Native Vegetation Management - A Framework for Action - Summary

ISBN 1 74106 123 7
© The State of Victoria,
Department of
Natural Resources and
Environment, 2002
www.nre.vic.gov.au
This publication may
be of assistance to you
but the State of
Victoria and its
employees do not
guarantee that the
publication is without
flaw of any kind or is
wholly appropriate for
your particular purpose
and therefore disclaims
all liability for any
error, loss or
other consequence
which may arise from
you relying on any
information in
this publication.
Support and training
The need for a consistent
approach to native vegetation
management and retention
across the State and support
for Local Government during
the introduction of the
Framework, were issues
repeatedly highlighted by
submissions to the draft
document. In recognition of
this feedback and the
technical nature of the
Framework, there are 10
regionally based Native
Vegetation Officers who will
be delivering ongoing training
and support to councils and
community groups.
Further Information and Regional Contacts
In addition, to support local
planning schemes and policy,
NRE is working with councils
to provide detailed and up-todate
vegetation status
information and mapping.
Native Vegetation Officers
have already been involved in
the Municipal Strategic
Statement (MSS) reviews that
occur for each council
planning-scheme every 3
years. They will continue to
assist with this process to
incorporate the Net Gain
approach to native vegetation
management into
the MSS reviews.
For more information on Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management –
A Framework for Action contact your Regional Native Vegetation
Officer or call the Department of Natural Resources and
Environment Customer Service Centre on 136 186 or
visit www.nre.vic.gov.au.
Region Contact Address Contact
North East Marike Van Nouhuys 1 McKoy St
PO Box 303
Wodonga 3689
(02) 60 556 220
West Gippsland David Ziebell 12 Peart St
Leongatha 3953
(03) 56 629 920
East Gippsland Catherine Clancy 73 Calvert St
Bairnsdale 3875
(03) 51 520 652
Goulburn Broken Rhonda Day 37 High Street
Broadford 3658
(03) 57 840 621
Glenelg Hopkins Phil Perret Mt Napier Rd
Private Bag 105
Hamilton 3300
(03) 55 730 705
Corangamite Liz deVries Cnr Little Malop
and Fenwick Streets
Geelong 3220
(03) 52 264 528
Wimmera Allyson Lardner 110 Natimuk Rd
Private Bag 260
Horsham 3401
(03) 53 620 746
Mallee Jodi Cant 324 Campbell St
PO Box 501
Swan Hill 3585
(03) 50 360 823
North Central Peter Morison Cnr Midland
Highwayand Taylor St
Bendigo 3551
(03) 54 304 504
Port Philip and Russell Costello 30-32 Prospect St (03) 9296 4660
Western Port Box Hill 3128
VICTORIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
➤ A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION – SUMMARY

➤ WHAT IS THE FRAMEWORK?
Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management –
A Framework for Action establishes the strategic
direction for the protection, enhancement and
revegetation of native vegetation across the State.
It addresses native vegetation from a whole catchment
perspective but with a necessary focus on private land
where the critical issues from past clearing and
fragmentation of native vegetation exist.
The Framework
provides:
•a transparent and
consistent approach
to valuing native
vegetation, and
• a reporting
framework which will
enable accounting for
progress toward the
Net Gain result.
The Net Gain concept
is critical to the
Framework and is
explained further in
question 5 of
this booklet.
Adoption of the
principles and
application of the Net
Gain approach outlined
in the Framework will
strike a balance
between efforts to
achieve the following:
• active improvement
of the quality of
existing native
vegetation;
• avoidance or
minimisation of
further permanent
losses of existing
native vegetation
through clearing;
• strategic increase in
the cover of native
vegetation through
revegetation with
high biodiversity
value; and,
• the flexibility that is
required to support
landholders as they
move towards more
sustainable land use.
Victoria’s Native
Vegetation Management
– A Framework for
Action will also provide
the context for the
finalisation of the
Native Vegetation Plans
for each Catchment
Management Authority
region. The Native
Vegetation Plans in
turn reflect regional
differences in the
application of the
broad Net Gain
approach and provide
the strategic direction
for local action.
