Protecting and managing existing native vegetation (starting with what you have got) is the top priority in native vegetation management. This is one element of a widely supported set of principles, which collectively indicate how native vegetation might be managed or enhanced at a range of scales. These principles are known as the ‘three Rs’ – Retain, Restore and Revegetate – and were developed for the more highly cleared parts of the country. Even in the least cleared areas, there still may be some vegetation types (such as on the more productive land) that have been preferentially cleared or modified. Both cost and degree of difficulty increase as you move from retain to revegetate. Creating new habitats with revegetation can be difficult, slow and costly but it has become a necessary component of regional planning and target setting in highly cleared regions in order to protect, enhance and connect isolated patches and ensure their viability. This current section highlights principles and guidelines that can be applied at the landscape scale, focusing on existing vegetation. Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands describes a set of principles that are designed to allow landholders to maintain or increase productivity without compromising ecological sustainability, and at the same time maintain a substantial proportion of the native flora and fauna. The six main principles developed from this research are listed in Question 2. The book provides the technical foundations underpinning the principles and explains the importance of planning at a landscape scale. The strength of these principles is that they cover the whole landscape and address both conservation and production outcomes. Underpinning the principles are some management thresholds. The principles and thresholds are being tested at the sub-catchment scale in a project that builds on the earlier research.
| | | | Action: 4.6 |
|---|
| | Consider how the principles developed in the book Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands apply or may be adapted in your region. | | | COST |  | | | TIME |  | | | COMPLEXITY |  | | | | |
How to Plan Wildlife Landscapes outlines the principles used in planning for conservation of native wildlife at a landscape scale such as a neighbourhood, or part of a catchment. It aims to provide a concise overview of general principles of landscape protection and restoration for the largely cleared rural landscapes of south-eastern Australia (Box: 3). The research that the principles are based on has largely been undertaken on mammals and birds, but provides a good starting point for managers to work with. Care needs to be taken with some of the principles, such as ‘the bigger the better’, because all native vegetation – including scattered trees – has some value. Because the principles are targeted at the landscape scale, they do not discuss the importance of diversity of habitat at a finer scale such as rocks for reptiles and cracks in the soil for lizards. Finer-scale diversity in habitat factors such as these have also been shown to be critical for species maintenance. The actual approach that is taken will depend on what the overall management objectives are. Another set of vegetation management guidelines, based on research from a number of projects, proposes similar approaches and also includes some information on the condition of native vegetation, . Box 3: Design principles for landscape protection and restoration in south-eastern Australia
Source: Platt SJ (2002) ‘How to Plan Wildlife Landscapes: A guide for community organisations.’ Department of Natural Resources
and Environment, Melbourne, VIC.
An extensive research project in the pine plantations of southern NSW developed a number of principles and recommendations for managing existing native vegetation in the context of established and new plantations, . For example, two of the principles are that landscapes composed of both remnant native vegetation and softwood stands have significantly higher biodiversity value than a radiata pine monoculture, and plantation establishment should avoid a net reduction in the area of native vegetation. The study goes on to recommend that large-scale plantations (e.g. >1000 ha) should contain at least 30 per cent of their areas as remnant or re-established native vegetation. Restoration efforts may be needed to achieve this level of native vegetation cover within the plantation estate. Guidelines such as these will become increasingly important as the area of plantations increases. A review that identifies the strengths and weaknesses of wildlife corridors for the conservation of biodiversity identifies a number of general principles such as ‘corridors must be viewed as a sub-component of a broader regional conservation system’. These issues are also explored in a book on the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. Several recent publications have focused on the planting of trees and shrubs in the landscape for a range of outcomes such as timber harvesting, salinity control and biodiversity conservation. A series of publications on guidelines for agroforestry started with Design Principles for Farm Forestry, which assists farmers to decide where to place trees and plantations on their farms. Planting trees for a range of benefits such as soil conservation, shade and shelter and nature conservation is discussed. The question of where farms fit into the catchment and how this affects agroforestry options is also explored. The second publication, Trees, Water and Salt, focused on planting trees to mitigate salinity and waterlogging and is covered in detail under Section 5.2c. The third publication, Trees and Biodiversity, brings together existing information and understanding on the impact of farm forestry on native biodiversity. It focuses on tree plantations on land previously used for agriculture and draws heavily on work on the biodiversity of planted trees conducted in large-scale industrial plantations. The findings are most relevant across southern Australia and along the east coast. Practical guidelines on how to improve biodiversity are outlined for stands of trees as well as the broader landscape with a discussion of some of the possible trade-offs. Appendix A provides a list of biodiversity resources, and an annotated bibliography is included. This comprehensive book is a useful reference for managers interested in promoting biodiversity in tree plantations. A checklist for determining the biodiversity value of farm forestry and linked remnant vegetation and revegetation is provided in the complementary booklet on Farm Forestry: Designing for increased biodiversity.
