing) are a major cause of loss of
biodiversity.
These changes affect the trees, the associated plant communities
and the wildlife that inhabit the areas. A recent study
[Cogger, Ford et al, 2003] estimates that approximately 100
million
native
mammals, birds and reptiles die yearly in Queensland as
a result
of the broad-scale clearing of remnant vegetation. Animals
and plants are killed immediately or shortly after their
habitat has been cleared. But due to habitat shrinkage,
fragmentation or degradation, vulnerable native species face
extinction
in
the longer term. Whole ecosystems may disappear.
b) Impact
on the Great Barrier Reef
The impact
of native vegetation clearance can be far-reaching. Scientists
now make a clear
connection between land clearance
for agriculture and urban development on the Queensland
coast as posing a real threat to the ongoing viability
of the Great
Barrier Reef. Sediment and nutrient run-off into the
Reef is reaching alarming proportions, contributing to
the deterioration
of the coral and the loss of seagrass and benthic (sea-bottom)
plants. (The Marine and Coastal Community Network – Information
Leaflet)
c) Soil
Degradation
Land clearing
increases the risks of water and wind erosion. While water
erosion drives loose topsoil
to the streams,
dust storms blow away millions of tonnes of nutrient-rich
topsoil
every year. Replacement of trees with shallow rooted
pastures and crops is a primary cause of dry-land
salinity. Without
trees, rains raise the water table and bring the
salt to the surface.
This situation is nearly impossible to rectify.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that 40,000
hectares of land
in Queensland can no longer be used for farming
because of salinity (Salinity
on Australian Farms ABS 11/12/2002).
Disturbance
of ecological systems also has other adverse
effects on forests and agriculture. For
example, natural
pest control
is lessened when an ecosystem is dysfunctional.
An
example of what can happen when this delicate balance is upset
was reported by Claire Miller
in The Age on
29 May 1999:
A plague
of tiny insects is draining the life from the grand gums
dotted around Canberra. The
native
psyllids, or lerps,
fluctuate in number but for the last
few seasons, the little sapsuckers
have been out of control. Scientists
are worried that the trees – already
stressed by age, disease, salinity, livestock
pressures and their exposure to a largely cleared
landscape – may never recover
from the onslaught. Yet, they are helpless
to do much: the scale of the plague is too
great
for human intervention. The birds
that used to eat the lerps and other pests
have almost disappeared because clearing and
grazing
have destroyed their habitat in
bushy understorey plants. Livestock has also
stopped young trees taking root, so when the
old gums finally succumb – well,
the aesthetic and ecological sterility
hardly bears thinking about. The ecological
imbalance evident in the rolling hills
around the national capital is typical
of the legacy of extensive land clearing
across the nation since white settlement.
And without vegetation, there is worse
to come. The dimensions of this ecological
crisis are mind-numbing.
d) Disturbance
of the Water Cycle
Vegetation
clearing interferes with the water cycle. Trees bring rain
but trees also play
an important
role in the
control of
runoffs, and the recharge of the aquifers.
Water erosion leads to the siltation
of rivers and
waterways. In
Australia, 50,000kms
of streams have been degraded by sand
deposition and sediments [Wentworth Group].
e) Perturbation
of the Carbon Cycle and Emission of Greenhouse Gases
As trees
are destroyed significant greenhouse gases are emitted which
act as carbon sinks
for greenhouse
gases.
It is estimated
that 13% of Australia’s greenhouse
gas emissions are generated by
land clearing and subsequent soil
emissions
(WWF).
f) Loss
of Cultural Values and Human Heritage
 “The
bush” has always played an important role in a people’s
psyche. Indigenous people have always had a strong connection
to the land and for generations now many families have invested
their whole lives in the land. Governments have acknowledged
this by placing many areas of Australia’s
natural environment under an
international heritage listing.
Greater awareness of Indigenous
culture and its connection
to the land also helps in understanding
that these precious eco-systems
have to be safeguarded. Woodlands
are not just a source of timber
but are also a source of traditional
food and medicine and have
potential, if well governed,
as a source for new scientific
discoveries that will benefit
the total earth community.
The
ecological crisis is a moral issue ... Respect for life
and for the dignity of the human person extends also
to the rest of creation ... we cannot interfere in one
area
of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to
the consequences of such interference in other areas
and to
the well-being of future generations.
