VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT A …€¦ · element of the State Government’s vision for Victoria is that by 2010 we will be a State where protecting the environment

VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ➤ A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 7

2. NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY CONTEXT ....................................................... 9

3. A VISION FOR VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION ............................................................. 12

4. PRINCIPLES FOR NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ..................................................... 13

5. VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS ................................................... 14Primary Goal .......................................................................................................... 14Additional Outcomes Achieved by Pursuing Our Primary Goal ........................................ 14

6. A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE NET GAIN GOAL ..................................................... 16Extent and Quality of Native Vegetation .................................................................... 16Achieving and Accounting for Net Gain ..................................................................... 18Considering Land Protection and Conservation Significance in Net Gain ......................... 22Ensuring that Individual Protection and Clearance Decisions Contributeto our Net Gain Goals ............................................................................................. 22Reflecting Conservation Significance in Overall Outcomes for Net Gain ........................... 27

7. KEY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN VICTORIA .......................... 29Department of Natural Resources and Environment ...................................................... 29Victorian Catchment Management Council .................................................................. 29Catchment Management Authorities .......................................................................... 29Trust for Nature ..................................................................................................... 29Department of Infrastructure ................................................................................... 30Local Government .................................................................................................. 30

8. INVESTING IN ACTION ............................................................................................. 31How Much Investment in Native Vegetation Conservation and Enhancement is Needed?..... 31Shared Investments ................................................................................................ 31

9. IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 329.1 Protection and Enhancement on Private Land ....................................................... 339.2 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................. 459.3 Research for improved management .................................................................... 47

Appendix 1: Land Protection Hazard for Net Gain Outcomes ............................................. 49

Appendix 2: Assessing bioregional conservation status of Ecological Vegetation Classes ....... 50

Appendix 3: Determining Conservation Significance ........................................................ 53

Appendix 4: Responses and Offset Criteria - summary ..................................................... 54

Appendix 5: Timber Harvesting Offset Criteria - summary ................................................. 56

Glossary .................................................................................................................... 57

References ................................................................................................................. 59

3MINISTER’S FOREWORD

MINISTER’S FOREWORD

Growing Victoria Together outlined howGovernment will balance our economic, socialand environmental goals and actions. A keyelement of the State Government’s vision forVictoria is that by 2010 we will be a Statewhere protecting the environment for futuregenerations is built into everything we do.This Framework describes the Government’sgoals and aspirations for native vegetationmanagement in Victoria. It provides a logicaland consistent approach to valuing nativevegetation and a reporting framework foraccounting for our actions toward thenet result.

While Victoria no longer has the widespreadtree clearing of the past, we know that thereis a continued incremental loss in the extentand quality of native vegetation. The NationalLand and Water Resources Audit’s AustralianNative Vegetation Assessment 2001 highlightsthe history of land clearing in Victoria.

Over the last decade, protection of remnantsand revegetation has become a centralcomponent of protecting the environmentalvalues and productive capacity of our landand water resources. This has taken placethrough our Land for Wildlife, Tree Victoria,salinity, Landcare and water quality programs.Strategic revegetation is vital to restoring

catchment processes by reducing the amountof rain entering the groundwater systems andby removing nutrients from waters draininginto our rivers and streams. Internationally,loss of native vegetation is recognised as amajor reason for biodiversity decline and theincrease in greenhouse gas emissions.

Recent research has revealed the realmagnitude of the challenge we face instemming the tide of emerging drylandsalinity. The work undertaken by CSIRO forthe Murray Darling Basin Salinity Audit showsthat unless we get vegetation managementright we face a ten-fold increase in landaffected by salinity within the next 50 years.In some catchments revegetation of 60% to70% of the catchment is needed tosubstantially redress the hydrologicalimbalance that is leading to our growingsalinity problems. The significant investmentinto the joint State and CommonwealthNational Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality reflects the recognition of thechallenge ahead of us in addressing these issues.

The Government’s recent announcement ofmajor industry reform in Our Forests OurFuture is another significant step in achieving sustainability in the way we useour natural resources.

Achieving the goals of Victoria’s NativeVegetation Management - A Framework forAction requires a long-term commitment toimproving the security and quality of remnantvegetation and accelerating revegetationactivities. Over the years we have learnt agreat deal from efforts to revegetate thelandscape. This knowledge needs to be madewidely available.

The Net Gain principle and the accountingprocess are being used by the CatchmentManagement Authorities and the Port Phillipand Westernport Catchment and LandProtection Board in preparing their regionalNative Vegetation Plans.

This Framework represents a significantcontribution to implementing Governmentpolicies to restore catchments and rivers byproviding goals, priorities and decision-making tools for native vegetationmanagement. It is essential that all Victoriansunderstand and support our efforts to protectand enhance our valuable natural heritage.

Sherryl Garbutt MPMinister for Environment and Conservation

MINISTER’S FOREWORD4

A long-term perspective is required if we areto make our programs more effective andequitable. We have adopted the policy ofachieving a Net Gain in extent and quality ofnative vegetation. The Framework defines andoutlines the application of Net Gain and willbe supported by further details in operationalguidelines. A new native vegetationaccounting system has also been developedto improve the transparency and consistencyof decision making for native vegetationmanagement. A priority for implementing NetGain is to avoid clearing. Where flexibility isrequired to support landholders as they movetowards more sustainable land use andlimited clearing is permitted, a rigorousprocess of ensuring achievement of the NetGain principles must be pursued throughstrict application of the offset requirements.In doing this we are providing the guidancefor native vegetation management decisionsand investment associated with other naturalresource management programs.

5EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management - AFramework for Action establishes the strategicdirection for the protection, enhancementand revegetation of native vegetation acrossthe State. The Framework addresses nativevegetation management from a whole ofcatchment perspective but necessarily focusesprimarily on private land where the critical issues of past clearing andfragmentation exist.

The Net Gain goal is consistent with theframework for sustainable forest managementthat guides native forest management onpublic land and reinforces the objectivesoutlined in Our Forests Our Future to improvethe sustainability and stewardship of ourforests. Clearly the management of our StateNational Parks and Reserves system places ahigh priority on conserving, protecting andenhancing native vegetation for biodiversityoutcomes and this approach is supported byVictoria’s Native Vegetation ManagementFramework. The Framework identifiesprinciples and goals that apply to private andpublic land but recognises that themanagement approaches to achieving thegoals will vary according to the managementobjectives of each tenure and theconservation value of the vegetation.

The Framework identifies the followingprinciples to guide native vegetationmanagement in Victoria:

• retention and management of remnantnative vegetation is the primary way toconserve the natural biodiversity across the landscape,

• the conservation of native vegetation andhabitat in a landscape is dependent on themaintenance of catchment processes,

• the cost of vegetation management shouldbe equitably shared according to benefitsaccrued by the landholder, community andregion, and

• a landscape approach to planning nativevegetation management is required. Goalsfor native vegetation management will bebased on bioregions, or sub-units, withinthe Catchment Management Authorityregion. Priorities for vegetationmanagement should be specific for eachbioregion and catchment.

The primary goal identified for nativevegetation management is ‘A reversal, acrossthe entire landscape, of the long-term declinein the extent and quality of nativevegetation, leading to a Net Gain’. Net Gain isthe outcome for native vegetation andhabitat where overall gains are greater thanoverall losses and where individual losses areavoided where possible. The losses and gainsare determined by a combined quality-quantity measure and over a specified areaand period of time. Gains may be eitherrequired offsets for permitted clearing actionsor as a result of landholder and Governmentassisted efforts that are not associated withclearing. Additional outcomes are identifiedfor biodiversity, land and water quality, andclimate change amelioration.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY6

We need to be able to measure our progressin achieving the primary goal and thisFramework introduces an accounting systemfor this purpose. The system is based onhabitat hectares, a site-based measure ofquality and quantity of native vegetation thatis assessed in the context of the relevantnative vegetation type.

The notion of Net Gain recognises that fornative vegetation, although “natural is best”,it is possible to partially recover both extentand quality by active intervention and thus toeffect the net result. Whilst the priority is toavoid clearing, where clearing is permittedoffset criteria have been established toprovide a clear link between gains and lossesand in this way ensure that the“commensurate” requirement of mitigationis met.

In order to achieve the biodiversity goals fornative vegetation management, application ofthe Net Gain approach needs to be linked tothe conservation significance of the nativevegetation in question. The conservationsignificance of a patch of vegetation (fromVery High to Low) is determined according to:

• the conservation status of vegetationtypes present,

• the quality of the vegetation,

• the conservation status of species present(and the potential habitat value), and

• other recognised site-based criteria.

The Framework provides a strong focus on theprotection and net improvement of higherconservation significance vegetation and aflexible but accountable approach for lowerconservation significance vegetation toenable landholders to move towards moresustainable land use options.

Victoria’s strong integrated catchmentmanagement framework represented by thenine Catchment Management Authorities(CMAs) and the Port Phillip Catchment andLand Protection Board provides anappropriate mechanism for integrating nativevegetation management as a key element ofRegional Catchment Strategies andaction plans.

A range of actions has been identified toimplement Government policy and achieve theNet Gain goal. The actions are grouped underthree broad areas of implementation:

• Protection and Enhancement onPrivate Land,

• Monitoring and Evaluation, and

• Research for Improved Management.

This Native Vegetation ManagementFramework reflects the considerable input,through community consultation, from abroad range of stakeholders.

The principles and approaches outlined inthis Framework are applicable from the on-ground level upwards. Only by ensuring thatdecisions about the protection andimprovement of individual stands of nativevegetation deliver an appropriatecontribution to our goals, will the netoutcomes be demonstrably achieved. TheFramework sets out the broad approach andspecifies minimum standards, recognisingthat as native vegetation values and issuesvary across the State, so too will the regionalpriorities and responses identified by thisbroad approach. Regional Native VegetationPlans will outline these priorities andresponses in detail, setting targets andextending the minimum standards as required.

7INTRODUCTION

1l INTRODUCTION

An estimated 66% of Victoria’s nativevegetation has been cleared as a result of thegrowth and economic development of theState. Of the remaining 34% it is estimatedthat 7.4 million hectares are located onpublic land and approximately 1.1 millionhectares are found on private land.

The extent of clearance varies aroundVictoria. Accessible and relatively fertilelandscapes that were developed for pastoraland agricultural activities have been the mostaffected. For example, the Victorian VolcanicPlains in the south west are 94% cleared.Major rivers and coastal areas have also beensignificantly affected by urban expansion andrelated industrial activities. For example, thePort Phillip catchment management area is71% cleared. Even in bioregions that remainlargely covered by native vegetation becauseof historic and current land use, specificvegetation types may have been significantlydepleted. For example, in the East GippslandUplands bioregion, Montane Grassy Woodlandis 57% cleared.

The National Land and Water ResourcesAudit’s Australian Native VegetationAssessment 2001 provides an analysis ofclearing across Australia. Five of the 85designated bioregions in Australia have lessthan 30% of the pre-1750 cover of nativevegetation remaining. Four of thesebioregions are in western Victoria. The

protection status for the vegetation in thesefive bioregions is low and the majority of thevegetation groups in each region have lessthan 10% of the pre-European extent of thevegetation group in a protected area.

There are two major legacies of this history ofclearing. Ecosystems upon which our presenceand productivity depends are now beyond thepoint of sustainability. Evidence of this is inthe continuing problems of salinity, soilstructure decline, reduced water quality andquantity and increased rates of severeflooding. The biodiversity that built andmaintains these ecosystems is also in decline.

Victorians have made significant progress inprotecting and enhancing native vegetation.But a greater effort is needed. We still have apermanent loss of native vegetation at anestimated 2500 hectares a year and thequality of the remaining native vegetationcontinues to decline1. We need greaterprotection for scattered trees that provideimportant habitat for rare and threatenednative fauna and our latest understanding ofthe future impact of salinity and reduction inwater quality calls for a substantial increasein our revegetation efforts.

Our understanding of native vegetation andits importance has increased significantly.Victoria has:

• increased funding for grants programs thatassist Landcare and other communitygroups to undertake vegetationmanagement activities;

1. Estimates are based on TREE100 dataset (i.e. woody vegetation at 1:100 000 scale derived by visual interpretation of 1995 Landsatsatellite imagery). Current development of a TREE25 dataset (i.e. woody vegetation at 1:25 000 scale derived by computerisedinterpretation of more recent SPOT satellite imagery), which also is able to recognise smaller or less dense patches (e.g. narrow stripsalong stream frontages or roadsides; groups of scattered woodland trees), will provide a more accurate estimate.

INTRODUCTION8

• mapped existing native vegetation andestimated the pre-European distribution interms of Broad Vegetation Types andEcological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) acrossthe majority of the State;

• developed a methodology for assigningpriorities for protection and enhancementof remnants on the basis of theirconservation status, quality and a range ofsite specific features; and

• developed a new approach for accountingfor changes in remnant vegetation, whichconsiders both quality and quantity ofnative vegetation.

Our farmers and land managers have been atthe forefront of Victoria’s native vegetationmanagement efforts. Through the Landcare,Land for Wildlife, Bushcare and salinityprograms the rural community has stronglybacked the native vegetation managementeffort. The mid-term review by CSIRO of theCommonwealth’s Bushcare program reportedthat in Victoria 45,548 hectares of nativevegetation would be protected from variousthreatening processes and a further 11,025hectares planted over the four years of the program.

