Download Review of Australia`s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

to the
Australian Department of Environment
National Biodiversity Strategy Secretariat
on the
Review of Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy 2010-2030
11 September 2015
1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
2
STRUCTURE OF THE STRATEGY (P13)......................................................................................... 3
3
KEY ITEMS IN THE STRATEGY .................................................................................................... 4
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
SETTING THE CONTEXT (P16) ............................................................................................................ 4
PRIORITIES FOR ACTION (P36) ........................................................................................................... 5
IMPLEMENTATION AND ACTION (P51)................................................................................................. 6
CONCLUDING COMMENTS ........................................................................................................ 8
HIA ::
Housing Industry Association
79 Constitution Avenue
Campbell ACT 2612
Phone: 02 6245 1300
HIA is the leading industry association in the Australian residential building sector, supporting
the businesses and interests of over 43,000 builders, contractors, manufacturers, suppliers,
building professionals and business partners.
HIA members include businesses of all sizes, ranging from individuals working as independent
contractors and home based small businesses, to large publicly listed companies. 85% of all
new home building work in Australia is performed by HIA members.
1 Introduction
HIA provides comments in this paper as feedback on the current Review of Australia’s
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 (The Strategy).
The Strategy provides a framework for conserving and protecting Australia’s biodiversity into the
future. It contains a set of principles and actions governments are committed to implementing
over the time frame of the Strategy – being 2010-2030. This opportunity represents the five year
review mark.
One of the main purposes of the review will be to ensure the priorities and actions undertaken
by governments and authorities on the ground will be integrated and deliver upon national
priorities.
To that end the Australian Government through the Department of Environment has stated:
“Your input is sought to inform the review, including general comments, or views on emerging
issues, implementation challenges and opportunities to improve the Strategy.
The review will therefore examine and report on:
•
•
•
The operation and implementation of the Strategy since its launch in 2010;
Alignment of the Strategy with the Convention’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 20112020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, as well as relevant obligations of other
biodiversity-related international agreements; and
Opportunities to improve and streamline the Strategy, while maintaining effective
standards, including consideration of:
•
the robustness and durability of objectives;
•
responsibility and accountability for the delivery of outcomes; and
•
monitoring and reporting systems.
HIA is the peak industry body in Australia representing developers and builders. HIA members
construct approximately 85% of new housing stock in Australia.
By its very nature the housing and the development industry can be considered as a threat to
the loss of habitat. Land which is designated for urban development ultimately proceeds through
the planning process to the stage when land transitions to an urban environment and houses
are built.
Notwithstanding there are national and state controls in place to ensure this happens
responsibly, HIA’s interest in the Strategy relates to these requirements through the planning
system. This is because the outcomes they provide, together with how these matters are
administered by the various authorities are considered to be both emerging issues and provide
implementation challenges for the Strategy into the future.
Planning and environmental requirements relating to biodiversity are implemented at national,
state and local levels. There are a volume of requirements and considerable overlap between
jurisdictions. Depending on the significance of flora and fauna, approval around biodiversity
conservation may be required from all levels of government prior to planning permission being
granted. Commonwealth, State and/or local government can all be involved in the one
development approval process. This is not considered ideal. Measures to streamline this
process are available and can be implemented through a more strategic assessment process.
This option whilst lengthy to implement, appears to only be utilised in limited circumstances.
-1-
The timing of the application of biodiversity requirements in the planning process is of most
concern for the residential development industry and principles to deal with this could be
integrated into the Strategy to provide greater certainty for all parties.
The Strategy could be up front in suggesting that all assessment work relating to biodiversity
management is accurately designated through either national requirements or state planning
mechanisms – not both. Using this as a platform, land which has undergone a strategic
environmental assessment as part of the process to permit that land to be developed in any
manner, but in particular being available for housing development, should be able to proceed to
the more detailed stages of the planning process (subdivision & development assessment)
without the need for further investigation into biodiversity. And lastly when individual housing
allotments are created on sites where assessments have already occurred and been supported,
no further assessment should be permitted.
The residential development industry does not seek to shirk its financial and landholder
responsibility in the protection of flora and fauna in the national interest. It seeks to define a
process that is both effective in retaining significant species yet efficient to administer. It seeks a
process whereby governments are required to apply biodiversity requirements at the earliest
point - the stage where land is designated for urban development. Retrospective application of a
constraint should not apply, unless a specific safety issue arises on the land.