Pope
John Paul II, 1990
|
Economic
Impacts of Land Clearing
The negative
consequences of uncontrolled land clearing are now costing
the nation millions of dollars.
The Murray-Darling
Basin Commission has ascertained that salinity currently
costs
$64 million dollars a year and estimate that salinity
will cost Australia between $600 million and $1 billion
every year
for the next century for the Murray-Darling Basin
alone (The Murray-Darling Basin Salinity Audit). Revegetation
costs
an
average of $10,000 per hectare, which means revegetating
a year’s worth of clearing in Queensland could cost
more that $5 billion! (QCC and TWS brochure, July 2003).
This
is unsustainable economically, socially and culturally.
The short-term
economic benefits which might accrue to an agricultural or
urban development must be measured
against the cumulative
and long-term consequences of vegetation clearance
(McDonald, Thomas & Horstman M, 1999, pp 12-13).
Prevention is the most cost effective option.
Farming
families need practical and financial assistance
to make the necessary changes to more sustainable
farming.
Queensland
is in a unique position compared to other Australian States
whose incident of salinity is
much higher. Some Salinity
Management strategies found in Queensland from
the ABS study on salinity were:
-
Queensland
had 331,000ha of crops, pastures and fodder plants for salinity management;
-
It
had 126,000ha of trees for salinity management or prevention
of salinity;
-
27,000ha
of land was fenced for salinity management or prevention
of salinity;
-
Queensland
had 15,000km of earthworks (levees/banks and drains) for
salinity management
or prevention of salinity.
(Salinity on Australian Farms ABS 11/12/2002)
Controls
on Land Clearing
International
Controls
Australia’s
land clearing is only exceeded by four other countries: Brazil,
Indonesia, DRC (Congo) and Bolivia
(Blueprint
for a Living Continent – Wentworth
Group p.10). This indicates the serious responsibility
Australia has
to abide
by two international
conventions on the environment:
The
Convention on Biodiversity. This Convention
came into existence at the UN Conference on Environment
and Development
in 1992 (the “Earth
Summit”) in Rio de Janeiro. Australia
signed the Convention in June 1992 and ratified
it in
June 1993. 187 countries
have signed this Convention which sets out
commitments for maintaining
the world's ecological underpinnings as we
go about the business of economic development.
The
Convention establishes three
main goals: the conservation of biological
diversity, the sustainable
use of its components, and the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic
resources.
The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention
came into
force
on 21 March
1994 with
166 countries
signatories to it. The parties to the convention
meet annually to monitor the implementation
of the convention
and to continue
to explore how best to tackle climate change.
This Convention has been strengthened with
the Berlin Mandate of 1995
and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Negotiations continue each year – The Buenos Aires Plan of Action (1998), the Bonn
Agreement July 2001 and the Marrakesh
Accord November 2001. Australia signed
the
Convention in June 1992 and ratified it in
December 1992. It signed the Kyoto Protocol
in April1998 but is yet to ratify
this
protocol.
National
Controls
The National
Forest Policy Statement (NFPS) was first issued in December
1992. It pursues 11 broad national goals:
Conservation,
Wood production and industry development, Integrated
and coordinated decision-making and management, Private native
forests, Plantations,
Water supply and catchment management, Tourism
and other economic and social opportunities, Employment,
workforce education and
training, Public awareness, education and involvement,
Research and development, and International responsibilities.
One of the
outcomes of the NFPS was the setting up of Regional Forest
Agreements (RFAs). RFAs are 20-year agreements
between the Commonwealth and State governments which provide
a blueprint
for the future management of our forests and
the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically
sustainable forest
products industry. They protect forests with
an
adequate reserve system based on nationally agreed criteria,
a support for innovative
forest industries and sustainable forest management
of the whole forest estate. All RFAs are based on scientific
Comprehensive
Regional Assessments of the environment, heritage,
social and economic uses and values of the forests. In
Queensland, there
is one RFA in the south-east of the State.
In
1996 the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's
Biological Diversity (Department
of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, 1996) had proposed two key targets
for the year 2000:
-
Australia
will have avoided or limited any further broad-scale clearance
of native vegetation, consistent with ecologically
sustainable management and bioregional
planning;
-
Australia
will have arrested and reversed the decline of native remnant
vegetation.