The approach outlined in this Frameworkrecognises that:

• almost $15 million of State andCommonwealth funds have been spentwithin Victoria each year on nativevegetation protection and revegetationprograms and this contribution is morethan matched by on-ground work byLandcare groups and other community members;

• there has been no comprehensive review ofour native vegetation retention controlssince 1989;

• land and water quality degradationproblems are more serious thaninitially thought;

• there is increasing consumer awarenessabout the impact on environmental valuesarising from agriculture productionsystems; and

• the protection and enhancement of nativevegetation, particularly of the mostdepleted vegetation types, is an importantfactor in achieving a Net Gain in quantityand quality of native vegetation, andprivate land has a key role to play.

The goals and principles presented in thisframework apply across the State to bothprivate and public land. However, the ways inwhich the goals are achieved will varydepending on the management objectives ofthe land and the conservation value of thenative vegetation. The Net Gain approach willcomplement the Framework for sustainableforest management on public land. TheRegional Forest Agreement (RFA) processundertaken in partnership by Commonwealthand State agencies used National ForestReserve Criteria which included a number ofbiodiversity criteria for establishing aComprehensive Adequate and Representativereserve system (outlined in JANIS 1997).Many of these criteria have been used as thebasis for assessing conservation status ofvegetation types in the Net Gain approach.The approach is described in Appendix 2.

While Victoria can take pride in its significantsteps towards stabilising the status of nativevegetation, it is clear that much remains tobe done, particularly in conservingbiodiversity and restoring landscapes to thepoint of long-term sustainability.

9NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY CONTEXT

The purpose of this Framework is to set outthe broad approach to achieving a Net Gainin extent and quality of native vegetation.Adoption of this approach through ourstrategic Natural Resource Management (NRM)processes will ensure that the combination ofindividual decisions add up to the overalloutcomes we seek. The Framework recognisesthat the vegetation management needs ofeach region are different. Landscape change,biodiversity loss and land and water problemsvary across the State and therefore regionalpriorities and responses are also necessary.Regional catchments are the most appropriatemanagement unit to address these issues ifwe are to integrate our land, water andvegetation programs. However, our vision,goals and strategic directions need to be setat a State level to provide guidance andensure a consistency of approach.

2l NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY CONTEXT

The Victorian Government recognises thepermanent care of our natural environment asone of the most important duties of anygovernment. Our quality of life depends onproperly managing our environment andprotecting our precious natural, urban andhistorical heritage. Victoria’s richbiodiversity of species, habitats andecosystems is a legacy to be held in trustfor future generations.

In fulfilling this duty, the State Government’spolicy is to:

• incorporate environmental andconservation considerations into all aspectsof planning and government programdelivery and build the principles ofecologically sustainable development intothe process of decision-making across thewhole of Government.

The Government is committed to:

• restoring Victoria’s rivers and catchments;

• reducing land clearance and promotion ofrevegetation programs to expand thecoverage of our native bushland;

• actively promoting the responsiblemanagement and expansion of our naturalecosystems including the protection ofremnant vegetation along streamsides,roadways, wetlands and the conservation ofnative vegetation on private land, backedby an improved system of nativevegetation retention controls;

NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY CONTEXT 10

• undertaking a trial program in a selectedregion in which formal contractualarrangements will be entered into betweenthe landowner and Government agenciescovering the management of nativevegetation on private land; and

• establishing a Commissioner forEcologically Sustainable Development toprovide an ombudsman role for consideringpublic complaint and auditing compliancewith environmental legislation.

In November 2001 the Victorian Governmentreleased Growing Victoria Together, providingthe signposts for Government action for thenext decade. Growing Victoria Togetherbalances economic, social and environmentalgoals and action with a vision in whichprotecting the environment for futuregenerations is built into every thing we do.One of the priority actions of this vision is toincrease and provide greater protection forareas of high conservation value.

The Victorian Government Policy Statementon Forests - Our Forests, Our Future, BalancingCommunities, Jobs and the Environment wasreleased in February 2002. Our Forests, OurFuture outlines the substantial investment inforestry reform required to ensure that thepublic land forestry industry is managed on asustainable and commercial footing and toimprove the stewardship of our forests.

The development of this Framework has beenguided by these State policies and giveseffect to the native vegetation goals ofVictoria’s Biodiversity Strategy.

This Framework also reflects a range ofVictoria’s commitments to national policies, principally:

• The ‘National Framework for theManagement and Monitoring of Australia’sNative Vegetation’ (ANZECC 1999). TheNational Framework provides a vehicle forthe implementation of the Natural HeritageTrust Partnership Agreement between theCommonwealth and the State and TerritoryGovernments. Its primary objective is toreverse the long-term decline in the qualityand extent of Australia’s native vegetationcover by June 2001.

11NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY CONTEXT

• The National Strategy for EcologicallySustainable Development (ESD) (1992),with the goal, as endorsed by all Australian governments, of:

Development that improves the total qualityof life, both now and in the future, in a waythat maintains the ecological processes onwhich life depends.

The core objectives of ESD are:

• to enhance individual and communitywell-being and welfare by following apath of economic development thatsafeguards the welfare of futuregenerations;

• to provide for equity within and betweengenerations; and

• to protect biological diversity and tomaintain essential ecological processesand life support systems.

The Framework also complements theapproach taken in the Commonwealth’sEnvironment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999 by recognising theimportance of:

• World Heritage properties

• Ramsar Wetlands of internationalsignificance, and

• Listed threatened species protected underinternational agreements.

A VISION FOR VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION12

3l A VISION FOR VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION

Victoria’s landscapes have changed significantly over the past 150 years and if we do notact now Victoria faces increasing costs from land and water degradation and loss ofbiodiversity. Our productive land, the quality of our water resources and the extent of ourbiodiversity all require the full ecological functioning of catchments. We must continue todevelop ecologically sustainable production processes that conserve and enhance ourunique biodiversity and natural heritage.

To assist us in achieving these outcomes we have set the following Vision for native vegetation:

Management of native vegetation provides a sustainable landscape and protectsthe long-term productive capacity and environmental values of our land andwater resources.

The unique beauty and diversity of Victoria’s landscapes and the importance of theunderlying complex ecosystems are recognised internationally.

This Vision will be achieved by:

Our land managers understanding and actively promoting improved native vegetationpractices that provide real benefits for their businesses and the community.

Our State and Local Governments and Catchment Management Authorities driving acomprehensive and scientifically-based native vegetation management program thatprovides certainty to land managers and investors.

13PRINCIPLES FOR NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

4l PRINCIPLES FOR NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

In keeping with the policies outlined in section two, this Framework has the following fourguiding principles for native vegetation management in Victoria:

1. Retention and management of remnant native vegetation is the primary way to conserve thenatural biodiversity across the landscape.

a. All native vegetation has value.

b. Important habitats and populations of endangered species should be protected throughvoluntary or regulatory means.

c. Biodiversity values are not restricted to threatened and depleted vegetation communities.An adequate proportion of each non-threatened vegetation community must also bemanaged principally for conservation.

d. Large natural areas of remnant vegetation are of fundamental importance for natureconservation and are irreplaceable. All other things being equal, large remnants areinherently more valuable than small patches that total the same area.

2. The conservation of native vegetation and habitat in a landscape is dependent on themaintenance of catchment processes.

a. Maintaining ecological processes provides productivity, salinity, water quality and otherland management benefits.

b. Native vegetation management strategies must be integrated with land protection andresource use, including productive agriculture, for both long-term success and for ensuringthat land and water protection outcomes are achieved.

3. The cost of vegetation management should be equitably shared according to benefits accruedby the landholder, community and region.

a. Land managers have a responsibility to retain native vegetation.

b. Public resources are to be directed to increasing the extent of native vegetation or toenhancing the quality of native vegetation through appropriate management.

c. Public resources are to be used to facilitate voluntary actions by landholders and for sharedinvestment in enhancing vegetation of conservation importance.

4. A landscape approach to planning native vegetation management is required . Goals for nativevegetation management will be based on bioregions, or sub-units, within the CatchmentManagement Authority region2. Priorities for vegetation management should be specific foreach bioregion and catchment.

a. Multiple patches of the same vegetation community should be retained or enhanced acrosstheir geographic range.

b. The position of remnants in the landscape affects their conservation value.

2. Public land forests are managed on the basis of Forest Management Areas.

VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS 14

5l VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS

“It is not just how much we havebut how good it is”

The need to both better manage and increasethe cover of native vegetation in Victoria isbeyond question. In setting our sustainabilitygoals for native vegetation we recognise thatwe are responsible for a diverse and dynamicasset that will continue to support a varietyof uses on both public and private land. Weneed to strike a balance between our effortsto achieve the following:

• active improvement of the quality ofexisting native vegetation;

• avoidance or minimisation of furtherpermanent losses through clearing;

• strategic increase in the cover of nativevegetation through biodiverserevegetation; and

• the flexibility that is required to supportlandholders as they move towards moresustainable land use.

Accordingly, our goal must be expressed interms of the sum of all these individualactions for native vegetation (i.e. the netoutcome) that we aim to achieve as part of the broader goal of ecologicallysustainable development.

PRIMARY GOAL

Our primary goal for native vegetationmanagement in Victoria is to achieve:

A reversal, across the entirelandscape, of the long-term declinein the extent and quality of nativevegetation, leading to a Net Gain

ADDITIONAL OUTCOMES ACHIEVED BYPURSUING OUR PRIMARY GOAL

Reversing the long-term decline in the extentand quality of native vegetation inaccordance with the principles andapproaches outlined in this Framework willmake a significant contribution to achievingthe following outcomes:

Biodiversity

• The ecological processes and thebiodiversity dependent on terrestrial,freshwater and marine environments aremaintained and, where necessary, restored.

• The present diversity of species andecological communities and their viabilityis maintained and improved across each bioregion.

• There is no further preventable decline inthe viability of any rare species or of anyrare ecological community.

• There is an increase of the viability ofthreatened species and in the extentand quality of threatened ecological communities.

15VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GOALS

Land and Water Quality

• Improvements in land and water qualitydue to the restoration and protection ofecological processes within catchments.

• Reduction in the impact of secondarysalinity on the State’s land and waterresources by increasing vegetation coverand reducing groundwater recharge.

• Improvements in water quality due to theinterception of nutrients in surface runoff.

Climate Change

• Enhanced amelioration of the impact ofclimate change by significantly increasingVictoria’s carbon sinks throughrevegetation and regeneration.

• Increased carbon sinks and provision of arange of other benefits through thedevelopment and expansion of privateforestry in a way that complements nativevegetation retention.

These goals for native vegetation in Victoriacan best be achieved by having a “whole oflandscape” perspective, encompassing alltenures, and are most usefully informed bycatchment-wide and bioregion-wideunderstandings of native vegetation processesand values. The approaches to meeting thesegoals outlined in this Framework alsorecognise the primary importance of existingnative vegetation, particularly in terms ofirreplaceable natural assets and cost-effectivedelivery of ecosystem services. We also needto ensure that these perspectives are part ofthe complementary policies that drive oursalinity, water quality, biodiversity, landprotection and greenhouse programs.

The principles and approaches outlined inthis Framework are applicable from the on-ground level upwards. Only by ensuring thatdecisions about the protection andimprovement of individual stands of nativevegetation deliver an appropriatecontribution to our goals, will the netoutcomes be demonstrably achieved. TheFramework sets out the broad approach andspecifies minimum standards, recognisingthat as native vegetation values and issuesvary across the State, so too will the regionalpriorities and responses identified by thisbroad approach. Regional Native VegetationPlans will outline these priorities andresponses in detail, setting targets andextending the minimum standardsas required.

6l A SHAREDUNDERSTANDING OF THENET GAIN GOAL

As a basis for developing a consistent andmore effective approach to accounting fornative vegetation it is important to have ashared understanding of the meaning of thekey words used in defining the Net Gain goal.

EXTENT AND QUALITY OFNATIVE VEGETATION

At the regional scale, native vegetation isusually considered from the point of view ofwhat type it is (and consequently how rare ordepleted the type is) and in what tenures itoccurs (and consequently how well protectedthe type is). At the local landscape-scale it isalso important to focus on where the nativevegetation occurs. It is important todetermine not just how much nativevegetation is present but how good it is. On-ground actions, including revegetation andimproved management of existing vegetation,can increase the overall quantity and qualityof habitats and ecosystem services across thelocal landscape - particularly in terms of thelevels of biodiversity and catchmentprotection that they can support.

A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE NET GAIN GOAL16

How do we measure extent and quality?

In determining what exists, what could belost and what could be gained, there needsto be a measure. The simplest way would beto measure the area of native vegetation inhectares, but our goals mean we must alsoconsider the quality of vegetation. Thequality of native vegetation is relevant to theeffectiveness of both biodiversityconservation and catchment protection roles,but the biodiversity conservation role has themore specific requirements and accordinglyhas been the primary focus when developinga quality assessment approach that servesboth roles.