This response seeks to highlight these issues for consideration in the review and provide some
suggestions as to how they might be better managed to provide certainty of biodiversity
outcomes for the benefit of both the environment, industry and the community.
-2-
2 Structure of the Strategy (p13)
The Strategy structure is divided into three sections:
1. Setting the Context
2. Priorities for Action including
3. Implementation and Action
There are 3 key priorities for Action are:
1. Engaging All Australians in Biodiversity
2. Building Ecosystem resilience in a changing climate and
3. Getting measureable Results
Each of these is supported by sub priorities for action.
This Strategy is the guiding policy framework for a diverse mix of state and local government
and private sector approaches to biodiversity conservation. This first stage involves working with
the private sector and stakeholders adversely affected by changes. HIA has addressed the
matters in the strategy that relate to the operation of the residential development industry.
The 10 National Targets (p 14)
The Strategy contains 10 interim national targets for the first 5 years (2010-15) of operation.
There does not appear to be any report on whether these matters have been achieved or
partially achieved in the 5 years that has passed since the Strategy commenced.
This would appear to be an important factor in the review process as if the targets for the first 5
years have not been met - some of the actions in the Strategy may require modification.
For example one of the 10 targets is to:
“By 2015 all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation policies and programs to maximise
alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy”
Yet there is no measure or feedback provided as to whether this or any of the other targets has
been met or even partially met. This information would assist with the Review greatly.
-3-
3 Key Items in the Strategy
3.1 Setting the Context (p16)
The Strategy calls in this section for all sectors to address biodiversity decline and provides a
list of main threats to Australia’s biodiversity.
Main Threats to Australia’s Biodiversity (p22)
Habitat loss is listed as one of the main issues. The loss of spatial continuity for species as
caused by the clearing of native vegetation and pollution of waterways are listed as causes. It is
also clarified that all of these activities are regulated by laws in all jurisdictions.
By its very nature the housing and residential development industry can be considered as one
of the threats to loss of habitat. Housing is not able to be developed on land which has not been
designated or zoned for residential development, but land which is designated for urban
development ultimately proceeds through the planning process to the stage when it transitions
to an urban environment where houses are built.
However, in proceeding down this path, industry and proponents are bound to follow a number
of legislated requirements - including the National Environment Protection Biodiversity
Conservation Act (EPBC) together with other state legislation and sometimes local
requirements.
The Strategy is up front in admitting the targets and strategies are aimed at reducing the
negative impacts of human activity. There will always be pressures on our cities to
accommodate growing populations. In most cases, state governments have legislation in place
to ensure that where species are identified, due consideration and protection is afforded, and
where appropriate offset arrangements are in place. So even though urban development is
seen as a threat to biodiversity conservation, the strict requirements around native vegetation
removal and threatened species management are there to control matters and in many cases
ensure there is no “net loss” as a result.
There are also well known management strategies for providing offsets such as “Bushbroker” in
New South Wales. The involvement of private land owners in creating offsets represents the
potential to significantly increase the involvement and retention of species and the long term
protection of the land where species can thrive.
There are other threats to Australia’s biodiversity listed in the Strategy including invasive
species and the management of natural resources. Changes to the aquatic environment are
mentioned in the context that flows may be altered by urban development. The Strategy
mentions this in passing, but could be more up front in admitting that these matters are all
regulated by relevant state based and local authorities in order to mimimise the impact of
development. In many cases developers seek to enhance waterways. Commonly developers
are involved in embellishing local habitats in greenfield sites. Whilst meeting regulatory
obligations, it also has the benefit of providing attractive new areas of habitat together with open
space for new residents.
-4-
3.2 Priorities for Action (p36)
Within the 20 year time frame the Strategy is intended to provide guidance to all sectors. It has
identified those actions to address biodiversity which are of a higher priority.
Priority for Action 1 – Engaging all Australians
1.1 Mainstreaming Biodiversity
1.2 Increasing Indigenous Engagement
1.3 Enhancing Strategic Investments and Partnerships
It is questionable as to whether the concept of biodiversity is still not well understood and
whether such an emphasis is required to be provided on informing or mainstreaming the public
about this issue.
The Strategy acknowledges that many industries which impact on biodiversity (including
construction) already take it into consideration as part of doing business. In the case of
residential development and housing, legislation and regulation generally require it be factored
in through the planning process.