CONTINENTAL LANDSCAPE STRESS
by Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of
Australia subregions
WHY DO WE NEED
A FRAMEWORK?
500 0 500 Kilomet ers
National Land and Water Audit
www.environment.gov.au/atlas
The National Land and Water
Resources Audit’s ‘Australian
Native Vegetation Assessment
2001’ provides an analysis of
clearing across Australia. Five
of the 85 bioregions (areas
with similar characteristics of
landscape and native plant
and animal types) in Australia
have less than 30% of pre-
1750 native vegetation cover
remaining. Four of these five
bioregions are found in
Western Victoria.
A similar pattern of Landscape
Stress was identified in the
Assessment based on
information about vegetation
clearing, land use,
fragmentation of native
vegetation, hydrological
change, weeds, feral animals,
and threatened ecosystems
and species.
In the 70s & 80s clearance
rates of native vegetation on
private land were
HIGHEST STRESS
LOWEST STRESS
approximately 10,700 hectares
per year. This rate has reduced
to approximately 2,500
hectares per year in the 90s.
While there has been a
reduction in broad scale
clearing of native vegetation,
due to regulation, changes in
government policy and
community attitudes, clearing
is still occurring and there
has been limited protection
for some of the more rare
and threatened vegetation
communities.
Victoria’s Salinity Management
Framework highlighted that
the direct cost of salinity in
Victoria is estimated to be
$50 million per year, with
140,000 hectares of irrigated
land and 120,000 hectares of
dryland significantly affected.
Protection and restoration of
our native vegetation make an
important contribution to
addressing the problems of
salinity, water quality and
catchment erosion on
problems on private land.

➤
WHAT IS THE
GOVERNMENT DOING
ABOUT NATIVE
VEGETATION?
While the Framework sets a
new standard for future
management, significant work
has occurred over the last 10
years. Our farmers and land
➤
THERE ARE SO
MANY POLICIES,
WHERE DOES THE
FRAMEWORK FIT?
The Framework reflects a
range of Victoria’s
commitments to national
policies, principally:
managers have been at the
forefront of Victoria’s native
vegetation management
efforts. Through the Landcare,
Land for Wildlife, Bushcare
and salinity programs as well
as individual efforts, the rural
community has strongly
supported the
native vegetation
management effort.
• The National Framework for
the Management and
Monitoring of Australia’s
Native Vegetation (ANZECC
1999). The National
Framework provides a
vehicle for the
implementation of the
National Heritage Trust
Partnership Agreement
between the Commonwealth
and the State and Territory
Governments. Its primary
objective is to reverse the
long term decline in the
quality and extent of
Australia’s native vegetation
cover by June 2001.
• The National Strategy for
Ecologically Sustainable
Development, with a goal
that is endorsed by all
Australian governments, of
“development that improves
the total quality of life,
both now and in the future,
in a way that maintains the
ecological processes on
which life depends”
(ESD 1992).
The core objectives of
Ecologically Sustainable
Development (ESD) are:
•To enhance individual and
community well-being and
welfare by following a path
of economic development
that safeguards the welfare
of future generations;
•To provide for equity
within and between
generations; and
More than 86,000 hectares of
native vegetation has been
re-established by landholders
with Government assistance.
Of this 66,000 hectares were
planted to address salinity
problems, and a further
20,000 hectares were planted
through Bushcare, Growing
Victoria’s Greenhouse Sinks
and other programs
•To protect biological
diversity and to maintain
essential ecological
processes and life
support systems.
Victoria has adopted a range
of measures to help protect
native vegetation. These
measures sit within the
legislative framework provided
by the Planning and
Environment Act 1987, Flora
and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
and the Catchment and Land
Protection Act 1994. The
Framework is one of the State
Policies guiding decisions
through the municipal
planning schemes. Local
Government works closely
with the community in
administering their planning
scheme and delivering results
in a range of conservation and
land protection areas to
ensure ecologically
sustainable development.
Like other State policy
documents such as: Victoria’s
Biodiversity Strategy, Victoria’s
Salinity Management
Framework and Victorian Pest
Management - A Framework for
Action, Victoria’s Native
Vegetation Management – A
Framework for Action, is
reflected in the Catchment
Management Authorities’
Regional Catchment Strategies.