17A SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF THE NET GAIN GOAL

There is no absolute measure of generalvegetation/habitat quality but there is arange of well-accepted indicators. A methodof combining a number of such indicators tocalculate a practical relative measure isrequired, and a simple equation has beendeveloped to achieve this. The two primarydeterminants of the generalvegetation/habitat quality of an area are:

• inherent site condition – i.e. how alteredis the site from a notionally optimalstate?; and

• viability in the landscape context – i.e.does the patch of vegetation that the siteis within retain its broader ecologicalfunctions and linkages, in a manner thatenables it to respond successfully tonatural fluctuations and other disturbance events?

NRE has developed a standard statewideapproach for estimating generalvegetation/habitat quality using thefollowing criteria:

For site condition:

• retention of large old trees (for woodlandsand forests)

• retention of tree canopy cover (forwoodlands and forests)

• retention of the cover of, and diversitywithin, understorey lifeforms

• presence of appropriate recruitment

• absence of weeds

• litter

• logs (for woodlands and forests)

For landscape context:

• size of remnant vegetation patch

• links to, and amount of, neighbouring patches

Native vegetation at a site is assessed bycomparing it to a benchmark whichrepresents the average characteristics of amature and apparently long-undisturbedstand of the same type of vegetation. Generalvegetation/habitat quality is scored from one(complete retention of natural quality asdescribed by benchmark characteristics) tozero (complete loss) – Parkes et al 2002 (J.Ecol.Mgt.& Restor - in press). This approachhas been successfully utilised in theBushTender Trial and will be reviewed after afurther two years of use in the context of thisFramework and refined in the light ofresearch and operational experience.

The combination of this quality measure andthe area of native vegetation that it refers tois known as a habitat hectare (habitat scoreX area = habitat hectare). A habitat hectareassessment can provide information for threekey tasks - it:

• provides a snap-shot of current quality;

• can be the basis for estimating what andhow much change will occur at a site underdifferent management scenarios; and

• provides a means of calculating netoutcomes across losses and gains.


ACHIEVING AND ACCOUNTING FOR NET GAIN

What is Net Gain?

Net Gain is the outcome for nativevegetation and habitat whereoverall gains are greater thanoverall losses and where individuallosses are avoided where possible.Losses and gains are determined bya combined quality-quantitymeasure and over a specified areaand period of time. Gains may beeither required offsets forpermitted clearing actions or as aresult of landholder andGovernment assisted efforts thatare not associated with clearing.

Net Gain comprises three essentialcomponents to ensure an overall increase inthe extent and quality of native vegetation:

1. A reduction in losses in the extent ofexisting native vegetation,

2. A reduction in losses in the quality ofexisting native vegetation due tothreatening processes, and

3. The achievement of gains in extent andquality of native vegetation through itsrehabilitation and revegetation withindigenous species for biodiversityconservation and land and water resource outcomes.

What is a Habitat Hectare?

A habitat hectare is a site-basedmeasure of quality and quantity ofnative vegetation that is assessedin the context of the relevantnative vegetation type. Thismeasure can be consistentlyapplied across the State.

If it is assumed that an unalteredarea of natural habitat (given thatit is large enough and is within anatural landscape context) is at100% of its natural quality, thenone hectare of such habitat will beequivalent to one habitat hectare.That is the quality multiplied bythe quantity. Ten hectares of thishigh quality habitat would beequivalent to ten habitat hectares,and so on. If an area of habitathad lost 50% of its quality (say,through weed invasion and loss ofunderstorey), then one hectarewould be equivalent to 0.5 habitathectares, ten hectares wouldequivalent to five habitat hectares,and so on.


The Net Gain approach:

• has, as a priority, the avoidance of furtherpermanent losses of existing nativevegetation through clearing,

• recognises that for native vegetation,although “natural is best”, it is possible topartially recover both extent and quality byactive intervention and thus to effect thenet result,

• identifies a quantitative approach to the“reverse the decline” pathway, allowing usto set targets and measure performance,

• at the on-ground level, expresses theprinciple that where losses are directlypermitted and/or incurred, effort should bemade, at a minimum, to balance suchlosses with commensurate gains in some way,

• at the regional level, facilitatesestablishment of a complete picture of thenative vegetation asset, against whichincremental losses and emerging issues canbe evaluated, and

• plays an important part in assessingecologically sustainable development.

What contributes to the Net Outcome?

With respect to the quality and quantity ofnative vegetation, a broad range of actions,both human-related and natural, contributeto the net outcome for Victoria.

Losses in extent include:

• permanent clearing of native vegetation,both approved and illegal and,

• incremental reduction of woodlandsthrough tree decline.

Losses in quality include:

• on-going decline resulting from insufficientmanagement of threatening processes,

• impact of forest product harvesting andmining operations, and

• impact of wildfires and fuel-reduction burns.

Gains in extent include:

• new areas of revegetation primarily forbiodiversity conservation, and

• new areas of revegetation for landprotection, greenhouse or other purposeswhich have included sufficient locallyindigenous species to be considered part ofthe native vegetation estate.

Gains in quality include:

• improved management of threateningprocesses within existing native vegetationincluding both active improvement (e.g.control of weeds) and avoidance of furtherimpacts by landholders agreeing to foregopermitted uses (e.g. stock grazing,harvesting timber for on-farm use),

• recovery from forest product harvesting and mining operations,

• recovery from wildfires, and

• supplementary plantings into depletedexisting native vegetation.


Figure 1: Ecological Vegetation Class Bioregional Conservation Status. (Note that this is not a map ofoverall conservation significance – this requires consideration of other information, such as threatenedspecies habitat, which is not comprehensively mapped)

BIOREGIONAL CONVERSATION STATUS OF ECOLOGICALVEGETATION CLASSES (EVCS)


CONSIDERING LAND PROTECTION ANDCONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE IN NET GAIN

In order to achieve the goals for nativevegetation management, application of theNet Gain approach needs to be linked to theland protection and conservation significanceof the native vegetation in question.

For land protection, the significance of apatch of vegetation (from the point of viewof both hazard avoidance and mitigation) isdetermined according to:

• the role of the site in surface andgroundwater behaviour,

• the erosion hazard and soil structurecharacteristics of the site,

• the ability of the vegetation to provideongoing land protection role,

• the productive capability of the site, and

• other recognised criteria (for example,whether climatic conditions favour rapidre-establishment of vegetation cover).

Appendix 1 sets out the factors consideredwhen determining significance of nativevegetation for land protection. Priorities forrevegetation for land protection outcomes areoutlined in regional plans arising from otherstrategic documents such as Victoria’s SalinityManagement Framework and the VictorianRiver Health Strategy.

For biodiversity, the conservation significanceof a patch of vegetation (from Very High toLow) is determined according to:

• the conservation status of vegetation types present,

• the quality of the vegetation,


• the conservation status of species present(and the potential habitat value),

• the strategic location in the locallandscape, and

• other recognised criteria (for example,commitments under internationalconventions).

The approach to assessing bioregionalconservation status of vegetation types(Ecological Vegetation Classes) is described inAppendix 2 and Figure 1 shows thedistribution of conservation status ratingsacross the State. The criteria and approachfor determining conservation significance forbiodiversity are outlined in Appendix 3 andare supported by technical documents.

ENSURING THAT INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIONAND CLEARANCE DECISIONS CONTRIBUTETO OUR NET GAIN GOALS

To achieve this, Government will require:

• An appropriate assessment of anypotential impacts on nativevegetation and managementoptions that avoid clearing;

• Consideration of clearing in thecontext of sustainable land usechange, and

• That any losses associated withclearing are mitigated bycommensurate gains throughappropriate offsets.

Appropriate offsets are outlined below,summarised as criteria in Appendix 4 andsupported by technical documents.


The three step approach to applying Net Gain

It is important to ensure that the Net Gainapproach is only applied in a way thatsupports the overall conservation of the greatmajority of existing native vegetation. Inapplying the Net Gain approach to protectionand clearance decisions at the on-groundlevel the steps are:

1. To avoid adverse impacts, particularlythrough vegetation clearance.

2. If impacts cannot be avoided, to minimiseimpacts through appropriate considerationin planning processes and expert input toproject design or management.

3. Identify appropriate offset options.

Only after these steps have been takenshould offsets (actions undertaken to achievecommensurate gains) be considered. In orderto ensure that the “commensurate”requirement of Net Gain is met a clear linkbetween gains and losses must, at aminimum, be achieved. These offset criteriaare summarised in Table 6, they represent theminimum requirement (they could beincreased, where appropriate, in the regionalNative Vegetation Plans). To qualify as a NetGain outcome all criteria must be met in eachcase. Calculation of the amount of gainassociated with the offset actions will bebased on an estimate of the improvementsthat will be realised within 10 years of theactions being initiated. The offset criteria andthe rationales for their application are brieflyoutlined in the following section.

Response to proposal to clear & offset

To meet our goals for native vegetation inthe most efficient and practical manner,responses to planning applications to clearnative vegetation will be graded according toconservation significance.

Net outcome of offset

To ensure that net outcomes are stronglypositive for higher significance vegetation,whilst also ensuring that less substantialachievements in lower significance vegetationdo not undermine achievement of the overallobjective of Net Gain, the relative size ofoffset will be graded according toconservation significance. Where thefollowing criteria allow flexibility associatedwith achieving offsets in higher conservationsignificance vegetation/habitat than that lostthe amount of the offset will beproportionally reduced as a recognition of theincreased biodiversity benefit.

Like-for-Like

Vegetation or Habitat Type of Offset

To ensure that there is a clear link betweenthe vegetation or habitat type that is lostthrough clearing and the subsequentmitigation, there will be a graded response:from a direct link between loss and offset forhigher significance, down to more flexibilityfor lower significance (at the discretion ofthe planning authority) leading toopportunities to optimise conservation outcomes.

Landscape Role

To ensure that important functional aspectsof vegetation at the landscape scale (e.g.protection from erosion or salinisation;buffering of riparian or other significantareas; wildlife movement; large patch size)are adequately considered, there will be agraded response: from close consideration ofboth ecological and land protection functionfor higher significance, down to a focus onland protection function for lowersignificance vegetation, recognising that thislatter aspect will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the planning authority.

Quality objectives for offset

To ensure that the use of a measure (habitathectares) that “blends” quality and quantitydoes not allow inappropriate trade-offsbetween high and low quality vegetation,quality thresholds have been set for offsets,graded according to conservationsignificance. This effectively means that anyloss of higher significance vegetation must bepredominantly mitigated by improvement ofother existing vegetation of comparablequality, and the contribution of revegetationof previously cleared areas will be limitedaccording to conservation significance of thelost vegetation. Revegetation as the onlymeans of offset will generally only be anoption for mitigating lower quality or lowersignificance losses.

On a site where the loss of vegetation istemporary (eg. mining followed byrehabilitation) this criterion is appliedaccording to the Low ConservationSignificance. In addition, for any furthergains that are required to reach theappropriate net outcome of offset


(in number of habitat hectares) this qualitycriterion will be applied according to theconservation significance of the vegetationthat was removed.

Large Old Tree objectives for offset

For remnant patches of native vegetation thatcontain large old trees

Large old trees are important environmentalassets that are being progressively lostthrough clearing and declining health but areimpossible to replace in the short term.Whilst recruiting new trees for the future isvery important, replacement ratios cannotaddress the need to retain, and improve theon-going survival of, as many large old treesas possible in the current landscape.

Where large old trees (i.e. trees of key long-lived dominant species - greater than acertain diameter at 1.3 m above ground level- as specified in the relevant EVC benchmark)are part of a vegetation remnant to becleared, both protection of other large oldtrees and recruitment of new trees will berequired as part of the offset, with gradedratios according to conservation significance.Protection will be according to standardsspecified in the Regional Native VegetationPlan, with the objective of maximising thelongevity of the large old trees that are beingprotected. Recruitment of new trees may beeither through plantings to the prescribedstandard (e.g. species composition, density,survivorship) and/or through regenerationassociated with protection of other old trees,at the discretion of the planning authority.Any plantings which have been undertaken bythe landholder since 1989 and which meet allthe relevant offset criteria, can be used tomeet this requirement.


For stands of scattered old trees

Relatively dense stands of scattered old treesthat occur within pasture rather than inclearly defined vegetation remnants (i.e.where tree densities are not greatly reducedfrom benchmark densities, but theunderstorey is less than 10% of the totalcover specified for the benchmark) are alsoimportant environmental assets. This can bethe most common way that some vegetationtypes such as Plains Grassy Woodlands stilloccur and the best stands represent possibleoptions for the recovery of these vegetationtypes. However, scattered old trees are oftenless consistently protected and their healthmay be more at risk. Using habitat hectareassessments to calculate offsets for scatteredold trees is unnecessarily complex and simpleprotection and replacement ratios will beadequate in this case.

Protection of existing trees will be requiredfor offsets in parcels of land which aregreater than 4 hectares in area and have 8 ormore large old trees per hectare. Recruitmentof new trees will be required for offsets inparcels of land which are greater than 4hectares in area but have less than 8 largeold trees per hectare. The offset ratios will begraded according to conservation significanceThis area threshold could be reduced and theminimum ratios identified in Table 6 could beincreased in regional Native Vegetation Plans.

Vicinity

There needs to be an adequate geographiclink between losses and offsets if mitigationbenefits are to generally accrue to thecatchments and plant / animal populationsthat have been impacted.

