CLARENCE REGIONAL VEGETATION COMMITTEE
March 2002 UPDATE

Veg plan? What veg plan? What committee?

The state government’s formed regional vegetation committees around the state to make rules about land clearing. We have one in the Clarence valley. People who want to remove native vegetation might have to ask for approval depending on what and where they’re clearing. The committee, in working out the what and the where, is developing a vegetation management plan. It’s a tense business, with farmers’ groups lobbying hard against controls and green representatives trying to ensure some real conservation. The controversy’s about the ‘rights’ of private landowners versus conservation for the public good..

The formulation of the Clarence Regional Vegetation Management Plan (CRVMP) is well into its final stage. There has been a recent change in NCC reps – Fig Forest has stepped down and I (Jess Bowden) have taken his place. A big thanks to Fig for persevering with the process for so long, his input over 3 years has contributed to better conservation outcomes for the Clarence region’s vegetation.

The last Clarence Regional Vegetation Committee meeting was held on Thursday the 7th February. Members of the public are welcome to come along to these meetings and listen in to the process. This is one of the avenues for members to raise issues that conservation representatives can address in the final review of the plan.

The Socio-Economic report has been finished and handed to the committee. Issues that will be covered in the near future include:-

  • Best Operating Standards for Private Native Forestry – how they will fit in to the consent process.
  • Reviewing Assessment Criteria to be used by DLWC when assessing applications from landholders to clear vegetation;
  • Reviewing Exemptions that will enable landholders to carry out activities without the need for development consent;
  • Details about how best to consider the conservation of Nectar Source Trees, Koala Habitat and Hollow Bearing Trees from NPWS;
  • Incentives and assistance for landholders re: conservation on private land;
  • Developing the CRVMP in cooperation with the Richmond Vegetation Committee and the RVMP.

The most important focus I have, as a conservation representative is to make sure the basis for exemptions and components of the plan remain scientific and precautionary. The plan would not be achieving its aims if it allows exemptions to be set by the personal interests of committee members. The phase the plan is in at the moment is the review of proposed components and then the finalisation of the plans contents will follow.

When the plan gets put on public exhibition for the final time members of the public will have the opportunity to write submissions to the relevant bodies. This will probably be in July – August 2002.

Until then if members want to have input into the process or find out more about the plan you are welcome to come along to meetings and to contact Jess Bowden on 66 473295 or leave messages via the Clarence Environment Centre. Peter Morgan from the NPA has remained as the other representative for the Nature Conservation Council on the committee. Greg Clancy is representing the Ecological Society. I’m sure these guys would also be happy to answer any questions you may have. I aim to also put updates on the CEC website and the NCEC website. Until the next newsletter issue, stay cool and shady.

A few of the issues arising from the last Clarence Regional Vegetation Committee meeting:

  • Minimal clearing exemption (no approval needed) in the draft CRVM plan is currently 1 tree/per ha/ per year with a 50 tree per property/ per year limit. The Independent Scientific Group recommends 2 trees/per ha/per year with a 10 tree per property/per year limit. Ascertaining reasonable on farm use has been discussed.
  • Interpretation of objectives in assessment criteria to be used by DLWC officers is under review – clear definitions are needed for on the ground assessments.
  • Consideration of Regrowth exemption: The current draft exempts clearing required after no longer than 5 years or 10 years on previously cleared land for farming purposes. Maintaining areas used for farming v/s the ecological impact of having a patch of vegetation develop for 5-10 years and then clear it.
  • Best Operating Standards for private native forestry are still being finalized. The standards will operate via the consent process, with DLWC assessment Some committee members are pushing for self regulation and assessment.
  • The Socio-Economic report concludes that there will not be a major impact on farming and industry in general. The timber industry will be the most affected, from 5 – 15% reduction in yield. Loss of jobs has been projected at between 8 and 68 over the region. Other industries will benefit from the CRVM plan namely the Clarence River Fishery.
  • Legal framework of RVM plan – DLWC can issue stop work notices, and remedial notices – requiring restoration work to be carried out. Offences are to be pursued in the Land and Environment Court. To date none of the over 300 breaches have been pursued.

-Jess xx