| | | | Action: 4.7 |
|---|
| | Access the agroforestry series published by RIRDC to explore where planting trees for multiple outcomes may fit in your region. | | | COST |  | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY | | | | | |
Quantifying the Biodiversity Values of Reforestation reviews biodiversity development in different types of rainforest reforestation in tropical and subtropical eastern Australia. It found that ecological restoration sites had rapidly acquired many biodiversity components within 10 years, although it is clear that some other components will take decades or longer to develop. The results also show: 1. The existence of production/biodiversity trade-offs, in that sites managed for timber production acquired less biodiversity value than those planted for ecological restoration; 2. Moderate correspondence across different indicator taxa when they are analysed as functional groups; 3. Very little agreement among indicator taxa when overall richness is used; and 4. A likelihood of important landscape and context effects. These factors need to be considered when planning landscape configurations that will sustain biodiversity and the survey and monitoring approach described in the paper can be used to test the outcome of such planning decisions. For example, if a reforested site contains a large proportion of the rainforest-specialist species that are recorded in a set of forest reference sites, it must be regularly used by these species, and hence the site must be a viable part of a wider habitat area or network. Land managers working with degraded vegetation communities are often faced with a decision about how much of the landscape to restore, what methods to employ and what models of restoration are appropriate. Several models are available, including restoration for commercial as well as conservation outcomes. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests examines how to identify appropriate methods for managing degraded vegetation at both the landscape and site scales. Although written with tropical forests in mind, most of the concepts are applicable to a range of vegetation communities. The text is supported by 13 case studies from throughout the world. These examples demonstrate that managing degraded vegetation can be passive or active. Passive management allows natural processes to re-establish vegetation communities through regeneration of existing trees or from seed brought into the site by dispersers such as bats and birds. Active management, through direct-seeding, revegetation or active site management, can restore vegetation to some point along a spectrum from degraded to ‘natural’. How successful these techniques are depends on the vegetation community, its level of degradation (including the presence of weeds and feral or domestic animals), and the ability to grow all the species wanted. Revegetation and Wildlife is a good publication on how to enhance revegetation habitats for wildlife conservation in rural environments. It includes a section on planning and design at a landscape level which refers to an area ‘kilometres wide’ and which consists of a mosaic of different land uses and habitats. It is considered that this is a key level for planning and restoration and the focus should be on understanding interactions between multiple blocks of habitat and how this influences conservation across large areas. Important themes include the total amount of habitat in the landscape, connectivity between habitats and representation of natural ecosystems. This publication is complemented by The Use of Revegetated Areas by Vertebrate Fauna in Australia . The Heartlands project has developed a set of Ecological Design Principles to consider before undertaking substantial revegetation to address the decline in native vegetation and the native fauna it supports. The guidelines are based on the premise that the introduction and enhancement of native vegetation offers the best opportunity of restoring ecological functionality into degrading agricultural landscapes. The guidelines are indicative rather than prescriptive, as the willingness and intention of the people involved greatly influences the outcome.