There will be a graded response: from as closeas possible and/or effective for highersignificance, down to more flexibility forlower significance (at the discretion of theplanning authority) leading to opportunitiesto optimise outcomes.

Timing

To ensure that delays between clearing andmitigation do not unnecessarily exacerbatethe risk to environmental values during the“transition” to recovery through offsets, thetiming of offsets needs to be appropriate. Itis also important to properly manage risks ofnon-compliance, particularly for the mostsignificant impacts.

There will be a graded response: from formallyinitiating offsets prior to clearing takingplace, to initiating offsets as soon asseasonally practicable after clearing has taken place.


Formal Agreement to Achieve and Secure Offset

To ensure that the management actionsrequired to achieve offsets are undertaken,and that permanent losses from clearing aremitigated by gains of an on-going and securenature, offset arrangements will be formallyestablished through the routine andstreamlined use of management agreementsor permit conditions. The planning authoritywill maintain adequate and readily accessiblerecords of agreed offset arrangements.

In ensuring that individual protection andclearing decisions effectively contribute toour overall goals, the achievements of theNet Gain approach will be formally reviewedfour years after implementation of theapproach commences. The review will assesshow effective the Net Gain implementationhas been in reducing land clearance and inachieving commensurate gains.

Response to proposal to harvest timber fromnaturally-established forest on private land

The harvesting of naturally-established nativeforest has environmental consequences but isclearly a different level of impact topermanent clearing. In general terms, theapproach to this activity on private land willreflect the approach on public land. However,an important difference with respect toenvironmental factors at the landscape scaleis that private land timber stands are oftenneither as large in area nor as surrounded byextensive areas of other forest as stands onpublic land, and so there are often morelimited options for “buffering” the impacts ofharvesting in time and in space.

The Net Gain approach will complement theframework for sustainable forest managementon public land. Consistency with the Net Gainapproach means that utilisation of nativevegetation for timber products (eg. selectiveharvesting, harvest and regeneration) onprivate land must be part of a sustainableforest management approach and will onlynormally be permitted in Low and Mediumconservation significance categories. In somecases there are combinations of conservationstatus and quality of vegetation that result ina Very High or High Conservation Significancerating, but harvesting is currently allowed onpublic land under certain conditions (eg.silviculture prescriptions) within the samebioregion. In these circumstances harvestingfollowed by regeneration can be permitted onprivate land with similar conditions unlessother criteria on the site warrant a Very Highor High rating (eg. threatened species).However, the amount of harvesting will needto be determined on a site by site basistaking into consideration the need to bufferthe impact of harvesting in time and inspace. Appendix 5 summarises the offsetcriteria for harvesting timber from naturally-established native forest on private land.

Applying this broad approach through theregional Native Vegetation Plans will reflectregional differences. These Plans are also ableto refine this approach using additionalcriteria, and through consideration of themost feasible, effective and urgent actionscan further identify priorities for funding.


How will we measure the Net Gain outcome?

Using the Net Gain approach, the habitat-hectare currency and the conservation significance levels outlinedabove, an accounting framework can be used to quantify the net outcome fornative vegetation.

Each native vegetation management activityneeds to be accounted for in similar terms(i.e. habitat hectares) so that the quantity

and quality of gains and losses can becombined and relative contributions can beevaluated. Gains and losses need to beidentified for each of the conservationsignificance levels for both biodiversityconservation and land protection so thatperformance with respect to the identifiedpriorities can be evaluated. Medium-termtargets can also be established by RegionalNative Vegetation Plans within the terms ofthis accounting framework.

REFLECTING CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE IN OVERALL OUTCOMES FOR NET GAIN

As a result of applying the above criteria to protection, investment and offset decisions thefollowing net outcomes can be expected at the regional and statewide levels.

TABLE 1. REFLECTING CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE IN OVERALL OUTCOMES FOR NET GAIN

Conservation extent of existing gains in habitat net outcomeSignificance native vegetation quality-quantity

Very High no losses substantial gains substantial net gain

High losses minimised moderate gains net gain

Medium losses minimised some gains in medium term equivalent gain

Low some losses some gains in longer term short term losslonger term equivalent gain

TOTAL reversal of decline(change from net lossto net gain)

VERY HIGH

HIGH

MEDIU

M

LOW

TOTAL INTENTIONAL CHANGE

TOTAL NATURAL CH

ANGE


GAINS IN QUALITY

• Public land management• Private land management - including voluntary

and Government assisted

GAINS IN EXTENT

• Public land management• Private land management - including voluntary

and Government assisted

LOSSES IN QUALITY

• Public land management - including permitted use; wildfires• Private land management - including permitted use; wildfires

LOSSES IN EXTENT

• Public land management – including approved clearing• Private land management - including clearing by permit• Unrecorded changes - including tree decline,

clearing by exemption, illegal clearing

TOTAL

TABLE 2. PROPOSED NET GAIN REPORTING SHEET

29KEY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN VICTORIA

7l KEY GOVERNMENTAGENCIES IN VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT IN VICTORIA

Institutional arrangements for nativevegetation management in Victoria are robustand, compared to other States, relativelystraightforward. Catchment ManagementAuthorities provide a focus to enable nativevegetation management activities to bedeveloped within a catchment and landscapecontext. Landholders, Landcare groups, non-government organisations all play importantroles on delivering native vegetationmanagement outcomes. In some cases thenon government partners in Native Vegetationmanagement have found the roles andresponsibilities of Government agencieschallenging. This section seeks to help clarifythe arrangements within Government byproviding a brief overview of each agency andtheir role in relation to native vegetationmanagement.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESAND ENVIRONMENT

The Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (NRE) is the main StateGovernment department responsible for theadministration and the management ofVictoria’s natural resources and public lands.NRE has policy responsibility for nativevegetation management and oversees theimplementation of the government’s nativevegetation management programs. Theseprograms are delivered through the directmanagement of public lands and throughprovision of technical advice and financialsupport programs for private land programs.

NRE is the referral authority for somecategories of planning permit applications forthe removal of native vegetation.

VICTORIAN CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

The Victorian Catchment Management Council(VCMC) was established under the Catchmentand Land Protection Act 1994. Its role is toadvise the Minister for Environment andConservation on natural resource managementissues and reporting on the quality of landand water resources. The Council is a referralbody for Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988listing recommendations.

CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES

Victoria’s Catchment Management Authorities(CMAs) and the Port Phillip and WesternportCatchment and Land Protection Board are theprincipal vehicles for the development andimplementation of regional catchmentstrategies designed to foster ecologicallysustainable development of regions. A keycomponent of the catchment strategies is theNative Vegetation Plan, which sets out thedirections and priorities for vegetationmanagement within the region. CMAs guidethe implementation of catchment prioritiesthrough advice to the State Government andRegional Assessment Panels on regionalpriorities for funding.

TRUST FOR NATURE

The Trust for Nature is a statutory authorityestablished by the Victorian Conservation TrustAct 1972. It can hold, buy and sell propertyand has the power to enter into a bindingcovenant with a landholder. The Trust

KEY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN VICTORIA30

operates a revolving fund that purchasesareas of high conservation significance.Covenants are placed on the title, binding allfuture owners, and the property is resold

DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

The Department of Infrastructure hasresponsibility for the development of Stateplanning policy and the administration of theplanning system in accordance with thePlanning and Environment Act 1987. It isresponsible for the Victoria PlanningProvisions (VPP), the set of standard planningprovisions that provide the standard formatfor all planning schemes in Victoria.

In the State Planning Agenda - a sensiblebalance released by the Minister for Planningin December 1999, the Government indicatedits commitment to reversing the decline inthe extent and quality of native vegetation inVictoria. As part of this commitment theDepartment of Infrastructure is reviewing theVictoria Planning Provisions as they relate tonative vegetation retention to give effect tothe principles in this Framework. A discussionpaper will be released after the practicalmethods of application of the key conceptshave been demonstrated. The Government isalso committed to assisting councils toidentify biodiversity and establish appropriatemanagement strategies. Close coordinationwith the work of the Catchment ManagementAuthorities is acknowledged as vital in this regard.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Government in Victoria has relativelybroad powers in relation to environmentalcontrol, protection and conservation. Theprimary mechanism for vegetation protectionby local government is the planning system.There is a planning scheme for every councilin Victoria. Local Government is responsiblefor developing, administering and enforcingits own planning scheme. The planningscheme sets out policies and requirements forthe use, development and protection of land.The planning scheme also states whichactivities, development or uses of landrequire a planning permit. In assessing aplanning permit application a council mustconsider, among other things, theenvironmental impact of a proposal. At anational level, Local Governments haveprepared a Biodiversity Strategy. WithinVictoria, Local Governments are alsoincreasingly supporting native vegetationprotection and management activitiesthrough initiatives such as rate rebates and taking a lead role in roadside vegetation management.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) isthe peak body for local government in theState of Victoria. Under the MunicipalAssociations Act 1970, the MAV is required torepresent all 78 local governments in thestate. The MAV has an ongoing commitmentto supporting the development of theeffective role of Victorian local governmentauthorities in environmental management.

31INVESTING IN ACTION

8l INVESTING IN ACTION

Increasing the investment in vegetationconservation is complex because individualscan have competing objectives for use ofland. The challenge for Government is todetermine how much investment invegetation is needed, who should pay for thiseffort and what is the most efficient way toachieve our vegetation goals?

HOW MUCH INVESTMENT IN NATIVEVEGETATION CONSERVATION ANDENHANCEMENT IS NEEDED?

The optimal level of investment in vegetationimprovement occurs when the additionalbenefit of improving or increasing vegetationequals the additional costs of achieving thisimprovement. In cases where we don’t fullyunderstand the benefits (e.g. biodiversityconservation, soil health) or cannot fullyquantify the interactions with other areas ofthe economy (e.g. vegetation’s role inpreventing dryland salinity) but there arelikely to be irreversible implications it isprudent to adopt a precautionary approach.

SHARED INVESTMENTS

The beneficiary pays principle is used toassist in identifying who should pay fornatural resource management programs. Thisrelies on identifying the distribution ofbenefits between private individuals,industries or regions and the public ingeneral. On many farms, landholders haverecognised the importance of nativevegetation in protecting agricultural landfrom rising water tables, reducing weed andpest problems and for aesthetic appeal.

Benefits of native vegetation extend beyondthe farm gate to other farmers (e.g. watertable control), to society as a whole throughsuch things as a more diverse genetic stockand carbon sequestration. Some mix ofpublic, collective (industry, consumer orcatchment) and private funding ofvegetation protection and enhancementactivities is warranted.

DUTY OF CARE

General duties of a landowner include thoseidentified in s20 (1) of the Catchment andLand Protection Act 1994:

In relation to his or her land (where landincludes soil, water, vegetation and fauna onland) a landowner must take all reasonablesteps to -

a. avoid causing or contributing to landdegradation which causes or may causedamage to land of another landowner; and

b. conserve soil; and

c. protect water resources; and

d. eradicate regionally prohibited weeds; and

e. prevent the growth and spread ofregionally controlled weeds; and

f. prevent the spread of, and as far aspossible eradicate, established pest animals.

IMPLEMENTATION32

To assist in determining when and whereGovernments invest, the following principleshave been adopted:

• land managers have a responsibility toretain native vegetation,

• Public resources are to be directed toincreasing the extent of native vegetationor to enhancing the quality of nativevegetation through appropriatemanagement, rather than to the status quoof retaining existing vegetation,

• public resources will be used to facilitate voluntary actions by landholdersand also for shared investment inenhancement of vegetation of conservationimportance and regionally important landand water protection.

9l IMPLEMENTATION

To achieve our Net Gain goal, implementationprograms will require the followingcharacteristics:

• continued effort to avoid clearing, with animproved focus on the most significantnative vegetation;

• active management aimed primarily atimproving the quality of existing remnants;

• long-term commitment by landholders andGovernment to the management task;

• developing understanding by landholders ofthe need for extensive revegetation;

• increasing the capacity of landholders andrural communities to undertake vegetationprotection and revegetation works.

Our challenge is to promote a permanentchange to the way landholders use andmanage remnant native vegetation on theirland. To achieve this we must make the mostof opportunities presented by other programs.Native vegetation management objectives arebeing incorporated into these programs andthe targets for the programs are increasingly reflecting native vegetationmanagement outcomes.

This Statewide Framework provides theguiding principles for managing nativevegetation to achieve a Net Gain and theunderlying method for determiningconservation status and conservationsignificance as well as the Net Gainoutcomes. Being a Statewide policy the

33IMPLEMENTATION

Framework must take a big picture approachand relies on the regional Native VegetationPlans to provide a regional flavour toachieving a Net Gain in extent and quality ofnative vegetation. Much of theimplementation will be guided by the NativeVegetation Plans and they have the flexibilityto incorporate additional offset criteria andto be more explicit about the managementpriorities for vegetation communities, habitatrequirements and threatening processes.

Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs)have prepared Native Vegetation Plans fortheir regions that will:

• act as reference documents for theconservation status of vegetationcommunities within CMA regions;

• provide strategic directions for protectingand enhancing remnants and establishingregional targets for vegetation types;

• develop regional priorities and targets forreplanting of native vegetation forbiodiversity, greenhouse and land andwater protection purposes;

• provide regional guidelines for responsibleand referral authorities in determiningpermit applications to remove, destroy orlop native vegetation;

• identify gaps in knowledge and bestmanagement practices for nativevegetation retention, regeneration andplanting across the catchment, and

• identify appropriate opportunities forinteraction with local landscape scaleprocesses that provide additional detail forkey natural resource management issueseg. salinity management plans andbiodiversity action plans.

