The Deputy Director General
Environment Protection and Regulation Division
Department of Environment and Conservation NSW
PO Box A 290
Sydney South NSW 1232

Dear Sir,
Submission on Biodiversity Banking in Coastal and Growth areas

The Coastwatchers Association respects the general aim of biodiversity banking which is the creation of new opportunities for funding conservation management, rehabilitation and restoration works on private land in coastal and high growth areas of New South Wales.

However, we believe that some pivotal points need to be addressed, and appropriate changes made to the scheme, before the proposal is piloted. Without these changes, we believe that situations will arise where an area of land containing a threatened species is destroyed in order to save a threatened species in a completely different area. This can not be regarded as a conservation gain.

Setting Targets

For biodiversity to be not only maintained but improved, valuable threatened species habitat must be protected. Clear targets - that address the full range of conservation values in NSW within stated time limits - should be set at the local, regional and state level. These targets should be mandatory. System transparency, periodic review and community scrutiny will be required to ensure targets are both adequate and honoured.

Social and Economic considerations

Definition of the phrase "social and economic considerations" needs to be clarified. Coastwatchers believe that biodiversity - and the vital ecological functions it performs such as maintenance of healthy air, water and land - should be included as a "social and economic consideration". Indeed, it is paramount. Therefore, the social and economic objectives should have to fit the regional conservation plan and not the other way around (as stated on page 4 of the paper).

The figure of social and economic benefits vs biodiversity loss on page 6 of the paper is deceptive. As biodiversity loss increases there are also social and economic losses, especially in coastal areas. For example:

• For Eurobodalla Shire - which has a large tourism industry based on the Nature Coast image - economic loss will occur if urbanisation destroys biodiversity and hence the Shire's image and its attraction.
• Loss of wide effective riparian corridors will lead to poorer water quality followed by a loss of recreational opportunities (water unattractive or unhealthy for swimming) and damage to the oyster industry.
• Loss of marine biodiversity, and interruption to food chains will impact on commercial and recreational fishing.
• Loss of social amenity will occur as residents see their bushland setting destroyed.

Red/Amber/Green Light Classification.

• The cumulative impact of development and the functions of biodiversity go far beyond the borders of a particular "coloured" area or property. Consideration needs to be given to the interconnectedness of biodiversity and ecological functions across broad landscapes and within catchments. The negative impacts of a development cannot be measured by on-site biodiversity (vegetation) alone. A simple trading scheme such as this is inappropriate in anything but very limited circumstances and areas.
• The number of proposed areas is limited and simplistic and will be hard to apply satisfactorily to something as complex and varied as biodiversity.
• The aim of this scheme must also be to prevent species/ecosystems becoming vulnerable or endangered. This may mean that land otherwise considered to be amber or green light areas should be given red light status. The precautionary principle should be paramount. If vegetation is relatively undisturbed then it should be assumed to be significant until proved otherwise.
• The amber and green areas in particular need to be far more detailed and possibly broken up further. The rule-based method to determine biodiversity loss for amber areas has not yet been detailed. This is a serious omission because it is not possible to assess either how the rules will work in practice or their effectiveness.
• Amber light areas, and perhaps some green light areas, could be important for connectivity, wildlife corridors and waterway protection. This will make them increasingly significant in landscapes that are being fragmented by development. Climate change will also increase the need for their protection. These and other relevant factors must be factored into calculations of their biodiversity value.
• If Environment Planning Instruments are certificated then developments in green light areas must fully comply to be exempted from Species Impact Statements. No variations should be allowed.
• Red light areas, including all extant vegetation and wildlife corridors, should not be available for development under any circumstances. At the very least they should only be allowed to keep their existing zoning if it is equivalent to environment protection.
• If existing uses in red light areas are permitted to continue, they should not be allowed in all cases. For instance:
  - If the land is being farmed this could continue. However, extra clearing should not be allowed.
  - If the land is zoned to allow subdivision but has not yet been subdivided then NO subdivision should be allowed on areas important for biodiversity.
  - If the land has been subdivided into rural residential lots but building has not begun then the BA (>>>Mark what does BA stand for?Jenny used this acronym in her notes to me) assessment process should limit clearing and building envelopes to certain areas to preserve the most important areas for biodiversity and their connection to each other.
• Coastwatchers cautions against relying solely on CRA mapping for biodiversity certification. Many errors have already been found in the Eurobodalla area. The maps need to be tested by field work and this must be done before certification is granted to any Environmental Planning Instrument.

Biodiversity Trading and Offsets.

• Coastwatchers does not agree that biodiversity values can be traded off as if they are a quantifiable commodity such as pollution or salinity units. Trading schemes are only workable where the total values being traded are finite and known, and each "share" is equivalent.
• Currently, it is not possible to accurately quantify, measure and monitor biodiversity values in NSW to the extent required for a trading scheme. This is a major flaw in the proposed system.
• At the very least, each region must have a detailed conservation 'baseline' to work from before beginning the process of "credit" allocation. Assessment of the irreplaceability of areas potentially available for clearing should also be included. This is necessary for evaluation of the success or otherwise of the scheme.
• It is not acceptable to lose habitat/ecosystems in amber areas when the offsets may not even be geographically close. The offsets should have to benefit the same species in the same locality.
• Encouragement of "entrepreneurial conservation brokers" means that money needed for improving or maintaining biodiversity outcomes will be diverted to entrepreneurs' profits. A better option would be not-for-profit brokers whose administration costs would be set in accordance with the $ value of the funds they manage (say a maximum of 5%).

Better protection for biodiversity.

• Any offsetting scheme for biodiversity will have to ensure a net gain in land reserved for conservation that is of equal or better quality in order to comply with a "maintain and improve" test otherwise the biodiversity within particular regions may be adversely affected.
• Biodiversity banking should NOT be open to exploitation as an alternative to good planning and vegetation protection measures. This would result in further loss of biodiversity. The scheme requires very clear criteria as to what constitutes adequate offsetting, and implementation of a series of mechanisms to prevent manipulation of the system against its stated aims.
• Coastwatchers believe that the best protection for biodiversity is to expand the public reserve system. The use of private land mechanisms to protect biodiversity should not replace this but complement it. On private property, legally binding agreements that protect biodiversity values in perpetuity must be part of any offsetting scheme.

Administration of the Scheme.

It is not clear who will monitor, manage or regulate the scheme. This needs to be clearly laid out prior to going any further with the scheme.

Summary
The Coastwatchers Association hopes that the issues raised in this submission will be addressed before any implementation of the pilot for the project.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Edwards
Secretary