| | | | Action: 4.8 |
|---|
| | Go though the set of principles developed in the Heartlands project before undertaking substantial revegetation activities. | | | COST | | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY |  | | | | |
A focal species approach was used in Guidelines for Enhancing Grassy Woodlands for the Vegetation Investment Project. The underlying project aimed to provide a backbone for strategic broadscale revegetation in three areas near Canberra. Habitat loss, isolation of remnants and modification of patches of grassy woodland were the key threats that the project focused on, using birds as the focal species. While there are many good reasons provided for using bird species in revegetation studies, more recent work has demonstrated that using individual species as an umbrella for other taxa has several limitations. So while the focal species approach has a good theoretical basis, in practice it is not possible to sample all species and all threats as required by the technique. The strengths and weaknesses of the focal species approach are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2e. Recent research is demonstrating the range of habitat resources that are needed to attract a diverse range of native wildlife species across farms and landscapes (10 by 10 km). Initial results are showing that planted areas increase the number of bird species, especially when there is already remnant vegetation present. A simple but important message therefore is that more native wildlife species are supported by habitat resources from a combination of remnant and planted vegetation compared to either vegetation type alone. Bigger plantings are better for encouraging native birds and mammals and the shape of planting is important. To encourage greater diversity of wildlife, the project is also showing that it is important to consider revegetation both in the context of the whole farm and the surrounding landscape. In order to meet targets set in regional management plans, large areas will need to be revegetated in many regions in southern and eastern Australia. This can place major demands on existing vegetation for the collection of seed. The Strategic Framework for Investment in Native Seed for Revegetation in Australia concludes that the quantity and quality of native seed is a critical factor to be considered in all regional strategic planning for natural resource management, and especially so for the delivery of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the second phase of the Natural Heritage Trust. There are three primary strategies included in the investment framework: - ensuring regional planning processes include seed demand forecasts, thereby providing clear market signals to provide the basis for increasing private investment in native seed supply over time;
- using accreditation and other means to improve seed quality; and
- enhancing institutional and community capacity to recognise, value and utilise appropriate native seed in revegetation programs.
It is considered that adoption of the investment framework will help develop a market-based approach to native seed supply and associated information flows. This should encourage all groups, and especially the private sector, to participate more fully and thereby assist in addressing the priority seed supply issues identified in the report. FloraBank aims to improve the availability and quality of native seed for revegetation and conservation purposes in Australia. The website provides information that will help managers collect, store and use native seed efficiently and responsibly. It includes guidelines on collecting and germinating common plant groups used in revegetation and links to other relevant sources of information. The use of smoke water is one technique described to enhance germination of many native plant species. A recent break-through has isolated and identified a potent molecule that stimulates seed germination. The chemical butenolide stimulates germination in a broad range of Australian native plants and is active at extraordinarily low levels (parts per trillion concentrations). Consequently, about one gram of the chemical is required per hectare. This discovery could have wide applications for landscape scale revegetation as large areas could be treated to stimulate germination. It could also herald a new and effective method of controlling weeds by stimulating the germination of dormant seed banks prior to other treatments.
| | | | Action: 4.9 |
|---|
| | Before embarking on large-scale seed collection and revegetation projects, access the Florabank website and the report on Strategic Seed Collection to ensure seed supply issues are addressed. | | | COST | | | | TIME |  | | | COMPLEXITY | | | | | |
Recent research on remnant vegetation in southern and eastern Australia is starting to develop guidelines for seed collection that incorporate issues related to genetic integrity. These include the need to collect seed for revegetation purposes from larger patches where possible, and within these patches fewer seeds should be collected from more trees. The research team also recommends that seed should be collected over different seasons, including average and drought years, to ensure seed has the genetic potential to cope with a range of conditions. This recommendation is particularly relevant to the uncertainties associated with climate change (Section 4.2e). Revegetation Techniques has broad applicability for southern and eastern Australia. This compendium brings together a range of revegetation methods and is built on the practical experiences of landholders, community groups, land management agencies and Greening Australia. It describes a range of techniques including natural regeneration, direct-seeding and seedling planting and suggests where each technique is most appropriate to use. The material is designed to guide and support on-ground action across the broader landscape by emphasising the need to plan at the site, local and landscape scale. It recommends the publication Biodiversity Action Planning as an important starting point when planning revegetation across different scales. If successful, natural regeneration can be a low cost option for revegetation of large areas. A recent study on Eucalypt Establishment in Agricultural Landscapes and Implications for Landscape-scale Restoration from south-eastern Australia on the natural regeneration of eucalypts has found the response to be variable across sites and regions. The probability of eucalypt establishment was reduced by intensive past land use (cultivation), regular livestock grazing, increasing distance to remnant trees and high cover of exotic annual vegetation. It was considered that natural regeneration has potential to make considerable contributions to future tree cover in these landscapes, but that maintaining the cover of scattered trees in the landscape was an important element of success. The NRM fact sheet on natural regeneration from Queensland points out some of the advantages and disadvantages of natural regeneration, including the fact that it may only be successful in some years depending on the growing season and other factors such as the amount of seed produced.