The Plans have identified priority actions thatdemonstrate investment value. In identifyingactions, within a given vegetation categoryand for habitat of equal value, priority hasbeen given to:

• protection of remnants (e.g. reservation,covenants, management agreements),

• management of existing remnants (e.g.weed control, maintenance of thehydrological regime, revegetation forbuffering, promoting and/or enhancingnatural species and/or structural and/orage class and/or size class diversity),

• enhancement of degraded remnants,

• enhancement of connectivity and integritythrough recreation of habitat (includingriparian re-vegetation) (e.g. corridors,buffers, restoration of ecological processes)

• revegetation for land degradationmitigation works

• re-creation of isolated areas of habitat,and finally

• revegetation works of lower order than above.

9.1PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENTON PRIVATE LAND

Between 1972 and 1987 clearance rates ofnative vegetation on private land wereapproximately 10,700 hectares per year. Thisrate has been reduced to approximately 2,500hectares per year for the period 1990 to 1995(Barson et al. 2000). While the regulations,along with other changes in Governmentpolicy and changes in community attitudehave been successful in reducing broadscalenative vegetation clearance, clearing is still

IMPLEMENTATION34

occurring and there has been limitedprotection for some of the more rare andthreatened vegetation communities. Inaddition substantial work has beenundertaken by individuals and communitygroups to revegetate for land and waterresource protection, biodiversity protectionand greenhouse gas amelioration. Despitethese efforts our best estimates indicate thatwe are in a net loss situation andimplementation of our goals will requiresignificant further work.

Statutory Protection of native vegetation

A range of measures has been adopted inVictoria to facilitate native vegetationprotection. These measures sit within thelegislative framework provided under the Floraand Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) andthe Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The FFG Act provides a legislative foundationto guarantee that all Victoria’s flora andfauna can survive, flourish and retain theirpotential for evolutionary development in thewild. Complementary goals are to conservecommunities of flora and fauna; managepotentially threatening processes; ensure thatany use of flora or fauna by humans issustainable; and ensure that the geneticdiversity of flora and fauna is maintained.The FFG Act lists species of ‘protected’ floraand facilitates various programs that fostercommunity education and voluntaryagreement opportunities. Wherever possible,implementation of the FFG Act is integratedinto the operation of other legislation thatimpacts on biodiversity but has broaderobjectives (eg. land protection role of thenative vegetation retention controls) and thathas processes that adequately deal with the

objectives of the FFG Act eg. Forests Act1958. In such cases this arrangement isformalised through a Governor in CouncilOrder under the FFG Act. The VictorianBiodiversity Strategy has been prepared as arequirement of this Act.

Under certain circumstances, NRE makestargeted purchases of land to address criticalgaps in the reserve system. Funding is about$650,000 per annum although funding fromthe Commonwealth is also available from time to time.

The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994provides for the declaration of special areasand the development of management plans toaddress specific land management issues inthose areas.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987provides the planning system through whichenvironmental impacts of land use anddevelopment can be considered. The VictoriaPlanning Provisions (VPP) provides thestandard format and the Statewide standardplanning provisions for planning schemes inVictoria. A key component of the VPP is theState Planning Policy Framework, whichcomprises the State planning policies for allland in Victoria.

Statewide Native Vegetation Retentioncontrols (NVR) were introduced in allplanning schemes in 1989 and are set out inClause 52.17. The controls require a planningpermit for the removal, destruction or loppingof native vegetation subject to a range ofexemptions designed to facilitate normaldomestic and rural practices.

35IMPLEMENTATION

The local council is usually the responsibleauthority for administering and enforcing theplanning scheme including deciding onpermit applications. However, NRE is thereferral authority for a range of applicationsincluding those to clear more than 10hectares. The responsible authority mustinclude any conditions on a planning permitissued which a referral authority requires tobe included and must refuse to grant a permitif the referral authority objects to the grantof a permit.

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)states that responsible authorities shouldhave regard to any relevant RegionalVegetation Plans when amending planningschemes and reviewing Municipal StrategicStatements. Responsible Authorities must alsoconsider any relevant approved RegionalVegetation Plan when considering a planningpermit application under Clause 52.17.

Reviewing the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP)

After practical methods of application of theNet Gain and habitat hectare concepts in theplanning system have been demonstrated, theDepartment of Infrastructure will prepare adiscussion paper on possible changes to theVictoria Planning Provisions to give effect tothe Framework. The discussion paper will becirculated for public comment. Depending onthe level of public interest or issues raised,an advisory committee may be appointed toreview submissions and provide independentadvice to Government on VPP changes.Following the consideration of publicsubmissions, necessary changes to the VPPwill be made.

Supporting Local Government - Improved Information and Training

Since the release of the Draft NativeVegetation Management Framework in August2000, NRE has created ten new NativeVegetation Officer positions to providesupport and training to local government inimplementation of the native vegetationcontrols and adopting the Net Gain approach.

This support will be complemented by betteraccess to NRE’s natural resource managementGIS layers eg.

• Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC),

• Bioregional EVC conservation status,

• tree cover mapping (at 1:25,000 scale)

through the fourth phase of development ofthe Native Vegetation Permit Tracking system (NVPT).

Whilst primarily aimed at improving ourunderstanding of changes to the nativevegetation component of Victoria’sgreenhouse gas sink, NVPT will have a rangeof applications. It is being developed by NREwith the cooperation of a group of localgovernment representatives in order toimprove recording systems for permittedclearing. NVPT will also have the capability ofspatially documenting Net Gain offsetarrangements where clearing is permitted. Thespatial information accessible through NVPT(outlined above) will also assist localgovernment planners in deciding planning permit applications affecting native vegetation.

IMPLEMENTATION36

The approach advocated in this Framework, inconjunction with the information provided bythe Native Vegetation Plans, will facilitatebetter adoption of planning tools to protectnative vegetation (e.g. Zones, Overlays,Municipal Strategic Statements, and localpolicies). The Department of Infrastructurehas in conjunction with NRE prepared aBiodiversity Planning Practice Note that willalso contribute to the effective protectionand enhancement of native vegetation. Theenvisaged improvements in consistency andtransparency of planning decisions shouldreduce the number of applications for ahearing at the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Actions:

• In conjunction with the Department ofInfrastructure, prepare a Discussion Paperdetailing proposed amendments to theVictoria Planning Provisions to ensureconsistency with this Framework.

• Revise the planning guidelines for nativevegetation retention.

• Provide access to Tree Cover mappingthrough the internet.

• Finalise construction and implementationof the Native Vegetation Permit Tracking system.

Incentives for protecting andenhancing native vegetation

While regulations controlling the clearing ofnative vegetation are essential, they are onlyone of a range of tools necessary forachieving our Net Gain goal. The regulatoryapproach generally focuses on what is notallowed and does little to encourage orinform better conservation and managementof native vegetation. The real progress inachieving a Net Gain in extent and quality ofnative vegetation will come from continuingland holder efforts combined with bettertargeted incentives backed by readilyaccessible information and experience innative vegetation management.

Financial assistance and labour support

Victoria, in partnership with theCommonwealth Government has madesubstantial investments in protecting andenhancing our natural assets through theNatural Heritage Trust (NHT). The Bushcarecomponent has seen over $36 millioninvested in on ground works to reverse thedecline in extent and quality of native vegetation over the four years of the program.

Arrangements for the second phase of NHThave not been finalised but it is apparentthat the Bushcare component will continuewith a broader focus for funded activities eg.weeds of international significance andthreatened migratory species.

37IMPLEMENTATION

Some Local Governments recognise andsupport landholders retaining and managingremnant vegetation by offering rate rebates.The Shire of Mount Alexander and MaroondahCity Council, for example, with Governmentsupport through Natural Heritage Trustfunding, have started a rate rebate programfor landholders with conservation covenantson their properties.

The State Government also supportscommunity groups’ on-ground works byproviding for labour programs to landholdersthrough the Australian Trust for ConservationVolunteers and the Landmate program.

Future Investment Approaches

To ensure that Victoria achieves “value formoney” from funds that are allocated tonative vegetation management, it will beimportant to include as many landholders aspossible and to engage policy tools thatspecifically suit the characteristics of thedifferent types of landholders. This willreduce the cost of conserving vegetation byincluding those landholders that have bothvaluable vegetation classes and low costs ofvegetation management.

The current set of mechanisms needs to bestrengthened to engage a broader range ofland holders with a better resolution of thecost sharing issue. For example, a surveyacross northern Victoria found that up to 80%of the remnant vegetation in the regionoccurs on larger more commercially orientedproperties but the landholders tend not to beengaged in existing voluntary programs.

BushTender

The Draft Native Vegetation ManagementFramework identified the following action:

‘Undertake a trial of the funded managementagreement mechanism in a CatchmentManagement Authority region, based onbiodiversity and salinity recharge benefits.’

During 2001 a trial was undertaken ofBushTender, a new mechanism, based on acompetitive auction process, for establishingmanagement agreements with landholders.The BushTender trial aimed to increase thelevel of landholder participation in activenative vegetation management and to targetbiodiversity priorities in a cost-effectivemanner. Salinity recharge was not directlyaddressed because the method for identifyingpreferences at the local landscape scale wasnot sufficiently well developed. The trial wasundertaken in two areas within the NorthCentral and the North East CMA regions.Expressions of interest from landholders werecalled for and site assessments wereconducted. Site management plans for theprotection and improvement of nativevegetation were developed in consultationwith the landholders.

In the BushTender trial, landholdersestablished their own price for themanagement services they were prepared tooffer to improve their native vegetation. Thisprice formed the basis for their bid, whichwas compared with the bids from all otherlandholders who participated in the trial. Thebids offering the best value for money wereidentified and these landholders will receiveperiodic payments for their services under athree-year management agreement.

IMPLEMENTATION38

Both the trial participants and the successfulparticipants represented a typical cross-section of landholders in the regions. Theaverage property size of participants was 286ha and the average property size of successfulparticipants was just over 300 ha.

The results of the trial indicate that theauction process can be successfully operatedto establish native vegetation managementagreements. Landholders accepted themechanism and actively participated. Thebidding was competitive and bidding successwas evenly distributed across the two trialareas. The biodiversity priorities weresuccessfully identified and secured throughthe site assessment and bidding process.

Like many trial programs the BushTender trial,whilst successful, has only investigated alimited range of aspects of what would berequired for a full program. The initial trialwas modest in scale and only offered oneround of bidding. The full impact of theBushTender approach can only be assessedfollowing several rounds of bidding overconsecutive years to enable initiallyunsuccessful landholders to modify their bidsto improve their competitiveness.

BushBroker

Where mitigation for vegetation loss isrequired, the preference is for offset gains tobe generated on the same property. However,there are situations where this is not possibleor preferred, for example where there is nosuitable offset site on the property or wherethe proponent has no interest in nativevegetation management. In these situationsthere is a need for the offsetting gains to begenerated elsewhere by third parties and tobe available for purchase. The Net Gain policyrequires appropriate matching of losses andgains, and procedures to ensure that gainsare appropriately secured and protected(table 6). There is a role for a broker tofacilitate and oversee this exchange wherethird parties are involved.

The major challenge for this type of schemeis the method of price setting for the offsitegain. Under the BushBroker proposal the pricefor offsite gains would be established throughthe operation of BushTender where thecompetitive auction process would provide afair market price for proponents seeking topurchase offsets generated undermanagement agreements. The site informationrequired for matching appropriate gains tolosses is also collected during the BushTenderprocess. Proceeds from the sale of offsetswould be recycled back into futureBushTender rounds.

39IMPLEMENTATION

Action

• Extend the BushTender trial into additionalCatchment Management Authority regionsand operate over several years.

• Develop the BushBroker proposal with aview to its implementation when sufficientBushTender agreements are in place.

Building Capability in Landscape Change

Landscape change to protect and enhancenative vegetation is predominantly dependenton the capability of private land managers.The capability of land managers to implementchange is enhanced by partnerships withcommunity, non-government organisationsand government agencies.

Government builds community capacity fornative vegetation management through theprovisions of information, advice, skillstraining, and participatory and voluntaryprograms. These capacity building activitiesare enhanced by the community-basedLandcare movement and non-governmentorganisations such as Greening Australia,(Victoria).

These participatory and voluntary programsseek to improve understanding of theimportance of native vegetation and thesteps that can be taken to protect andenhance native vegetation. Victoria’sLandcare movement underpins much of thevoluntary effort. Resources in the form offacilitators and grants are offered to Landcaregroups to address native vegetationmanagement and other natural resource

protection issues within their areas. Technicaladvisory services are provided through theDepartment of Natural Resources andEnvironment and by a number of non-government organisations such asGreening Australia (Victoria).

Two important programs specifically targetnative vegetation protection: Land forWildlife and Trust for Nature. Privatelandholders participate in these programsprimarily because of their personal interestsin conservation.