Clearly
these targets have not been met. Since the late 1990s however,
the situation has been
changing
fast both nationally
and in Queensland. A consolidation of the
legislation dealing with biodiversity, the (Commonwealth)
Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) came into force in July 2000. Due to
the effect
of vegetation
clearing on dry-land
salinity, there is ongoing pressure from
the Commonwealth Government to develop effective
controls on vegetation
clearing in risks
areas. Following the National Action
Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, released in October
2000, “any Commonwealth investment
in catchment or region plans will be
contingent upon land clearing being
prohibited in areas where it would
lead to unacceptable land or water
degradation” (SoE 2001).
In the same way, the Commonwealth may withhold
the support
it gives through the
Natural Heritage Trust.
State Controls
Historically,
Queensland Governments have been slow to legislate
for controls on vegetation clearing. For decades Queensland
had no vegetation clearance controls at
all.
In effect, inaction was seen as tacit consent to this
widespread practice. As more
information about the adverse effects became
known
and as conservation groups became more politically
active on the issue, the Government
finally acted.
In 1994,
the Goss Government introduced The Land Act 1994 which, in
part, required that
policies
and guidelines be developed to
give effect to controls on tree clearing
on leasehold land and other land owned or administered by
the State Government. When
this task was completed in 1997 the total
area of the State which required a permit to clear
trees was estimated at around 133.5
million hectares or 77% of the State's
land mass (detailed in Vegetation Management - State of
the Nation (Draft), pp 17-18).
Significantly,
the legislation encompassed two policy instruments for sustainable
vegetation management,
which were to be developed
in consultation with key stakeholders. These were:
(i) the
process for developing Local Tree Clearing Guidelines;
(ii)
the process for developing a Broad-scale Tree Clearing
Policy.
It took
from March 1995 to October 1997 for both processes to be
finalised. In that time the average rate of land clearance
in Queensland increased significantly
(Zethoven, p 19) pointing
to a rash of panic clearing prior to
the introduction of controls.
The Broad-scale
Tree Clearing Policy that was finally proclaimed
was limited. The new regime included
the following key principles:
-
vegetation is regarded as "endangered and vulnerable" if
less than 10% of the
pre-European extent remains in an intact condition. Clearing
in this category is prohibited
(it is now
recognised that anything
less than 10% is endangered);
-
vegetation
is regarded as "of
concern" if between 10
and 30% of the
pre-European extent remains in an intact condition. Clearing
in this category is allowed up
to 50-80% of the original
extent on leasehold
properties, depending upon
the vegetation type;
-
vegetation
is regarded as "not of concern" if more
than 30%
of the pre-European extent remains in intact condition.
Clearing in this category may be up to 80%
of the original extent
on leasehold
properties;
and, overall,
-
vegetation
cannot be cleared if such clearing resulted in moving the
category
of a vegetation community into another more vulnerable category – for example,
from "not
of concern" to "of
concern".
In the end,
neither the conservation movement nor the pastoral
industry
was satisfied with
the end result of this policy
development process – although for different reasons.
Towards
a vegetation management framework for freehold land
The general
dissatisfaction with this leasehold policy led the current
ALP Government to review the policy and to establish
a Vegetation Management Advisory
Committee to assist in the development of a "comprehensive
framework for vegetation management to apply consistently
across all tenures" (Zethoven,
p 19). This objective culminated
in the introduction of the Native Vegetation Bill in December
1999 and the Act being proclaimed
in September 2000.
The Vegetation
Management Act 1999 made vegetation clearing
on freehold land assessable
under the Integrated
Planning Act 1997.
Its aims included the preservation
of vulnerable ecosystems,
the protection of biodiversity
and the sustainable use of
the
land. It intended to protect
remnant regional ecosystems
according to their level
of degradation. Tree clearing
restrictions also
applied on areas declared as ‘of
high nature conservation value’ or ‘vulnerable
to land degradation’.
Landowners
wishing to clear trees in these vulnerable ecosystems
or areas would have to apply
for an approval. They would
be
required to prepare a Property
Vegetation Management Plan
(PVMP) providing
details of remnant native
vegetation that is proposed to be cleared.