| | | | Action: 4.10 |
|---|
| | Before embarking on revegetation activities, consider whether assisted natural regeneration, direct seeding or planting seedlings is the most appropriate and cost-effective technique. | | | COST | | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY | | | | | |
The Cost of Revegetation developed a set of benchmark costs (including ranges) for different elements of revegetation work based on surveys of six bioclimatic regions. This project varied significantly between regions with the most expensive being moist tropical regions, the central arid regions, and the warm moist temperate with hot summer regions. The increased cost was due primarily to the different methods used to successfully revegetate in these regions, rather than to differences in the cost of particular revegetation methods between regions. As might be expected, several types of costs decrease on a per hectare basis as the size of the revegetation project increases. This indicates significant cost reductions if large advance orders are made. For this to occur, project funding needs to be approved well in advance of the project being undertaken.
| | | | Action: 4.11 |
|---|
| | Read the report on the Costs of Revegetation to help minimise the financial and human resources used in this activity. | | | COST | | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY | | | | | |
Determining the Effectiveness of Vegetation Management Programs examined whether vegetation can be used as a tool to achieve improved soil and water quality, conservation of biodiversity and improved agricultural production. It also looked at program actions which are directed at changing people and institutions, and whether these can be linked to on-ground conservation and production outcomes. The review of published research associated with biodiversity conservation showed that protection of existing habitat, and increasing the area of potential habitat, are critical to conserving biodiversity. Buffer zones were considered highly effective in protecting habitat from abiotic sources of disturbance, but less so from biotic sources. Uncertainty about the contribution and value of revegetated corridors/links to the conservation of biodiversity was noted. At the time of the review, the biodiversity benefits of plantations were considered minimal where exotic species such as Pinus radiata are established as a monoculture. Research undertaken since this report has increased our understanding of the contribution that revegetation can make to biodiversity, including plantations of pines and eucalypts. Even these studies, which have focused on above-ground components of plantations, may underestimate the diversity of soil organisms in these systems. More recently, Assessing the Benefits of Vegetation Enhancement for Biodiversity: A Draft Framework has been developed that is applied at patch, landscape or sub-catchment, and region or catchment scale. Four steps area involved in applying the framework, as follows: 1. Identify threats to broad attributes of biodiversity and identify management interventions aimed at reducing the threats. 2. State the desired or predicted response (e.g. improved regeneration) for at least one attribute of biodiversity (e.g. native understorey species) to each vegetation enhancement activity (e.g. fencing) and elucidate the underlying theoretical or conceptual models (e.g. State and Transition) that underpin the expected response to each intervention. 3. Choose or develop methods (such as ‘Habitat Hectares’ or ‘Biodiversity Benefit Index’) to detect change in the chosen biodiversity attributes as a response to the management interventions. 4. Rigorously apply the chosen methods to compare the observed outcomes and the predicted biodiversity response to management interventions. A preliminary application of this framework has been conducted at regional, landscape and patch scales and a number of insights gained which require further analysis. The report concludes that vegetation enhancement activities at National scale have not yet compensated for the rate of clearing of native vegetation at the regional scale. The potential cost of revegetation can contribute to this discrepancy. For example, Revegetation Assessment and Design for Biodiversity, which looks at the process of habitat restoration and management in the south-east of South Australia, notes that the total costs could exceed over $9,000 per hectare over nine years. These figures reinforce the message that it is cheaper to maintain and manage existing vegetation than to restore it. In Australia, the first serious examination of vegetation targets came with the JANIS criteria used to implement Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) as part of the National Forest Policy process. A number of targets were developed as part of these criteria (Table 12) for reservation of forest types, not biomes. The 15 per cent that many people refer to applied to the extent of each forest type thought to be present in 1750. The target for retention of existing forest was 100 per cent, with no permanent clearing of native forest. The aim of the National Forest Policy Statement was to maintain a permanent native forest estate on both public and private lands and manage it in an ecologically sustainable fashion to complement the reserved areas. The implementation of these targets has been questioned in regions such as northern NSW. Tasmania has a forest conservation program whose priority target communities are determined through application of the JANIS criterion to the mapped distribution of these communities. Table 12: Vegetation targets developed by JANIS for native forests as input to the RFA process
Source: JANIS (1997) ‘Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests
in Australia.’ Joint ANZECC / MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee, Canberra ACT