The Land for Wildlife Program establishesvoluntary non-binding agreements withlandholders to manage land for biodiversityconservation. Over 5,000 properties are nowparticipating, covering 125,000 ha of habitat.The program provides an extension andeducation service that aims to encourageconservation–orientated approaches toproperty management.

Trust for Nature covenants are voluntary,legally–binding agreements (registered on theproperty title) regarding the use of land. Over417 covenants have been registered in thelast 15 years covering more than 18,000 haof private land. The Trust also operates a‘revolving fund’. Under this scheme land ispurchased then resold with a covenant. Thesale proceeds are then used to purchasefurther properties. Voluntary but bindingagreements may also be made under theConservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 andthe Wildlife Act 1975.

IMPLEMENTATION40

Community engagement processes that buildindividual’s capabilities and the capacity ofthe community for native vegetationmanagement are vital to balanced catchmentmanagement outcomes. Each CMA’s RegionalCatchment Strategy and Native VegetationPlan provides community engagementtools and priorities for native vegetation management.

The regional Native Vegetation Plans pave theway for effectively targeted local action thatwill achieve the best integration of theobjectives for native vegetation retention andrevegetation. At the next spatial scale downfrom regional plans, Biodiversity Action Plans(BAP) will use a structured approach toidentifying priorities and mapping significantareas for biodiversity conservation at thelandscape scale. Native vegetationbiodiversity priorities identified in the NativeVegetation Plans are included in the BAP andsupplemented by other biodiversity priorities(eg. threatened species, wetlands and riverhealth). Using existing information onbiodiversity assets and current understandingof species requirements for habitat within thelocal landscape, BAP identify the best optionsfor restoring native vegetation to recoverbiodiversity. These options can be mappedwith related information on land and/orwater protection and land use potential toenable local communities to visualise howsustainable landscapes can be achieved.

This approach allows the knowledge of peoplein the local community to be used inapplying the priorities identified in theregional Native Vegetation Plan. NRE isdeveloping tools and undertaking research tosupport effective planning at the locallandscape scale (see sections 9.2 & 9.3).

FarmBis

FarmBis is a joint Commonwealth / StateInitiative, managed by the Department ofNatural Resources and Environment andadministered by the Rural Finance Corporationin Victoria. FarmBis will help achieve:

• Profitable, competitive and sustainablefarm and fishing business enterprises.

• Self-reliant primary producers who areequipped to handle change throughadoption of a culture of continuouslearning and skills development.

• Enhanced sustainability of Australia'snatural resources.

The new FarmBis program provides grants tosubsidise training for farmers, land managersand wild catch fishers to improve their self-reliance and ability to manage change. Arange of natural resource managementcourses, including Vegetation Managementand Natural Resource Planning & RiskManagement subjects, are now eligible for subsidies.

41IMPLEMENTATION

Rural and Regional Development

Natural resource management andenvironment protection are becomingrecognised as key factors in regionaldevelopment. The provision of nativevegetation information and improvements inthe native vegetation retention decision-making process are essential for goodplanning for rural and regional development.Not only will the information enablecommunities to effectively protect nativevegetation but also it will provideopportunities to capitalise on the benefits ofnative vegetation. This is particularlyimportant in regions with the potential fornature-based tourism and boosting regionalpopulations through providing an attractivecountry lifestyle. The increasing awareness ofthe value of native vegetation also presentsan opportunity to engage schools and thebroader community in monitoring thecondition of their native vegetation.

Actions:

• Ensure that all NRE technical andawareness programs deliver consistentadvice that protects and enhances nativevegetation and biodiversity outcomes.

• Assist CMAs to develop communityengagement processes that builds theregion’s capacity to implement nativevegetation management for multiplebenefits.

• Develop mapping and analysis tools toenable visualisation and sharedunderstanding of where remnant vegetationenhancement and revegetation can be mosteffectively undertaken at the local level.

• Deliver ecology training courses addressingparticular vegetation types (e.g. Box IronBark) or issues (fire management) and linkwith existing education programs (e.g.Waterwatch) where appropriate.

Land and Water Programs

There is a range of natural resourcemanagement and land protection programsoperating in Victoria. Whilst nativevegetation management may not be central toall of these programs they representimportant opportunities for achieving NetGain. Already many of these programsrecognise the contribution that nativevegetation can make in achieving theirobjectives and, where appropriate, reflectnative vegetation management priorities inplanning and implementing projects underthese programs. The further development ofthe Net Gain concept outlined in thisdocument will assist Victoria to realise themultiple benefits that can be derived fromeffective native vegetation management.

The National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality

The National Action Plan for salinity andwater quality (NAP) has been developed as ajoint initiative between the Commonwealthand State Governments. In Victoria thisagreement translates into $304 million ofnew funding over 7 years being madeavailable to motivate and enable regionalcommunities to use coordinated and targetedaction to:

IMPLEMENTATION42

a. Prevent, stabilise and reverse trends insalinity, particularly dryland salinity ,affecting the sustainability of production,conservation of biological diversity and theviability of our infrastructure; and

b. Improve water quality and secure reliableallocations, for human uses, industry andthe environment.

In the following priority regions:

• Lower Murray - Mallee and Wimmera CMAs

• Goulburn Broken - Goulburn Broken CMA,

• Avoca-Loddon-Campaspe -North Central CMA

• Glenelg-Corangamite – Glenelg-Hopkins and Corangamite CMAs.

Investment of these funds will be throughthe CMA’s accredited Regional CatchmentStrategies. The funds are to be invested inaddressing salinity and water quality issues,including where they are specific threats tobiodiversity, but there will be additionalbenefits for the protection and enhancementof native vegetation particularly in relation tomanaging threats associated with salinity.

If areas that are identified as benefiting fromrevegetation are not commercially viable, orappropriate for commercial plantings, arerevegetated with indigenous communitieswith high habitat hectare potential we canmake significant progress in our Net Gaingoal through revegetation under NAP.

In cases where revegetation with indigenousspecies will not be successful because of thehigh level of salinity discharge, it isimportant that the non-indigenousalternatives which can tolerate this high levelof discharge are not species that threaten thecondition or viability of nearby remnantvegetation e.g. through invasion.

Second Generation Landcare

The Second Generation Landcare programmakes available State government funding forcommunity projects by groups and in somecases individuals. The Program aims to:

• Help community groups to operate at theiroptimum level,

• Provide support to community groups toparticipate in natural resource management projects,

• Recognise regional diversity,

• Provide a catalyst for changing landmanagement practices, and

• Promote and protect biodiversity values.

Investment decisions for on ground projectsare driven by the extent to which the projectaddresses the regional priorities as identifiedin Action Plans (including the NativeVegetation Plans) giving effect to theRegional Catchment Strategies. In 2001/02approximately $4 million were provided acrossthe State for community projects throughsecond generation Landcare.

Pest Management

Victorian Pest Management – A Framework forAction is pursuing a more integrated approachand introduces an increased focus onprotecting Victoria’s biodiversity assets as adriver for investment priorities.

43IMPLEMENTATION

Private Forestry

The private forestry program, which covers arange of activities but has a focus oncommercial production of timber products,can offer benefits associated with addressingland and water degradation as well as climatechange. Commercial timber growing andharvesting on private land can generally beconsidered as encompassing two types offorest - native forest and plantations.Plantations on previously cleared land providethe opportunity to reduce incrementalclearing of native vegetation caused byfirewood collection and sourcing farm timber(eg. for posts and construction). One of theenvironmental challenges associated withplantations is to strike a balance betweenrecharge control for salinity benefits andmaintaining sufficient water yield forwetlands and their associated nativevegetation. The issue of genetic pollutionimpacts on remnant vegetation also warrantsfurther investigation. Private Forestry Victoria:Focusing on 2002-2005 recognises theseissues through its Environmental Healthstrategic element that will address improvedbiodiversity values across the landscape.

Commercial timber production from nativeregeneration on private land is a long-termprospect that has scope for significant landmanagement and biodiversity benefits.However, there is significant reluctance topursue this activity in the absence ofharvesting rights once the trees are mature.Similarly, the perception of red tapeassociated with pruning, thinning and othermanagement activities has been identified asa significant barrier. The planning scheme hasthe capacity to address these barriers throughthe granting of a planning permit against aland management (or timber production) planthat covers the life of the operation (thismay be 5 years or 40 years). The managementplan would need to identify the site, itsphysical and biological features, particularlyexisting remnant vegetation that will beretained, and the management regimeplanned for the timber production operation(eg. thinning, pruning and harvesting). Thesubmission of a Timber Harvesting Plan toLocal Government is already a requirement ofthe Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production.

Clearing or destruction of native vegetationto facilitate plantation establishment or othertimber products will be considered in thesame manner as any other planning permitapplications and will require appropriateoffsets. Net Gain offset requirements forharvest and regeneration and selectiveharvesting activities will be deemed to havebeen met through effective regeneration asoutlined in Table 7, Appendix 5.

IMPLEMENTATION44

Sustainable Agriculture and Land Management Program

The Sustainable Agriculture and LandManagement (SALM) extension program aimsto implement plans that will reduce theenvironmental, economic and social impactsof salinity, soil erosion and land degradationon Victorians. A key focus of the program isto implement Victoria's Salinity ManagementFramework, which recognises the importanceof strategic revegetation to maximise salinitycontrol benefits, while also achievingimproved biodiversity outcomes. IntegratedCatchment Management is a central theme ofthe SALM program, which has close linkageswith other Land and Water programs. PrivateForestry and Greenhouse outcomes arevaluable cross benefits from SALMrevegetation activities. Pests impact directlyupon the implementation of SALMmanagement options, while Landcare providesthe framework through which the concept ofimproved land management combined withbiodiversity outcomes reaches the community.The potential for SALM activities to havenegative impacts of on biodiversity isrecognised and the development of industry standards, to address this issue, arebeing explored.

Growing Victoria’s Greenhouse Sinks

The Victorian Greenhouse Strategy recognisesthat the release of CO2 from land clearing isan important source of greenhouse gasemissions in Australia, but that in Victoriathis source contributes only around 1% ofVictoria’s total emissions. Although only onepart of a comprehensive greenhouse response,the creation of carbon sinks throughrevegetation, will play an important role inachieving Kyoto targets. Growing Victoria’sGreenhouse Sinks is a program aimed atcreating carbon sinks to contribute to theamelioration of the Greenhouse effect,however other benefits, in the form of areduction of land and water degradation andconservation of biodiversity, are alsoachieved. For example, the re-establishmentof habitat links has the potential to increasethe resilience of natural systems to adapt inthe face of climate change. Growing Victoria’sGreenhouse Sinks has been operating for 3years with around $1.5 million/year allocatedfor revegetation with indigenous species. Thisprogram will be extended with $3 millionover three years.

45IMPLEMENTATION

Actions:

• Undertake scientific investigations toidentify salinity hazard and recharge areasfor use in developing strategic revegetationor vegetation management plans andidentifying opportunities for revegetationwith indigenous vegetation communities toreduce the impact of salinity.

• Develop native vegetation management andrevegetation components for inclusion inEnvironmental Management Systems formarketing ‘world-class’ and ‘green’agricultural products.

• Continue to promote the concept ofmultiple benefits to enhance the outcomesof revegetation and vegetationmanagement projects.

• Develop an improved understanding of thewater yield impacts of private forestryenterprises on wetlands and associatedaquatic vegetation and develop guidelinesfor plantation establishment to avoidfurther impacts.

• Develop an improved understanding of thegenetic pollution impact of private forestryenterprises on native vegetation.

• Develop local prescriptions for protectionand enhancement of indigenous vegetationassociated with plantations and timberharvesting for inclusion in the Code ofForest Practice for Timber Production onprivate land.

9.2MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring of vegetation managementactivities is undertaken by:

• Local Government as part of implementingthe Planning Scheme,

• CMAs and the Victorian CatchmentManagement Council as part of theirstatutory responsibilities under theCatchment and Land Protection Act1994, and

• State Government agencies in order tomeet National environmental reportingrequirements.

The challenge is to ensure that thesereporting efforts are well coordinated andthat we have an efficient system of reportingprogress towards our Net Gain goal.

Catchment Activity Management System

NRE is improving its accountability by usingthe Regional DataNet Catchment ActivityManagement System (CAMs) to record onground activities that received financialassistance from Government. CAMs is astatewide web based data management andreporting system and contains tools to:

• Keep track of expenditure

• Record details on activities

• Record spatially where the activities are

• Report on activities, outputs, issues andbudget, and

• Perform simple Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) functions

IMPLEMENTATION46

All on ground NHT Bushcare projects have acondition requiring documentation ofactivities on CAMs. By providing a spatiallylinked register of activities CAMs facilitatesevaluation and monitoring of the success ofGovernment investments, particularly theeffectiveness of targeting funds to priorityareas of the State. It also improves ourability to ensure the ongoing security ofthese investments. In future, theimprovements in native vegetation qualityand extent will be assessed and reported interms of habitat hectares as a contribution toour Net Gain goal.

Native Vegetation Permit Tracking System

Victoria has a strong background invegetation mapping for regional planning andin now moving to cover the rural landscapewith mapping that is suitable for localplanning. This mapping builds on the workundertaken as part of the Regional ForestAgreements and uses extensive remotelysensed information. However, furtherdevelopment of this technology is needed toassist Local Governments with monitoring ofcompliance with permit conditions and to usethis information to track changes invegetation cover for greenhouse and carboncredits purposes. The Native VegetationPermit Tracking system outlined in section9.1 will complement the Regional Datanetand value add to the satellite imagery usedfor tree cover mapping.