The same
Act provided that the Minister must prepare:
A State
Policy for Vegetation Management and Regional
Vegetation Management Plans (RVMPs)
for the different ecological
regions
of the State. There are
currently 24 RVMPs and community consultation
and participation strategies
are used in these regions.
This
action offered some hope that Queensland
would finally
have effective
controls over land clearance
in all tenures.
The State
Government expected
that the Commonwealth Government
would
contribute financially
to ensure that
farmers and pastoralists
affected
negatively by the
new management regime would
be compensated.
The Commonwealth
refused to
come to the party,
claiming that
the State Government
acted precipitously
and unilaterally.
In the meantime
panic vegetation clearing
was occurring
at an alarming
rate.
(Other Acts
involved in vegetation
management include
the Integrated
Planning Act
1997, the Water Act 2000 and others
Acts
aiming at specific
ecosystems,
e.g. coastal ecosystems.)
The
present legislation, especially the
Land Act
1994 and the Vegetation
Management
Act 1999,
along with
the State Policy
and
the RVMPs,
form the State’s
framework for
the management
of native vegetation.
The legislation
is currently
under review
in Parliament
(Natural
Resources Amendment
Bill
2003). Changes
made from this
review are to
improve the enforcement
of the existing
regulations.
 |
| Almost
all remaining 'remnant' bushland on private or leasehold
land inside the green area above would be protected from
land clearing under the Joint Government proposal. |
Current
Situation (as at July 2003)
On 22 May
2003, a proposal to:
-
rapidly
end broad-scale clearing of remnant (or mature) bushland
in
rural areas of Queensland by
2006,
-
provide
a $150 million financial assistance
package for farmers affected by proposed controls,
-
place
a moratorium on new applications
to clear bushland
in Queensland,
was
agreed upon
by the Federal
Environment Minister
David Kemp
and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie.
What this
proposal does not include is:
-
protecting
remnant bushland in urban areas close to cities and towns;
-
protecting
important
re-growth bushland that might be needed
to prevent salinity, or protect rare plants and
animals.
This is
just a proposal at this stage with negotiations
between
political parties and rural lobbying groups
still
taking
place. A final decision
has yet to be made by both
levels
of government.
If the
proposal does come to fruition, up
to 20 million
hectares
of remnant bushland will be protected as
well as
millions
of native birds
and animals. This could be the single
biggest
action
ever taken to protect Australian bushland.
At this point in
time there is
great hope:
-
hope
that land clearing, as it has been, will come to an end;
-
hope
that immediate action is taken to prevent uncontrolled
land
clearing in urban area;
-
hope
that the type of negotiation that has taken place between
Federal and State governments continues;
-
hope
that for those who have for generations invested their lives
on the land will be supported and compensated appropriately
in the movement
to more sustainable agriculture;
-
hope
that property rights are redefined as regards land and vegetation
management;
-
hope
that the issues around land clearing, salinity, free-flowing
rivers and biodiversity are taken seriously and not marginalised;
-
hope
that there is an increased understanding of the interdependence
of all of life;
-
hope
that our heritage-listed areas will be preserved.
 Theological
Insights
The newness
of the call to ecological conversion within the Christian message,
reflects
the same type of changes that have had to be made in confronting
the frontier/dominating mentality of
earlier
days in this country. In recent years church leaders, from
the Pope to local Bishops
to theologians and scripture
scholars,
have challenged people to face this mentality and accept
responsible stewardship of
the whole of creation – to
come
to know in their minds and hearts “the endless interdependence
between
human beings and their environment” (Pope John
Paul
II – World
Peace
Day Message, 1999).
Columban
priest Sean
McDonagh has said that
the Catholic Church has been
one of the last major global
institutions to
respond to the gravity
of the ecological crisis confronting
the Earth Community (1999). He notes,
however, the papal document,
Peace with
God the Creator, Peace with all
Creation, which the present Pope
issued in January 1990 and in which
the Pope calls the Catholic
Community
to "realise that their duty towards nature and
Creator
are an essential part of their faith".
As
part of
fulfilling this
duty, Sean
McDonagh notes
the necessity
for Christians
to lend
their voices
to those
movements and
campaigns directed
at bringing
the serious
despoliation of
the natural
world to
an end.
He points
out that
this will
involve engagement
in both
the political
and corporate
world.