The National Framework for Natural Resource Management Standards and Targets, which was developed after the JANIS criteria, specifies the minimum set of matters for which all catchments/regions must set regional targets (Table 13). All of the national outcomes and matters for which targets should be set relate directly or indirectly to the management of native vegetation and biodiversity. The framework does not specify the level for the targets in any region; these will be determined according to each region’s circumstances. Targets are a core element of integrated regional NRM plans. They may relate to absolute improvement in resource condition or decreases in the rate of degradation and can be expressed as numbers or percentage changes. Table 13: National Outcomes and Minimum Set of Regional Targets
Source: Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2003) ‘National Framework for Natural Resource Management Standards and Targets.’ Australian Government Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Canberra ACT
The Landscape Game was developed to demonstrate the impact of habitat (native vegetation) removal or addition on the movement of native fauna around the landscape. By using a simple set of rules, the game illustrates that at certain thresholds it is difficult for species with particular life history characteristics to move around. The game has been used successfully with private land managers and is a novel way of introducing a potentially complex subject. While thresholds may be intuitively appealing, a suite of research projects is showing that they can be difficult to demonstrate in the field and many may have already been passed in highly cleared areas. The second and third issues of Thinking Bush include several references to research on thresholds, which provides useful background to the subject, . Table 14 presents a number of additional research papers on landscape-scale thresholds related to the extent and condition of native vegetation and its associated fauna. Much of this work has been undertaken on vertebrate species in the highly cleared landscapes of south-eastern Australia. Care should be taken in applying these thresholds in areas that have not been cleared and for other organisms.
| | | | Action: 4.12 |
|---|
| | Read the special issue of Thinking Bush to understand the complexities underlying the current scientific understanding of thresholds in rural landscapes. | | | COST | | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY | | | | | |
A new way of approaching the conservation of biodiversity (and native vegetation by association) in Australia has recently been developed that uses landscape connectivity as a fundamental framework. Connectivity at the landscape scale, over long periods, is considered critical to maintaining viable populations of native plant and animal species and enabling evolution. Seven ecological processes and six cross-cutting themes have been identified in the approach. The connectivity principles apply to intact landscapes, such as in central and northern Australia, as well as fragmented landscapes. NatureLinks: Implementing the WildCountry Philosophy in South Australia has adopted this approach by addressing ecological recovery at broad landscape scales, with management activities of groups and individuals strategically planned to work towards common biodiversity outcomes. To achieve this, activities are planned at a landscape scale and then individuals and groups work together to implement the projects at the local level. This approach is also being used in Gondwana Link in south-western WA, which aims to reconnect the forests of the south-west to the woodlands around Kalgoorlie by revegetating cleared areas and protecting existing vegetation. At over 500 kilometres, this is the most ambitious restoration project in Australia. Table 14: Some landscape-scale thresholds related to the extent and condition of native vegetation and its associated
biodiversity from research undertaken in Australia.
Southern mallee vegetation types
Native pastures in grassy woodlands, eastern Australia
Grassy white box woodlands in SE Australia
Arid zone vegetation types
Squirrel gliders in NSW
Two bats, SE Australia
Western Grey Kangaroos and Euros in SW WA
Birds across southern agricultural regions
Birds in Riverina and Goldfield (Victoria) regions , ,
Birds and associated native species in NSW
Mammals, reptiles and birds in southern NSW
Brown treecreeper
Native vegetation as habitat, SE Australia
| | | | Action: 4.13 |
|---|
| | Find out more about the Wildcountry principles on connectivity in the landscape by reading the Naturelinks brochure and the paper in Pacific Conservation Biology. | | | COST | | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY |  | | | | |
The report Biodiversity Offsets: Views, experience and the business case presents recent thinking at international level on the complex issues associated with biodiversity offsets. These apply equally to native vegetation. The study used a series of semi-structured interviews to explore the technical, social and economic issues associated with biodiversity offsets. It explores the business case for offsets in some detail and gives overseas and Australian examples where this approach has been used or considered. The report provides a useful introduction and overview of the current status of biodiversity offsets, which is a relatively new approach to conservation management. A point that many of the people interviewed made was that the ground rules for biodiversity offsets need to be sufficiently flexible to allow site-specific solutions that find the best results and ensure that the relevant stakeholders are involved and satisfied. A number of other lessons learnt and next steps are identified in the report. A research paper on Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services also identified numerous issues related to the use of native vegetation and other offsets. It notes that policy makers should be particularly cautious in implementing offset arrangements when scientific uncertainty is very high. This is because it is difficult to be sure that the trade-offs involved with an offsets arrangement will cause no net reduction in ecosystem services.