National Vegetation Information System

The NHT National Land and Water Audit, incooperation with all States and Territories,has developed a National VegetationInformation System (NVIS) to assist Statesundertake monitoring of their nativevegetation resources in a consistent mannerAustralia-wide. NVIS provides guidelines anddefines the minimum requirements for thecompilation of vegetation data acrossAustralia.

Environmental Management Systems

An Environmental Management System (EMS)is a methodical approach to continuousimprovement in planning, implementationand review of an organisation's efforts tomanage its impacts on the environment. EMSscan provide a framework for a voluntary butsystematic set of procedures for improvingenvironmental performance. PerformanceStandards, accepted specifications or codes ofpractice which define materials, methods,processes and practices, when effectivelyimplemented, ensure that consistent andacceptable levels of quality, performance,safety and reliability are achieved. NRE hascommenced pilot EMS projects on grains, beefand wool properties to develop practicalexamples of how EMSs can improvebiodiversity conservation and can support thesubstantiation of 'clean and green'production. The projects are funded throughthe Naturally Victorian marketing initiative.

47IMPLEMENTATION

Actions

• Develop and implement a StatewideVegetation Quality Indicator (or mappingmethod) that contributes to an overallassessment of progress towards a Net Gainin native vegetation and complementsNational and other relevant systems. Aspart of this action, enhance NRE’sbiodiversity information systems withstandard descriptions of EVCs, particularlywith respect to attributes relevant tocondition assessment and revegetation.

• Undertake regular remote sensed mappingof the extent of tree cover at a scale of1:25,000 (Tree 25) for Net Gain monitoring and tree cover change analysis for detecting illegal nativevegetation clearance.

• Introduce a compliance auditing system forthe Code of Forest Practice for TimberProduction on private land.

• Develop and implement an approvedframework for reporting key biodiversityassets (including native vegetation) across Victoria.

9.3RESEARCH FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT

Native Vegetation Management requires bothan understanding of ecosystem functioningon a landscape scale and the development of appropriate management responses by land managers.

The extent of Victoria’s vegetation challengerequires an understanding of the implicationsof broadscale landuse change at a catchmentlevel as well as the implications for differentfarming systems.

Catchment Management Authorities will needto understand the long-term implications ofextensive revegetation on water quality andyield, while individual farmers will needinformation on the impact of differentmanagement practices on their farm business.

State and Local Governments will also needto better understand the effects of differentmanagement objectives for the developmentof land management agreements. As well astechnical biophysical issues, there is a needfor a greater understanding of the humandimension - for example, factors affectinguptake of incentives and works.

Victoria has invested strongly in vegetationmapping and has been a major supporter ofefforts by Land and Water Australia (L&WA) toboth audit native vegetation and developbest management responses to protecting andenhancing native vegetation. The Goulburn

IMPLEMENTATION48

Broken Native Vegetation Plan is an exampleof this partnership approach. The Plan’sdevelopment was supported by both theVictorian Government and L&WA to pilotapproaches for regional planning.

Victoria, in partnership with L&WA throughthe Native Vegetation R&D program hasinvested in two research projects:

• Landscape level thresholds for conservationof biodiversity in rural environments, and

• Managing landscapes to meet publicbiodiversity goals and farm business goals.

Victoria will also benefit from the knowledgegenerated through the projects undertaken byother jurisdictions as part of the NativeVegetation R&D Program.

NRE is also undertaking a range of researchprojects focussing on biodiversityconservation under the EcologicallySustainable Agriculture Initiative:

• Achieving Biodiversity Gains in conjunctionwith Land Use Change;

• Grazing for Biodiversity and Profit;

• Improved Riparian Zones and RemnantVegetation in High Rainfall IntensiveGrazing Systems;

• Shelter-belts for Enhancing Biodiversity inIntensive Agricultural Systems;

• Targeted Water Management Strategies forEcologically Sustainable AgriculturalIndustries; and

• Protection of Threatened Species inAgricultural Landscapes.

In addition environmental research issupported through NRE’s Grains program:

• Environmental Impacts of Raised BedCropping Systems in south west Victoria –Biodiversity Component.

Action:

Develop a research strategy for nativevegetation management within Victoria aspart of NRE’s Natural Resource ManagementR&D strategy that includes:

• calibration of the habitat hectaremethodology to more specific biodiversityattributes and to improve estimates of therelative value of offset actions,

• improving the cost-effectiveness andecological “know-how” of managementtechniques for enhancing habitat values inremnant native vegetation or re-creatinghabitat values through revegetation,

• identifying and progressively refining rulesets which summarise relationshipsbetween habitat characteristics and keyspecies and can be used to promote betterunderstanding of the best options forrestoring native vegetation to recoverbiodiversity,

• identification of salinity managementtargets through analysis of the bestavailable information,

• pathways for research information tosuccessfully influence State policy,extension programs and investmentstrategies.

49A

PPEND

IX 1

HAZARD RATING WATERWAY PROTECTION SALINITY CONTROL SOIL CONSERVATION SOIL/LAND QUALITY PRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY OF SITE

Very High Riparian zone vegetation Vegetation on an area Very high erosion hazard Land highly susceptible Land with restricted(ie adjacent to or within identified as having a associated with the to soil structure decline, vegetative growth waterway, wetland or high groundwater proposeduse and the water logging potential because of significant drainage line). recharge potential activities needed to bring or landslips. either moisture

OR about the change in use availability or the Salinity discharge site (defined as land occurrence of lowand its immediately with >20% slope ) temperaturesadjacent area OR

Salinity discharge site

High Vegetation immediately Vegetation on an area High erosion hazard Land moderately Land with low adjacent to riparian zone with moderately high associated with the susceptible to either potential for reliable

groundwater recharge proposed use or the soil structure decline, vegetative growthpotential activities needed to water logging OR bring about the change or landslipsVegetation slightly uphill ORof discharge site Potential salinity

discharge site

Medium Vegetation away from Vegetation on an area Moderate erosion hazard Land of low Land with adequate riparian zone identified as having a with proposed alternative susceptibility to either potential for

moderate groundwater use soil structure decline, vegetative growthrecharge potential water logging

or landslips

Low Vegetation not adjacent Vegetation on an area Low erosion hazard Well structured soil of Land of high potential to or within riparian identified as having a associated with depth greater for vegetative growthzone low groundwater proposed alternative than 150 mm

recharge potential use

APPENDIX 1l LAND PROTECTION HAZARD FOR NET GAIN OUTCOMES

TABLE 3. IDENTIFYING LAND PROTECTION HAZARD FOR NET GAIN OUTCOMES

APPENDIX 250

APPENDIX 2

ASSESSING BIOREGIONALCONSERVATION STATUS OFECOLOGICAL VEGETATIONCLASSES

Assessment of the conservation status ofvegetation types is traditionally based on thebroad concepts of inherent rarity, degree ofthreat (including consideration of historic andon-going impacts) and importance forsupporting other significant features (forexample, as a drought refuge for nativefauna). These concepts have been expressedas more specific criteria in a number ofprocesses at State and National levels. TheRegional Forest Agreement (RFA) processundertaken in partnership by Commonwealthand State agencies used National ForestReserve Criteria which included a number ofbiodiversity criteria for establishing aComprehensive Adequate and Representativereserve system (outlined in JANIS 1997).Many of these criteria have been used as thebasis for assessing conservation status ofvegetation types in the Net Gain approach.However, there are inherent differencesbetween the processes - RFAs focus primarilyon establishing a reserve system for forests inlargely natural landscapes across public land,while NVPs focus primarily on prioritisingprotection of all types of remnant vegetationin rural landscapes across private land. Thesedifferences necessitate a refinement of thecriteria. The key refinements are as follows:

• depletion and rarity of occurrenceassessments are made within a Victorianbioregional framework which is moreinformative than the RFA study area framework;

• combinations of depletion-degradation-rarity which give equivalent conservationstatus to depletion-only thresholds aremore explicitly defined;

• a “depleted” category is added to allowidentification of vegetation types whichmay become threatened if broad-scaledepletion or degradation activities are notmanaged appropriately;

The criteria are detailed in Table 4 and havebeen used to assign a conservation status foreach combination of EVC and bioregion. Thestatus of each combination may be amendedwith time as more complete or better scalemapping of vegetation type and conditionbecomes available. Where an EVC is only aminor occurrence in a bioregion it is assignedthe conservation status from an appropriateneighbouring bioregion, unless the occurrenceis considered to represent a threatenedfloristic community.

Complexes/mosaics are assigned theconservation status of the most threatenedcomponent EVC. Similarly, where threatenedEVCs/floristic communities are known to existbut mapping is not available at this level ofdiscrimination, decision-making processesbased on more generalised datasets (forexample, Broad Vegetation Types at 1:250000) should be driven by the conservationstatus of the most threatened componentlikely to be present in a mapped polygon.

51APPENDIX 2

STATUS CRITERIA

Presumed Extinct X Probably no longer present in the bioregion(the accuracy of this presumption is limited by the use of remotelysensed 1:100 000 scale woody vegetation cover mapping to determine depletion - grassland, open woodland and wetland types are particularly affected)

Endangered E1 Contracted to less than 10% of former range; orLess than 10% pre-European extent remains;

E2 Combination of depletion, degradation, current threats and rarity is comparable overall to E1:

• 10 to 30% pre-European extent remains and severely degraded over a majority of this area; or

• naturally restricted EVC reduced to 30% or less of former range and moderately degraded over a majority of this area; or

• rare EVC cleared and/or moderately degraded over a majority of former area.

Vulnerable V1 10 to 30% pre-European extent remains;

V2 Combination of depletion, degradation, current threats and rarityis comparable overall to V1:

• greater than 30% and up to 50% pre-European extent remains and moderately degraded over a majority of this area; or

• greater than 50% pre-European extent remains and severely degraded over a majority of this area; or

• naturally restricted EVC where greater than 30% pre-European extent remains and moderately degraded over a majority of this area; or

• rare EVC cleared and/or moderately degraded over a minorityof former area.

Depleted D1 Greater than 30% and up to 50% pre-European extent remains;

D2 Combination of depletion, degradation and current threats is comparable overall to D1 and:

• greater than 50% pre-European extent remains and moderately degraded over a majority of this area;

Rare R Rare EVC (as defined by geographic occurrence) but neither depleted, degraded nor currently threatened to an extent that would qualify as Endangered, Vulnerable or Depleted

Least Concern LC Greater than 50% pre-European extent remains and subject to little to no degradation over a majority of this area

TABLE 4A. BIOREGIONAL CONSERVATION STATUS OF ECOLOGICAL VEGETATION CLASSES (EVCS)

APPENDIX 252

EXPLANATION OF TERMS

subject to a threatening process includes currently acting threats that will lead todegradation (moderate or severe) OR risk of significant rapid change (e.g. rising groundwater; change of land use)

majority greater than 50% of area

minority greater than 10% and up to 50% of area

severely degraded floristic and/or structural diversity is greatly reduced(and/or subject to a threatening process which willlead to an equivalent reduction) and unlikely to recover naturally in medium to long-term

moderately degraded floristic and/or structural diversity is significantly reduced (and/or subject to a threatening process which will lead to an equivalent reduction) but may recover naturally with removal of threatening processes

little to no degradation floristic and/or structural diversity is largely intact

range area of smallest concave polygon which includes all occurrences

TABLE 4B. GEOGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE OF ECOLOGICAL VEGETATION CLASSES (EVCS) WITHIN BIOREGIONS

GEOGRAPHIC OCCURENCE CRITERIA

Rare R1 total range generally less than 10 000 ha; or

R2 pre-European extent in Victorian bioregion less than 1000 ha; orR3 patch size generally less than 100 ha

Naturally Restricted NR pre-European extent in Victorian bioregion less than 10 000 ha.

Common C pre-European extent in Victorian bioregion greater than 10 000 ha.

Minor M pre-European extent in Victorian bioregion less than approximately 1%of Statewide extent

53APPEN

DIX 3APPENDIX 3l DETERMINING CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

TABLE 5. DETERMINING CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

BIODIVERSITY ATTRIBUTES

CONSERVATION VEGETATION TYPES OR ORSIGNIFICANCE SPECIES OTHER ATTRIBUTES

Conservation Habitat Status1 Score2

VERY HIGH Endangered 0.4 - 1 • best 50% of habitat for each • sites with unique National Estate valuesVulnerable 0.5 - 1 threatened species2 in • sites identified as being of national significanceRare 0.6 - 1 a Victorian bioregion as a relict, endemic, edge of range or other non-species values

• Ramsar Sites• East Asian-Australasian Shorebird Site Network sites• Other wetlands of international significance

for migratory waterbirds• areas identified as providing refuges

(e.g. during drought) for threatened species

HIGH Endangered < 0.4 • the remaining 50% of habitat • sites with rare National Estate valuesVulnerable 0.3 - 0.5 for threatened species2 in • sites identified as being of state significance Rare 0.3 - 0.6 a Victorian bioregion for relictual, endemic, edge of range or other non-species valuesDepleted 0.6 - 1 • best 50% of habitat for rare • Wetlands listed in ‘A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia’

species2 in a Victorian bioregion • Wetlands of national significance for migratory waterbirds• areas identified as providing refuges

(e.g. during drought) for rare species• priority areas for the re-establishment of habitat for a threatened

species (eg. as determined in a Biodiversity Action Plan)

MEDIUM Vulnerable < 0.3 • the remaining 50% of habitat for • sites with uncommon National Estate valuesRare < 0.3 rare species2 in a Victorian bioregion • sites identified as being of regional significance for Depleted 0.3 - 0.6 • best 50% of habitat for edge of range or other non-species valuesLeast Concern 0.6 - 1 regionally significant species2 • Wetlands of bioregional significance (based on

application of National Land and Water Resources Audit criteria).

