Deputy Director General Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW
PO Box A 290
Sydney South NSW 1232
Dear Sir,
SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION (BIODIVERSITY BANKING) REGULATION 2007
The Coastwatchers Association does not support the idea of putting conservation in the hands of the market. It is the landholders who have control of who the credits are sold to, their price and the timing of the sale. These decisions are focused entirely on individual sites and ignore the big picture. There is no mechanism to facilitate the location of biobank sites in a strategic way to ensure that offsetting achieves the best possible outcomes for biodiversity.
Optional pathway for developers
Making use of the biobanking scheme optional for developers automatically raises the problem of level of patronage. It necessitates a major focus on designing a methodology and keeping the costs at a level that attracts developers. The scheme would be more acceptable to this organization if it was made compulsory.
Use of the term 'credit'
Confusion still exists with respect to the term 'credit' and needs to be sorted out.
The term 'credit' is appropriate for a biobank site where a biodiversity value is created. However, changes at the development site should be consistently expressed as 'credits required.'
Purchase of biodiversity credits.
Enabling philanthropic organizations or government to purchase and retire biodiversity credits to achieve conservation objectives is a positive.
However, allowing credits to be bought and sold by investors any number of times until they are offset against a development and retired from the market place is a cause for concern.
It would appear that profits made from multiple buying and selling of credits, after the full value of future management actions is deposited in the fund, will make no further contribution to conservation.
Costs
Costs for establishing the biobanking site do not currently include the costs of providing a land survey, estimated to be $16 000, for the purpose of registering agreement on the land title. Findings from the DECC investigation into the necessity for this cost need to be available to stakeholders as soon as possible.
An 80% cost recovery for the biobank scheme has been accepted for the first 2 years of its operation. This level is to be reevaluated at the year 2 review.
What will happen if developers decide that higher costs are unacceptable. Will the costs still continue to be subsidized by DECC?
Perpetuity
There is still no guarantee of perpetuity at the biobank site.
Given good will and commitment from all parties at least three questions remain unanswered:
Management Actions
Greater detail should be provided on what is required for each of the management actions.
The ability to enforce management actions to fully realize improvement on the biobank site is still of concern. The method of enforcement still needs to be spelt out.
Audits could pick up only the minority of breeches, and annual reports may not reflect the true situation - only a few will be checked on the ground.
Coastwatchers thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Threatened Species Conservation (biodiversity banking) Regulation 2007, but consider that the scheme in its present form is ill advised.
Yours sincerely
Sheila Monahan Vice President