| | | | Action: 4.14 |
|---|
| | Before utilising offsets as part of native vegetation management, become familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of this approach by reading Biodiversity Offsets: Views, experience and the business case and related publications. | | | COST | | | | TIME | | | | COMPLEXITY | | | | | |
The use of native vegetation/biodiversity offsets is at different stages in Australia. In South Australia, the Native Vegetation Council (NVC), which was established by the Native Vegetation Act 1991, may impose conditions when consenting to native vegetation clearance. Currently a point scoring system is applied to clearing assessment of scattered trees in order to establish a set-aside formula. Through the current scheme, landholders are required to either: protect existing vegetation; revegetate an area; enter into a Heritage Agreement; or, make a financial payment to the Native Vegetation Fund. Recent changes to the Native Vegetation Act provide the NVC with the option to grant consent to clearance applications that are at variance with to the Act in particular circumstances, if it is “satisfied that the environmental benefits that will be provided by the vegetation significantly outweigh the environmental benefits provided by the vegetation to be cleared” (Chapter 29 (11)). In addition, the NVC has adopted a general policy that any consent given will be accompanied by conditions requiring action to significantly offset the effects of clearance. A specific biodiversity offset scheme has been developed as part of the Upper South-east Drainage Scheme in South Australia that allows landholders to offset the drainage levy associated with a dryland salinity mitigation program, by placing native vegetation under land management agreements. Studies have shown that over a 20-year period, vegetation losses in order of one per cent per year have occurred in areas of vegetation without management agreements, primarily due to salinity impacts. The scheme aims to slow this loss of native vegetation in the region through the implementation of management agreements with landholders. In Tasmania, offsets have been negotiated on a case-by-case basis. This will continue until the development of a more formal framework for resolving offsets is prepared. In a Review of Economic Instruments for Environmental Management in Queensland, it was noted that on-site offset and mitigation measures have been required for many years both through infrastructure charges for development approval and through land surrender powers along the coast. Off-site mitigation measures, usually in the form of compensatory habitat, have also been accepted as a condition of development approval. The paper recommended that similar offsets could be used for native vegetation management. Offsets have been part of the approach to native vegetation management in NSW for several years, and are included in the new regulatory approach to native vegetation management in that State. A discussion paper was developed on offsets in 2001 as a basis for public input. Proposed principles for the offset scheme included that: - it should lead to a net gain that improves the condition of the environment;
- it should not lead to permanent environmental costs due to the delay before offsets yield environmental benefits;
- clearing should only proceed when the offset is making progress towards the anticipated ecological state and is legally secure; and
- it should be consistent with relevant government policies.
A working example of the approach to offsets in NSW can be illustrated in the Southern Mallee. Three property agreements have been approved creating 33,000 hectares of on-farm reserves established to offset the impact of further clearing approvals. Management plans for these reserves are negotiated agreements between the relevant government agency and the landholders. It has been agreed that a minimum of one hectare of on-farm reserve is required for each additional hectare of clearing, with the exception that clearing of one hectare Chenopod Mallee requires 2.3 hectares of reserve. More Chenopod Mallee is required in reserve because it has the highest extent of previous clearing. More recently, a position paper in Western Australia canvassed some of the issues related to the use of offsets as a policy tool. The suggested approach will be modified in response to comments, but identifies offsets as a potentially important tool for conservation management. The use of native vegetation offsets in Victoria sits within the Statewide Native Vegetation Framework. In order to implement the Net Gain principle, the framework has a table (Appendix 4) describing circumstances in which clearing is or is not permitted, the Habitat Hectares required, guidance on ‘Like-for-like’, the location of the offset and timing within which offsets must be initiated. The number of Habitat hectares needed for a given offset depends upon the conservation significance of the area to be affected. This Statewide, standardised approach estimates vegetation/habitat quality on a scale from zero (complete loss) to one (complete retention of natural quality as described by benchmark characteristics). The quality measure is combined with a measure of area to create a measure for the offsets called ‘Habitat hectares’ (habitat score x area). |
