Opinion

Blogs

The perversity of green politics

While this week’s latest package of land clearing restrictions in Queensland is relatively unobtrusive to landholders, Labor and the green movement have again produced legislation that will result in harmful results for the environment.

Given Labor's track record on this issue, I must admit to being pleasantly surprised that the new legislation to curb the clearing of regrowth vegetation did not go further in a bid to appease environmental groups.

It was after all for them that the new laws were created after a deal was done by Labor to win their preference votes at the last State election.

But then again, no matter what the State Government put forward it would never be enough to satisfy the insatiable desire of environmentalists to lock up and "save" every last square inch of vegetation in Queensland.

If that sounds over the top, WWF campaigner Nick Heath, speaking also on behalf of three other green groups, has publicly stated that he is not happy that the new laws will allow a continued level of land clearing.

This is despite the fact that the new legislation will prevent a further one million hectares from being touched by landholders.

And that means that there is 1m ha that won't be managed for the inherent damage that vegetation thickening does to the environment.

The perversity of the current legislation is exposed by this quotation from AgForce president John Cotter: "A key element is that land which has been managed since 31 December 1989 is exempt from the legislation, therefore producers who have sustainably managed woody weeds over the past two decades can continue doing so to maintain ground cover."

A weed by its very definition, is harmful to its environment, so why, therefore is AgForce happy that landholders, who have done the wrong thing and not managed for regrowth since 1989, will now be restricted from dealing with this problem? And equally, why does the environment movement want more land to be locked up and thus inaccesible to regrowth management?

The State Government's own departmental advice, in the run up to the 2004 land clearing legislation, detailed the threat of vegetation thickening to the environment - it chokes out native grasses, thus creating erosion problems and threatening native bird habitat.

However, I think the real reason is hinted at in the fact that 31 December 1989 has been chosen as the cut-off date - 1990 is the baseline year for the Kyoto accounts and it is on the record that the Commonwealth deliberately did not include vegetation thickening in its carbon accounting in order to garner a better deal for Australia at the Kyoto negotiations.

That should mean that there are huge volumes of carbon being sequestered in pre-1990 regrowth that is now available to sell on the carbon market. The questions that were not answered in Government’s announcements were: who will do the selling and who will benefit in the carbon accounting stakes - the State or the landholder?

There are no doubt even more questions that need to be answered about this deal before landholders start rejoicing at what appears to be a "not so bad" deal?

Page:

single page

Posted By: MICHAEL THOMSON on 7/10/2009 4:56:00 PM | Comments (10)

FarmOnline

Source: http://www.farmonline.com.au

RELATED COVERAGE

06 Oct 09:

One million hectares grabbed in new regrowth clearing bans Visit Queensland Country Life

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Spot on, Michael. The devil however, will be in the detail. Last time a public servant had amendments inserted, stipulating retention of regrowth of 50% cover, 70% height, while the Vegetation Management Bill was being debated in the house. This, in spite of cast iron commitments “in the interests of certainty” from both Beattie and Robertson that regrowth will remain regrowth forever. These battles are won by incremental gains: last time the inclusion of regrowth, this time the confiscation of riparian areas in the Reef catchment plus regrowth 20 years old, other than brigalow. People on my telephone tell me already the promise that only creeks and rivers marked on cadastral maps would be affected has been abandoned. Now they are even mapping cattle pads seen from satellites to run in the right direction. You are right, Michael. Greens embedded in the department are not going to give up. Agforce, whether by omission or commission have abandoned these people. There could be another state election in two years. Get ready for the next round.

Posted by Ron Bahnisch, 7/10/2009 4:58:01 PM, on Queensland Country Life

Also, they seem to think that what happens to vegetation in the coastal strip is the same all over Qld. Various local soil/climate conditions can mean that regrowth can need to be re-cleared every 5 years and there some places where it won't be necessary for 25 years or more. Tough titty for the land holder in that situation. He will eventually have so much woody weed that he will have no grass or herbage ground cover. Will the Blight pay compensation then? What happens if he gets a council order to clear the woody weeds? Is there an exemption that allows for that? Maybe the Blight will fine the council?

