Dr Richard Sheldrake
Deputy Director
General Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW
PO BoxA 290 Sydney South NSW 1232
Dear Sir,
SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT BIOBANKING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The Coastwatchers Association acknowledges the fact that the current process for threatened species assessment is failing to adequately conserve biodiversity in NSW. Whilst the draft biobanking assessment methodology has potential to improve the threatened species assessment process this organisation has many serious concerns with its application.
IMPROVE OR MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY VALUES
Biobanking must have a sound scientific basis and must not contribute to further loss of threatened species and communities. Not enough is known about the complexity of ecosystems and species in respect to microscopic biota, fungi etc. Their interactions may be quite different in similar ecosystems in different localities.
The scheme allows a short to medium term loss of biodiversity to achieve an overall stabilization or gain in the long term. This is a major weakness which must be carefully monitored.
Giving credit in the assessment methodology for establishing a biobank site in a priority area but not having a penalty for clearing in one is a flaw that is not consistent with the ecological principles of the scheme.
The assessment methodology fails to protect corridors that do not meet the criteria for biobanking sites eg endangered ecological communities or a vegetation type that is 70% cleared.
Red Flag Areas
There needs to be a written explanation as to why red flag areas do not apply to areas zoned for urban use.
Variation of Red Flag Areas
Development of red flag areas does not meet the 'improve or maintain' test.
This organization is appalled that a process has been inserted which allows development on land that forms all or part of a red flag area in certain circumstances. It is clear from the definition of red flag areas in the methodology that they are supposed to be 'no go' areas because the vegetation or species in question is so threatened that it is not possible to offset them. It defies logic to then allow the Director-General of DECC, using subjective judgments, to make an assessment that a development will improve or maintain biodiversity values according to assessment protocols set out in Section 2.3.2.
If the biobanking scheme is to retain any credibility in the eyes of our members it must retain a consistent and scientifically rigorous offset methodology which cannot be varied on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, red flag areas must remain no go areas if there is to be any public confidence in the scheme.
It is also a major concern that the Director-General will give consideration to any environmental contributions or purchase of extra credits a developer has made to "support a variation" (p.6). We can only conclude that developers will be able to buy their way out of environmental limitations. This is totally unacceptable to Coastwatchers.
The proposed variation process undermines the ecological credibility of the methodology by establishing a significant parallel and inconsistent assessment process involving consideration of variables different to those of the standard assessment. It also lacks accountability being placed in a subordinate protocol rather than being clearly set out in the regulation.
Further concerns about Red Flag Rules
Disallowance of small remnants of native vegetation, regarded as providing little conservation gain, is in opposition to research which shows that small patches can have high functionality and viability. A methodology, which destroys small patches of vegetation, that are also highly valued areas by the public, is not worthy of support.
Vegetation in low condition or poor condition can play an important role irrespective of scarcity or conservation status in over cleared landscapes or as riparian or roadside corridors.
There is no safety net for ecological communities that exist largely in a degraded state. A vegetation type or threatened ecological community can be cleared completely in a Catchment Management Area if it is in a low condition or poor condition.
The methodology for identifying populations or threatened species that cannot withstand further loss within a Catchment Management Authority needs to be open and transparent.
Review of definition of 'low condition'
The pilot program report reveals that use of the current definition of low condition "...only identified areas that were highly degraded..." and that this has resulted in more areas being identified as red flag areas than expected.
It goes on to say that because of these outcomes a review of the definition is being considered. The logic behind this statement is not clear and a detailed explanation as to why review is necessary should be provided. Redefinition should not occur merely to reduce the number of red flag areas or to make the scheme more attractive to developers.
Predicting the benefits of management actions
The assessment methodology uses management actions that are predicted to offset the impacts of a development. Since there is very little available data that quantifies these benefits, the gains are not certain whilst the losses are clear. As a result, the management actions may not produce gains in biodiversity values that are equivalent to the loss from the development.
A systematic, independent monitoring program must be implemented to test the key predictions of the methodology.
Long-term viability of a biobank site
Since the methodology does not require the site to meet any minimum vegetation condition or surrounding vegetation cover to be eligible as a biobank site, the predicted gains may not be achieved in perpetuity.
In contrast, long term viability is considered at the development site. The approach is not consistent.
ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND THREATENED SPECIES
Assessment of biodiversity values
Scientists have questioned the validity of assessing biodiversity values against vegetation condition benchmarks. The assumption that optimal habitat conditions are obtained a long time after disturbance is not necessarily true. Natural ecosystems are dynamic and may not move consistently towards a prescribed end-point state.
There is no indication as to how the assessment methodology accounts for the importance of disturbance regimes in determining biodiversity values. Does this mean it cannot be applied to sites that have recently been disturbed?
The threatened species assessment is largely based on a habitat assessment approach that does not require consideration of population sizes or viability.
This allows habitat supporting a large and viable population to be offset with habitat supporting a small and unviable population or no population at all when the offset contains potential habitat only.
The assessment methodology does not assess potential habitat for species credit species in cases where the occurrence of a species at a site is discounted by survey or expert report. This is a serious omission because a site may be used by a species only occasionally or periodically. It may also provide important future habitat even if the species does not currently use the site.
Threatened species can be difficult to detect. Details of the survey effort deemed to be adequate in terms of application of the methodology need to be added to the Operations Manual to ensure a reasonable level of certainty in discounting the presence of a species at a site. False absences for threatened species must be avoided.
Similarly, details of the level of assessment required for an expert report need to be added, as is a more direct measure of threat to a site for prediction of loss over time.
Continuous estimates are much more sensitive to change and lead to more repeatable assessments. Both site value and surrounding vegetation score would be better measured and calculated on continuous scales.
The surrounding vegetation score which is used in part to calculate ecosystem credits, does not take into account the indirect impact that a development may have on remnant vegetation surrounding the development site.
There is a need to demonstrate that the approach upon which the ecosystem credits calculation is based does not constitute an unacceptable risk when put into practice.
Indirect impacts on biodiversity values
The assessment methodology does not assess indirect impacts of a development on the biodiversity values of adjacent vegetation. Nor does it provide clear guidance on how they may be assessed.
Indirect impacts, such as edge effects, habitat degradation from urban run off, road kill from a new road or a linear development that divides a large patch into two smaller patches, can be significant.
Consistency of the assessment methodology
The pilot revealed the need for consistent application of flora and fauna survey methods.
Use of subjective judgments in the assessment methodology will lead to different users obtaining different results in terms of determining biodiversity values at a site. The proposed training program may not adequately address this risk.
A monitoring program to assess results obtained by different users is vital. Differences must be accounted for in the methodology to ensure that we err on the side of caution.
Adequacy of Data Banks
The assessment methodology relies on the accuracy, consistency and quality of the data.
The pilot emphasized the importance of using local threatened species data and of regular updating.
Details of how the biodiversity databases were developed and the systematic monitoring processes to be put in place to ensure their continued assessment and updating need to be made public.
Monitoring the methodology
The key predictions/assumptions must be tested using a systematic independent monitoring program undertaken by appropriately qualified ecologists.
CREDIT PROFILES AND OFFSET RULES FOR USING CREDITS Offset Rules
Treatment of ecosystem credit species and species credit species is different. This is not an ecologically valid approach.
The assessment methodology does not specify that the impacts of a development be offset within an appropriate bioregional scale such as a CMA or IBRA bioregion. Impacts on a threatened species at one end of its range can be offset by improvements for the same threatened species at the other end of its range. This does not adequately address the conservation of genetic diversity.
Incentives to offset within certain locations
It is essential to look at the big picture, not just individual sites.
There is no mechanism to facilitate the location of biobank sites in a strategic way to ensure the offsetting achieves the best possible biodiversity outcomes.
Consideration of their placement to increase the size of vegetation patches, create or improve habitat corridors and 'stepping stones', or create buffers around sensitive areas would make a greater contribution to the protection of biodiversity at a landscape scale.
Concluding remarks
The NSW biobanking scheme is described as unique: which means we are in uncharted waters. It is a major concern that a similar type of scheme introduced in the USA has failed.
The assessment methodology appears to have been developed with a view to encourage developers to come on board at the expense of the precautionary principal. The scheme should be made compulsory to begin to redress this imbalance.
Yours sincerely
Sheila Monahan (Vice President)
E-mail coastwatchers@green.net.au