The
Social Action
Office Kit – Catholic Social Teaching
and the Environment (March 2002) – is
a valuable resource in exploring the theological aspect
of environmental issues.
Suggested
Action
There are
a number of actions which can be taken to bring political pressure
to bear on the proposal at hand:
-
Write
to (email or hard copy) the Prime Minister and the Premier
of Queensland congratulating
them on the proposal
and
telling them that you support the proposal. Tell them that
you are
concerned
that future generations must be able to enjoy
our rivers,
farms and wildlife, that the social and cultural
heritage and future
of farming families needs to be carefully
considered, and that
energy and resources need to be directed
to the development of sustainable
agriculture.
-
Sign
a postcard sending
the above message.
Get your family,
friends and workmates
to sign one as well.
Bundles of cards
are available from
The Wilderness Society – Ph
07 3846 1420 or email
Ian
-
Get
involved by learning
more from the information
provided on the
following websites:
-
Keep
a media watch
on the issue
and, when
opportunities arise,
write 'Letters
to the Editor'
of local, regional
newspapers.
-
Make
a donation to the
Queensland Conservation
Council (QCC)
or The Wilderness
Society to
support their
vegetation clearance
campaigns. The QCC's
postal address
is PO Box
12046, Elizabeth
Street Post
Office, Brisbane
4002; Ph (07)
3221 0188.
The Wilderness Society
can be contacted
by Freecall 1800
030 641 or
at: PO Box
5427, West
End Qld 4101.
References
and Bibliography
Author Unknown
(1999), Native Vegetation Management – Clearance,
Controls, Revegetation and Monitoring – State of the
Nation (Draft), February
Boulter,
Sarah et al (Eds) (2000), Native Vegetation Management
in Queensland – Background, Science and Values,
Department
of Natural Resources & Mines
Catterall
C & Kingston M (1993), Remnant Bushland of South
East Queensland in the 1990s – Its Distribution,
Loss, Ecological Consequences and Future Prospects,
Griffith University
and Brisbane City Council
Cogger,
Dr Hal; Ford, Pr Hugh
et al (2003), Impacts of Land
Clearing on Australian
Wildlife in Queensland, WWF Australia
Report
Ecos,
113, October-December
2002, Facing Extinction,
pp 24-30
(CSIRO)
Kault
D & McAlpin S (1998), Habitat Destruction
in Queensland – The
Effect on Our Native Wildlife,
June, QCC
Kirkpatrick
J (1996), A Continent
Transformed, Oxford
University
Press,
Melbourne
McDonagh
Sean (1999),
How
have
the Churches responded
to the
Despoliation
of
Creation? Presentation 2 to the
ACLRI
National Assembly,
May
McDonald
M, Thomas
G, & Horstman M (1991), The
Urgent Need for Clearing Controls
of Native Vegetation in Queensland:
A Submission
to the Queensland Government,
Australian Conservation Foundation,
and Cairns and Far North Environment
Centre
Department
of Natural
Resources and Mines (NR&M),
Queensland (All documents
available on the NR&M
website)
-
(2003a)
Land Cover Change in Queensland, A Statewide Landcover
and Trees Study Report (SLATS 2003), Jan 2003 (1999-2001
Vegetation
Change Report)
-
(2003b)
Land Cover Change in the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin
1999-2001, July 2002, revised Jan 2003
-
(2002)
State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land,
November 2002
-
(2002)
Broad-scale Tree Clearing Policy for State Lands,
November 2002
-
(2001)
A Guide to Vegetation Management Policy in Queensland,
Nov 2001
State
of the Environment (2001)
(SoE 2001), Chapter on Biodiversity
The
Age (1999), 'Bleak forecast
for life on the land',
29 May
The
Marine & Coastal Community Network (n.d.), Vegetation
Loss: Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef Information
Leaflet
The
Wentworth Group
(2002),
Blueprint for a Living
Continent: A
way forward
from the Wentworth
Group of concerned scientists,
Publisher: WWF
Australia
Zethoven
I (1999),
Slashing
Land
Clearing in Spinifex,
March, p 19
©
Social Action Office – CLRIQ
July 2003
Acknowledgements:
Photos above from The Wilderness
Society (used with permission)
Photo
below by Cathy O’Keeffe
pbvm (used with permission)
|
|
|