Posted by Trugger, 7/10/2009 7:51:55 PM, on Queensland Country Life

Good analysis Michael. To truth to your two statements: “never be enough to satisfy the insatiable desire of environmentalists” and “the real reason is hinted at in the fact that 31 December 1989 has been chosen as the cut-off date - 1990 is the baseline year for the Kyoto accounts”; can be seen in the quote below put up on Oct 7 on WWF’s web page. http://www.wwf.org.au/news/new-la ndclearing-laws-wont-keep-bulldoz ers-at-bay/ “The coalition of conservation groups expects landclearing to re-emerge as a key policy issue after the adoption of an Emissions Trading Scheme, as governments and businesses aim to reduce carbon emissions and seek 'green carbon' economic opportunities. The Queensland Government still has a long way to go on these issues," Mr Heath said. "We look forward to working with the Premier in the new year and beyond to further cut the devastating rate of clearing and greenhouse gas emissions in Queensland.”

Posted by Dale Stiller, 8/10/2009 7:18:18 AM, on Queensland Country Life

You have hit the nail on the head Michael. The Queensland State government is the third largest landowner in the world (after Russia and China; enough said) They will use that regrowth and its carbon credits to offset coal exports. Stuff the farmers they don't vote Labor anyway.

Posted by Qlander, 8/10/2009 9:03:45 AM, on The Land

I consider myself a greenie and reckon farmers know more about what's good for their property than anyone else. Coal is the greatest threat to our future - the sooner we leave it in the ground and let farmers farm, the better.

Posted by Peter, 8/10/2009 11:12:11 PM, on North Queensland Register

Yes, once again the mapping is far from correct with 'streams' which do not exist and are certainly not mapped suddenly appearing with cleared land beside them shown as endangered regrowth.

Posted by bushie, 9/10/2009 7:25:18 AM, on Queensland Country Life

Clear thinking, Michael. In addition, this apparently innocuous piece of legislation does something much more insidious than it appears to do. Previously all areas mapped as non-remnant (regrowth) stayed that way except by use of the 50/70 rule to remap them as remnant. The State drew the line in the sand. Now however the State has crossed its own line and has made regrowth available for lock-up. And despite the reassurance that it's "only endangered regrowth" the reality is quite different. All that is required is a change to the definition and all regrowth is "bannable". While these philosophical discussions are interesting, the reality is that anyone dumb enough to trust their and their families' and the landscape's future to the State is walking blindly into oblivion. Whatever resources everyone can find or borrow should immediately be put into "managing" every piece of country that is presently mapped as non-remnant (regrowth), and that will keep the discussion at a philosophical level. Otherwise we are calmly discussing our own and the environment's demise.

Posted by richard, 9/10/2009 9:43:22 AM, on Queensland Country Life

Again Michael, your articulate writing has summed things up in the nutshell. The new laws further restrict regrowth management NOT land "clearing" as non-remnant vegetation (virgin timber and mature bushland etc.) have long been protected. Rural landholders in parts of Queensland have secured a watering down of the regrowth vegetation laws with a united outcry through groups such as Lifesource, AgForce, PRA, and individual efforts (the State Opposition has never seen so many letters across their desk over a single issue in recent times). BUT it is still further legislation which was not necessary and serves no real purpose. If you pull the new maps down ... what a mess ... what a huge extra workload and cost to landholders ... and a government already so far in the red. People who really care for their land are fighting a multi-million dollar machine in the so called Greens... talk about "not keeping the WWF bulldozers at bay" (how apt) and money is worth more then the a healthy sustainable environment in their books.

Posted by NJ, 9/10/2009 5:53:44 PM, on Queensland Country Life

Michael, What your assertions amount to is that the Greens are more a political instrument & thus an extention of the ALP than a thorn in its side to be appeased in return for preferences. That they are a manipulable instrument of Labor is of course more attributable to the gullibility of the Greens & their supporters than to anything else.

Posted by jock, 10/10/2009 5:07:40 PM, on The Land

Well done Michael. Just a couple of points. There are very few vegetation management officers left to carry out assessments and map changes. Coercion is a resource hungry activity. There are hundreds of complex PMAV applications that I am advised will take anything up to two years to assess. Pre clearing map layers are still difficult to access (the baseline for all the VMA status categories). They do exist which is more than can be said for areas of Kyoto land (vegetation that can be counted towards Australia’s Kyoto target). I am told that no development application has been assessed against the purpose in the VMA 99 – “reduces greenhouse gas emissions”. So the current changes that make many activities self-assessable and notifiable brings regrowth management across all tenures into line with forestry practices. The pachyderm in the room - the maps, the intransigence of the Herbarium to correct them and the inability of landholders to sensibly manage thickening in areas mapped as “remnant” prior to these amendments. The cheek of the “regrowth remnant” maps is that there is no definition. It’s just whatever the Government says it is.

Posted by phil_oc, 13/10/2009 9:02:42 AM, on Queensland Country Life