The Deputy Director General,
Environment Protection and Regulation Division,
Department of Environment and Conservation,
PO Box A290
Sydney South NSW 1232

Dear Sir,
SUBMISSION ON BIOBANKING - A BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS AND
BANKING SCHEME - WORKING PAPER

PRELIMINARY REMARKS
At the outset of this submission the Coastwatchers Association reiterates its view that allowing the destruction of land containing a threatened species in one area because steps have been taken to ensure the safety of the species in another area is not a conservation gain. With the present alarming rate of extinction, biodiversity must be improved, not merely maintained. If this biobanking scheme is to proceed it must also be able to prevent species/ecosystems from becoming vulnerable or endangered.

We consider that the proposed scheme should be used only for the expansion of existing public infrastructure or other projects of community significance. Enabling developers to use tradeable biodiversity offsets will only encourage use of sites that would have previously been left undeveloped because reconfiguration and additional on-site works could not meet requirements for approval. It is hard to see how the proposed scheme can lead to an improvement in biodiversity. At best it will encourage acceptance of the idea that maintenance of biodiversity is acceptable and all that needs to be aimed for.

COMMENT ON THE WORKING PAPER
Coastwatchers acknowledges that a number of important deficiencies in the first consultation paper, that had been identified in our earlier submission, have been addressed. These include a definition of the term "offset", more specific details as to how the scheme might work and suggested criteria that may be used to assess biodiversity value. However, the following points need to be addressed before the background paper is published.

Definition of "region"
The term "region" is used on page 2 of the Working Paper but there is still no definition. The term "region", for the purpose of identifying biodiversity values, needs to be clearly defined to allow reconciliation of data that has been collected within variously defined resource management regions.

Use of Biobanking in areas without Biodiversity Certification.
It is stated on page 3 of the Working Paper that "biobanking would be used in areas where
biodiversity certification has been conferred on the planning instruments and in other areas
under specified circumstances. What are these "specified circumstances"?

It is also stated on page 2 that the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is considering how biobanking could be used "immediately" in areas where new Local Environment Plans will take between two to five years to prepare. This would seem to be a potentially dangerous suggestion. At the very least, biobanking should not be allowed until the appropriate Regional Conservation Plan, with agreed green, amber and red light areas clearly defined, is prepared. Otherwise, we will still have the "tyranny of small decisions" which will contribute to continuing incremental biodiversity loss.

Principals of Biobanking.
The idea of purchasing land for dedication to a public reserve (page 5) has merit. Such offsets must take into account substantial financial contribution to provide for ongoing maintenance of the reserve.

The example of the Mount Owen Coalmine, however, is the type of development that Coastwatchers believes should not be considered for offsets. This would only encourage the expansion of coal mining, which is an environmentally damaging process.

The Role of the Scheme Manager.
How often will DEC report to the Minister on the impacts accepted and offset; biodiversity improved or maintained; and the funds received and spent under the scheme? Will these reports be made available to community representatives or the public?

How often will the regulatory and statutory databases and tools that underpin the scheme be updated?

Conservation Brokers.
Coastwatchers does not support the use of private brokers because the money needed for improving or maintaining biodiversity outcomes will be diverted to entrepreneurial profits.
They also may not be able to comply with the necessary transparency of process because of "commercial in confidence" matters.

Any brokers must be verifiably independent of local councils, developers and landholders to avoid conflict of interest.

More information is required about the credit market, especially about how the credits would be valued.

Conservation Agreements
Although the conservation agreements are entered into voluntarily by the initial landholder they would be enforceable on subsequent landholders. How will this affect the value and resalability of a property? Will the possibility of a decreased property value deter private landholders from participating in the scheme?

Administration Costs.
While it is agreed that all costs must be met by the developer, who sets the amount to be paid
for administration to the scheme manager?

Biodiversity Assessment Tools
On page 10 it is stated that the loss or gain measured by the biodiversity assessment and tool
are referred to as biodiversity credits. This terminology is confusing. It would be more appropriate to record a loss in biodiversity as a biodiversity debit.

Accurate quantification of the biodiversity value is essential to the success of the scheme. Yet the Working Paper ignores the fact that the effectiveness of the rule-based methodologies available in Australia for determining this value is currently subject to much scientific debate and uncertainty.

Use of the tools developed for the property vegetative planning process has still to be evaluated. The Catchment Management Authority assessment and review process is still in the early stages. Their effectiveness have yet to be proven.

The effects of climate change and contribution to waterway protection should be added to
the list of site characteristics (page 10) to be evaluated by the assessment tool.

Restoration Ecology
Much of the restoration work carried out in Australia has been characterised by inadequate scientific input into design, monitoring and evaluation. It is often unclear whether restoration objectives are meeting biodiversity objectives.

Coastwatchers believes that if there is a foreseeable risk that restoration management actions may not achieve the desired ecological outcomes they should not be agreed to.

Funds for extra actions to cover unforeseen failures are difficult to estimate when the biobanking agreement is being negotiated. Remediation work may be difficult and costly. Who will eventually pick up any shortfalls?

There also needs to be requirements for independent audits of offset sites for ongoing compliance, and provision of relevant penalties for breaches of agreement. Who would do this monitoring and what would be the frequency of inspections?

All impacts on biodiversity value from all threats (not just those related to clearing) must be estimated. If a development did not occur, there would be no problem.

The "like for like" principle (page 11) seems acceptable. Coastwatchers suggests a community importance ranking is also needed. The importance to the community of the vegetation under development threat, and that suggested as an offset, needs to be measured.

The table on page 4 states that the offset must be in the same region. Coastwatchers disagrees. Offsets must be local, accessible and of similar community importance.

Auctioning of bids.
The information presented does not clearly explain how a particular bid would be selected in any particular round. On page 12 DEC states that, if it were to act as a broker, it would rank the landholder bids from cheapest to the most expensive (based on the cost per credit generated) and determine the cut off point (based on funds available) for funding offset programs in that round. Once the cut off point has been established, is a bid to be selected on the basis of lowest cost per credit or the highest cost?

Advisory Panel Duties.
One of the duties of the panel is to provide advice on appropriate actions to "manage underperforming private conservation stewards" (page 13). There is a need to clarify criteria for "underperformance" and to identify who will ultimately have responsibility for remediating the results of poor performance.

Partnership with DEC.
There is a poor history of covenants in NSW. If the Nature Conservation Trust were to develop covenants, how would they be enforced?

Conclusion.
The Working Paper does provide a broad outline of the methodology and associated assessment criteria for the scheme. However, there is a lack of specificity and detail.

Table 1 (page 15) sets out the most significant tasks being considered by DEC, many of which are to be carried out concurrently. There is no suggested timeframe for the implementation of Task 4 - the establishment of demonstration biobank sites. Before this demonstration phase commences, there must be further work on evaluation of the appropriateness and workability of the assessment criteria.

Yours sincerely ,

Jenny Edwards
Secretary