Priority for Action 2 - Building Ecosystem Resilience in a Changing Climate
2.1 Protecting diversity,
2.2 Maintaining and re-establishing ecosystem functions and
2.3 Reducing threats to biodiversity
This priority for action is focused on reducing the threats to biodiversity and includes some
practical measures to assist species to thrive. Moving towards a more systematic and planned
approach with a 20 year time frame would appear appropriate.
In terms of reducing habitat loss as a result of housing development, offsets are already
required under legislative processes. The provision of offsets is generally made on a
proponents land or elsewhere within the habitat of a species. As mentioned, these requirements
are already in place through the EPBC and state legislation with the intention of achieving “no
net loss” of habitat.
Requirements should be factored in at the earliest possible stages of the process - being the
designation and zoning of land for urban development. There should not be further
requirements or adjustments to land availability at later stages of subdivision and development.
This is because after the zoning of land the purchaser buys that land with an expectation that
development permitted under the zoning provisions will be allowed to proceed with relevant
planning approvals. To go back at later stages and seek to quarantine further land which
previously enjoyed development rights, and which has been acquired in good faith, would be
effectively “down zoning” that land. This should not occur as a result of biodiversity issues.
Priority for Action 3 - Getting Measurable Results
3.1 Improving and Sharing Knowledge
3.2 Delivering conservation initiatives efficiently
3.3 Implementing robust national monitoring, reporting and evaluation
Measures that seek to report on the progress of the Strategy should be encouraged and
supported. It is vital to see how the Strategy is progressing after 5 years. Robust national
monitoring of progress is encouraged and the Strategy could now provide more details of this
aspect.
-5-
In terms of “getting measurable results”, it is considered that emphasis on “delivering
conservation initiatives efficiently” could include statements around the need for cooperation
between state and federal agencies to streamline processes relating to the management of flora
and fauna where approval is required under both jurisdictions.
The current situation sees both the Federal and state governments involved with the
assessment and approval process for single projects. This is not efficient. Whilst moves are on
foot to address this overlap, change is still pending and long overdue. The reality is that many
projects are dealing with matters of both local and national environmental significance –
sometimes species are listed by both tiers.
HIA generally supports the further use of “Strategic Assessments” or broad scale assessments
as opposed to project-by-project assessments. They can consider a much broader set of
actions. For example, the development of a large urban growth area that will be developed over
many years, or a fire management policy across a broad landscape.
Strategic assessments reduce red tape by considering Federal and state environmental
concerns in a single assessment process, and by cutting out the need for individual
assessments. Once a strategic assessment is complete and approvals have been given,
individual proponents will not have to seek Federal approval, as long as they undertake their
projects in accordance with the endorsed policy, plan or program.
There is a role for governments to be involved in the strategic placement of large scale offsets
instead of seeing piecemeal areas preserved for a species.
The Strategy could also emphasise efficiencies around the timing of approvals.
Where land is identified as containing flora or fauna of significance on land already designated
for urban development the legislation/requirements should only apply where subdivision
approvals have not been commenced. Also individual housing allotments should be exempt
from the need to undertake site specific assessments of flora and fauna.
The Strategy could also emphasise that decisions by authorities around flora and fauna
including offsets could be made separately from environmental agencies – by either planning
agencies or a central agency, such as the Premier’s Department, so that decisions are
balanced and take into consideration the strategic and economic benefits of a development and
remove the need for multiple state agency involvement. This would all contribute towards the
aim of “delivering conservation initiatives efficiently”.
3.3 Implementation and Action (p51)
This section of the report provides for specific actions. It is noted that the aim is to provide a
long term feedback mechanism for the community on the progress of the Strategy and this is
supported.
In the Sub Priority Actions - Action A18 seeks to:
“integrate biodiversity conservation into planning instruments including by implementing a
decision-making hierarchy for biodiversity management: the first aim is to avoid loss; if that is
not possible, then aim to minimise loss; if biodiversity loss is unavoidable impacts should be
managed to maintain ecosystem functions including where feasible through the use of offsets”
-6-
As mentioned biodiversity conservation measures are generally incorporated into all planning
systems across Australia. They exist as a requirement to achieve a planning permit to proceed
with a subdivision or subsequent housing development. Therefore the principles are already
replicated in all jurisdictions and no direct action is required.