LOW Depleted < 0.3Least Concern < 0.6

1. see Appendix 2

2. conservation status of species determined with reference to NRE Victorian Rare or Threatened Flora and Fauna lists, as supplemented by the relevant Native Vegetation Plan. The relative quality andsuitability of habitat for threatened species depends on particular requirements and therefore must be estimated on a species-by-species and location-by-location basis by the relevant planningauthority using the best available information.

CONSERVATION VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOWSIGNIFICANCE

Response to In keeping with the principles in Section 4 and in the context of the Net Gain approachproposal to which has, as a priority, the avoidance of further permanent losses of native vegetation clear & offset through clearing (page 19):

Clearing not permitted clearing generally clearing generally clearing may be unless exceptional not permitted not permitted permitted but circumstances apply only as part(i.e. impacts are an of an unavoidable part of a appropriatedevelopment project, sustainable usewith approval of the response asMinister for Environment determined by theand Conservation (or responsible planningdelegate) based on authorityconsiderations of environmental, social and economic values froma statewide perspective)

If some clearing is to be permitted, the following offset requirements must be met

Net outcome substantial net gain net gain equivalent gain equivalent gain

i.e. at least 2 X i.e. at least 1.5 X i.e. at least 1 X i.e. at least 1 Xthe calculated loss the calculated loss the calculated loss the calculated loss in habitat hectares1 in habitat hectares1 in habitat hectares1, 2 in habitat hectares1, 2

Formal Requirements to achieve offsets must be identified in the associated managementagreement to agreements &/or the permit conditions.achieve and Gains must be of an on-going and secure nature. Once achieved the offset must be maintainedsecure offset and the relevant planning authorities must maintain adequate and readily accessible records

of agreed offset arrangements (ultimately on the Native Vegetation Permit Tracking system)

Like-for-Like

vegetation or the same vegetation/ the same vegetation/ Any EVC in the Bioregion OR ahabitat type habitat type habitat type OR a Very High or High significance vegetation/of offset Very High significance habitat in an adjacent Bioregion

vegetation/ habitat inthe same Bioregion

landscape role Similar or more Similar or more Similar or more effective land protectioneffective ecological effective ecological function as impacted by the lossfunction AND function ORland protection land protectionfunction as impacted function as impactedby the loss by the loss

quality The existing vegetation proposed as the basis of an offset must be at leastobjectives for 90% of the quality in 75% of the quality 50% of the qualityoffset the area being lost. in the area being lost in the area being lost

The proportion of revegetation included in the offset (in habitat hectares) is limited to10% 25% 50% 100%

1 Gains can include active improvements of quality and/or avoiding potential losses of quality by agreement to forego permitted uses. Note that applying all of the following offset criteria (where relevant) may require more than the minimum habitat hectares specified bythese multipliers

2 Where gains are achieved in vegetation/habitat of a higher significance than the vegetation lost, then the amount of the offset will beproportionally reduced (eg. offsetting losses in medium conservation significance with very high conservation significance gains will reducethe amount of the offsets required by half, i.e. the medium multiplier divided by the very high multiplier)

APPENDIX 454

APPENDIX 4l RESPONSES AND OFFSET CRITERIA - SUMMARYTABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES AND OFFSET CRITERIA GRADED ACCORDINGTO CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

55APPENDIX 4

large old tree4

objectives for offset

CONSERVATION VERY HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOWSIGNIFICANCE

For remnant patches of native vegetation that contain large old trees4

for each large old tree removed as part of permitted clearing3:

8 other large old trees 4 other large old trees 2 other large old treesto be protected AND to be protected AND to be protected AND

40 new trees to 20 new trees to be 10 new trees to bebe recruited5 be recruited5 be recruited5

For parcels of land greater than 4 ha and with 8 or more scattered old trees4 /hafor each large old tree removed as part of permitted clearing3:

8 other large old 4 other large old 2 other large old 10 new trees totrees to be protected trees to be protected trees to be protected be recruited5

40 new trees to 20 new trees to be 10 new trees tobe recruited5 recruited5 be recruited5

for each medium old tree removed as part of permitted clearing3:

4 other medium old 2 other medium old 1 other medium old 5 new treestrees to be protected trees to be protected tree to be protected to be recruited5

20 new trees to be 10 new trees 5 new treesrecruited5 to be recruited5 to be recruited5

For parcels of land greater than 4 ha with less than 8 scattered old trees4/ha, orFor parcels of land less than 4 ha with any number of scattered old trees4/hafor each medium or large old tree removed as part of permitted clearing3 an appropriate number ofnew trees must be recruited. The number of new trees that must be recruited will be specified inregional Native Vegetation Plans and may be graded according to conservation significance. Thesenumbers will be clearly greater than those specified above for recruitment that is supplementary toprotection of other trees. However, where it better suits their circumstances, landholders may usethe “protect other trees and ensure supplementary recruitment” approach to meet this criteria.

Vicinity Gains must be within Gains must be within Gains must be within the samethe same bioregion, the same bioregion bioregion as the loss OR anand within the same as the loss adjacent bioregion if offsets are in priority landscape Very High or High significance vegetationzone6 as the loss where consideredappropriate by theplanning authority

Timing Offsets to be initiated Offsets to be initiated as soon as possible after loss occurs but noprior to the loss more than 1 year (seasonal requirements to be considered)

3 these offsets are only required as a consequence of native vegetation clearing which requires and receives a planning permit, and notwhere tree removal is exempt from the requirement to have such a permit

4 old trees, large or medium, are defined as individuals of key long-lived dominant tree species (as specified in the relevant EVC benchmark)that are greater than certain diameters (for large or medium) at 1.3 m above ground level

5 on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the planning authority, this requirement to recruit new trees may be either through plantingsto a prescribed standard (e.g. species composition, density, survivorship) and/or through regeneration associated with protection of otherold trees. Recruitment should meet the timing criterion below. Any plantings that have been undertaken by the landholder since 1989 andthat meet all the relevant offset criteria, can be used to meet this requirement.

6 Identified in local landscape-scale biodiversity action plans

no specific ‘otherlarge old treeprotection’ offsetrequired

APPENDIX 5l TIMBER HARVESTING OFFSETCRITERIA - SUMMARY

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF OFFSET CRITERIA FOR HARVESTING TIMBER FROM NATURALLY-ESTABLISHED NATIVE FOREST ON PRIVATE LAND

CONSERVATION VERY HIGH MEDIUM LOWSIGNIFICANCE HIGH

Response to proposal Harvesting generally Harvest and regeneration may be permitted as part of not permitted1 sustainableland use option

Net outcome of offset Regeneration undertaken according to the following criteria will be considered to have achieved sufficient offset

Vegetation or HabitatType of offset same as harvested

Landscape role same as harvested

Quality objectives For clearfell harvest & regeneration

for offset Regeneration to be managed so that it has the bestopportunity to reach a target of 50% of the quality ofthe vegetation that was harvested within 10 years andultimately the same quality (minus large treecomponent) as required by permit condition. Where largeold trees are included in the harvest area, mitigationwill be determined on a case-by-case basis ensuringsufficient seed and habitat trees for regeneration of theforest values. Where private land forest is notsubstantially contiguous with the public forest estate, ahigher level of mitigation will be required (to bespecified in Regional Native Vegetation Plans)

For selective harvesting

The reduction in quality in a site due to selectiveharvesting must not be greater than the % specified inthe Regional Native Vegetation Plans

Vicinity same as harvested

Timing Regeneration to be initiated as soon as possible afterharvesting but no more than one year (seasonalrequirements to be considered by planning authority)

Security of offset Planning permit conditions to apply until theregeneration achieves the equivalent quality of thevegetation that was harvested (excluding the large oldtree component)

1 unless harvesting is currently allowed on public land within the same bioregion for areas of vegetation which have equivalent conservation values.

APPENDIX 556

57GLOSSARY

Habitat hectare - a site-based measure ofquality and quantity of native vegetation thatis assessed in the context of the relevantnative vegetation type.

JAMBA - Japanese-Australian Migratory Bird Agreement

Net Gain - is where, over a specified areaand period of time, losses of nativevegetation and habitat, as measured by acombined quality-quantity measure (habitathectare), are reduced, minimised and morethan offset by commensurate gains.

Native vegetation management scales

Regional (or catchment) scale managementrefers to areas ranging from tens to hundredsof kilometres across, and involves the co-ordination of processes to engage the broadrange of landholders, organised interestgroups and government agencies. Aperspective at this level facilitates medium tolong term strategic planning for sustainableland and water management, and forconservation reserve systems.

Landscape scale management refers to areasfrom several kilometres to tens of kilometresacross, usually involving a number ofproperties and individual land managers. Atthis level, consideration can be giveneffectively to differences in native vegetationtype, coverage and quality, including spatialconfiguration and connectivity of habitats,and other factors influencing biodiversity andland protection in the local landscape.

GLOSSARY

Biodiversity - the variety of all life-forms,the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes they contain, and theecosystems of which they form a part.

Bioregions - biogeographic areas thatcapture the patterns of ecologicalcharacteristics in the landscape or seascape,providing a natural framework for recognisingand responding to biodiversity values.

Broad Vegetation Types (BVT) - aclassification that provides a simplified viewof vegetation based on land system orbiophysical attributes (such as geology,rainfall, elevation, soil type and landform).Each broad vegetation type will contain amixture of EVCs, often in a recognisablepattern, however any one EVC can occur inmore than one BVT.

CAMBA - Chinese-Australian MigratoryBird Agreement

Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) - a typeof native vegetation classification that isdescribed through a combination of itsfloristic, life form, and ecologicalcharacteristics, and through an inferredfidelity to particular environmental attributes.Each EVC includes a collection of floristiccommunities (i.e. a lower level in theclassification that is based solely on groupsof the same species) that occur across abiogeographic range, and although differingin species, have similar habitat andecological processes operating.

GLOSSARY 58

Patch (or block) scale management relates toa discrete stand of native vegetation usuallywithin a single rural property, and focuses onthe size, shape and location of the patch andon the type(s) of vegetation. This levelpermits useful insight into how to bestprotect or enhance the value of patches ashabitat and/or for land protection.

Site scale management refers to highlylocalised activities that may influence thecharacteristics of vegetation occurring withinor adjacent to a patch. Such activitiesinclude planting, direct seeding orregeneration of vegetation, as well as weed control or thinning inestablished vegetation.

59REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Australia and New Zealand ConservationCouncil (1999). National Framework for theManagement and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation. Commonwealth of Australia.

Barson, M.M. Randall, L.A. and Bordas, V.(2000). Land Cover Change in Australia.Results of the collaborative Bureau of RuralSciences – State Agencies’ Project on RemoteSensing of Land Cover Change. Bureau of RuralSciences. Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

Department of Premier and Cabinet (2001).Growing Victoria Together. Innovative State.Caring Communities. The State of Victoria.

Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (1996). Code of Forest Practicesfor Timber Production, REVISION No. 2. The State of Victoria.

Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (1997). Victoria’s Biodiversity:Directions in Management. The State of Victoria.

Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (2000). Victoria’s SalinityManagement Framework - Restoring ourCatchments. The State of Victoria.

Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (2002). Victorian GreenhouseStrategy. The State of Victoria.

Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (2002). Private Forestry Victoria:Focusing on 2002 – 2005. The State of Victoria.

Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment (2002). Victorian PestManagement - A Framework for Action.The State of Victoria.

JANIS (1997). Nationally Agreed Criteria forthe Establishment of a Comprehensive andAdequate Reserve System for Forests inAustralia. Report by the Joint ANZECC/MCFFANational Forest Policy Implementation Sub-committee. Commonwealth of Australia.

Murray Darling Basin Commission (1999).Salinity Audit of the Murray Darling Basin: A Hundred Year Perspective. Canberra.

National Land and Water Resources Audit(2001). Australian Native VegetationAssessment 2001. Commonwealth of Australia.

Parkes, D. Newell, G. and Cheal, D. (2001).‘Assessing the Quality of Native Vegetation –the Habitat Hectares approach’. Journal of Ecological Management andRestoration (in press).

Victorian Government. (2002). Our Forests,Our Future, Balancing Communities, Jobs andthe Environment. (Statement by the HonSteve Bracks, MP, Premier of Victoria and theHon Sherryl Garbutt, MP, Minister forEnvironment and Conservation).

Documents

VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT A …€¦ · element of the State Government’s vision for Victoria is that by 2010 we will be a State where protecting the environment