In addition to the Federal Legislation which protects and controls environmental matters of
significance (the EPBC Act) all states and territories already have two key elements in their
environmental legislation that affects land and housing development. The first is the traditional
area of native vegetation management. Most commonly these provisions focus broadly on tree
and vegetation removal, on any parcel of land, whether on agricultural land, in managed forests
and national parks, or on future industrial, residential and commercial land.
The second area of legislation is more specific and focuses on threatened species – including
flora and fauna. This legislation applies to all land, with approval processes focused on actions
that may damage or remove a threatened species.
Also impacting in many cases are local government controls which are administered through the
planning approvals process.
The administration of these measures is a cause for concern with industry and a source of long
delays and costs in the development process.
The industry is not shirking its financial and landholder responsibility in the protection of species
listed in the national and state legislation. Housing is not able to be developed on land which
has not been designated or zoned for residential development - so there should not be
significant delays at the subdivision time on environmental grounds as much of this should have
been investigated at the rezoning stage.
The emphasis should be on the effective administration of the requirements in place, rather than
creation of new limitations and processes.
Despite requirements being in place, requests are often made by state and local government
which require commissioning of further environmental assessment reports and plans, together
with funding mitigation measures required as a result of projects, such as excising of land and
water bodies for the permanent protection of species; native vegetation offsets; creating
vegetation corridors; and revegetating degraded landscapes, the costs of which must be
reflected in the sale price and ultimately passed onto the home buyer.
Undertaking survey work on land is expensive and classifications can vary between consultants
and authorities involved in assessing the same parcel of land – resulting in different offset
calculations for the same type of vegetation or habitat. And worse still resulting in additional
reports and consulted to confirm what species do exist and what species do not.
Some of the other issues that typically arise in the administration of biodiversity conservation
are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Offset options can vary between state and local government;
Costs associated with offset options can vary significantly;
Developers are not always allowed to provide offsets on their own land even when this is
more cost effective for a development;
A lack of transparency regarding conservation measures and their effectiveness in
ensuring survival of threatened species;
A lack of coordination between government agencies in making a decision.
-7-
•
•
Irregular urban development boundaries are created for reserves that are potentially
unappealing interfaces for housing.
Conservation measures applied late in the planning process causing a loss of
developable land within a residentially planned area which can compromise efficient
infrastructure provision and increase land acquisition costs.
These are all complicated issues which ultimately affect the ability of a Strategy like this to
deliver.
4 Concluding Comments
The Strategy provides a framework for conserving and protecting Australia’s biodiversity into the
future. It contains a set of principles and actions that governments are committed to
implementing over the time frame of the Strategy – being 2010-2030. This opportunity
represents the five year review mark.
In reviewing the Strategy there appears to be a clear need for an interim report to be prepared
which can reveal the rate of success for the Strategy is progressing towards the 10 main goals.
The Strategy can only be properly reviewed with some indication of how matters outlined are
progressing.
This Strategy is the guiding policy framework for a diverse mix of state and local government
and private sector approaches to biodiversity conservation. This first stage involves working with
the private sector and stakeholders adversely affected by changes. HIA has addressed the
matters in the strategy that relate to the operation of the housing and residential development
industry.
Whilst the Strategy considers the impacts on species loss and how best to maintain and
enhance the environment they required to thrive, it needs to take more account of the existing
legislation in place both nationally and in each of the states and territories, particularly in regard
to housing and construction.
The implementation section of the Strategy should provide more of a focus on the efficiency
element. It is important not just to have the legislative controls in place, there should be little
overlap and governments should be streamlined in their administration of such measures. This
should go to the very core of the Strategy as ultimately this is what will deliver the results.
Where habitat loss is being addressed, the Strategy should promote solutions which are long
term and provided for early in the planning process.
In terms of designation of land, governments need to provide certainty. There should be cooperation between state and federal agencies to streamline processes relating to the
management of flora and fauna where approval for development is required under both
jurisdictions.
Where land is identified as containing flora or fauna of significance on land already designated
for urban development the legislation/requirements should only apply where subdivision
approvals have not been commenced. Also individual housing allotments, ie after subdivision
approval has occurred, should be exempt from the need to undertake any further site specific
assessments of flora and fauna. This should have been completed at an earlier stage.
The emphasis on delivering better outcomes is dependent on governments administering the
controls they have in a streamlined way, eradicating overlap and focussing on the requirement
to create long term habitats for species in the appropriate locations.
-8-