It guides the associated
regional action plans,
particularly the Native
Vegetation Plans which
are a regional expression
of the Framework.
What is Net Gain?
Net Gain is the primary
goal identified for native
vegetation management:
‘A reversal, across the
entire landscape, of the
long-term decline in the
extent and quality of
native vegetation, leading
to a Net Gain’.
Net Gain is the outcome
for native vegetation and
habitat where overall gains
are greater than overall
losses and where individual
losses are avoided where
possible. The losses and
gains are determined by a
combined quality-quantity
measure and over a
specified area and period
of time. Gains may be
either required offsets for
permitted clearing actions
or as a result of landholder
and Government assisted
efforts that are not
associated with clearing.
Achievement of the Net
Gain goal will have
benefits for biodiversity,
land and water quality, and
climate change
amelioration.
The Net Gain approach:
• Has, as a priority, the
avoidance of further
permanent losses in
existing native vegetation
through clearing;
• Recognises that for
native vegetation,
although “natural is
best”, it is possible to
partially recover both
extent and quality by
active intervention and
thus to effect the net
result;
• Identifies a quantitative
approach to the “reverse
the decline” pathway,
allowing us to set
targets and measure
performance,
• At the on-ground level,
expresses the principle
that where losses are
directly permitted
and/or incurred, effort
should be made, at a
minimum, to balance
such losses with
commensurate gains in
some way,
• At the regional level,
facilitates establishment
of a complete picture of
the native vegetation
asset, against which
incremental losses and
emerging issues can be
evaluated, and
• Plays an important part
in assessing ecologically
sustainable
development.
What is a Habitat
Hectare?
The habitat hectare is
a site-based measure of
quality and quantity of
native vegetation.
Native vegetation at a
site is assessed by
comparing it to a
benchmark, which
represents the average
characteristics of a
mature and apparently
long-undisturbed stand
of the same type of
vegetation. This
measure can be
consistently applied
across the State.
For example, one
hectare of unaltered
natural habitat which
is at 100% of its
natural quality will
equal one habitat
hectare. That is, the
quality multiplied by
the quantity. Ten
hectares of this high
quality habitat would
be equivalent to ten
habitat hectares,
and so on.
If an area of natural
habitat had lost 50%
of its quality because
of weed invasion, loss
of understorey or other
means then one
hectare of this land
would be equivalent to
0.5 habitat hectares,
ten hectares would
equivalent to five
habitat hectares,
and so on.

➤
WHAT HAS
HAPPENED SINCE
THE DRAFT
FRAMEWORK WAS
RELEASED FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT?
➤
WHAT WERE THE
RESULTS OF THE
COMMUNITY
CONSULTATION ON
THE DRAFT
FRAMEWORK?
BushTender Trial
The habitat hectare and Net
Gain approaches have been
refined through operational
experience and extensively
tested through the
BushTender Trial. This trial is
examining is a new approach
(still under development and
consideration) to providing
Government incentives to
landholders for their services
in managing bush on private
land. The landholders are
selected through a
competitive tendering process
based on the conservation
value of their vegetation, the
habitat services they are
prepared to provide (the
amount of maintenance or
improvement in their
vegetation) and the amount
the landholder wants to be
paid to provide these services.
The draft Framework
introducing the concepts
of Net Gain and habitat
hectares was released for
public comment in August
2000 and received over 90
submissions. The
submissions reflected a
high level of interest in
native vegetation
management and the new
The BushTender Trial was
successfully run in sub
catchments of the North
Central and North East
Catchment Management
Authority regions. The trial
demonstrated that the
competitive bidding approach
can be successfully operated
to establish funded native
vegetation management
agreements. Landholders
accepted the mechanism and
actively participated. The
bidding was competitive and
bidding success was evenly
distributed across the two
trial areas. The biodiversity
priorities were successfully
identified and secured through
the site assessment and
bidding process.
Benchmarks have been
prepared for the majority of
vegetation types to provide a
basis for assessments of
habitat quality.
Building on this, the
BushTender Trial is also being
run in Gippsland.
concepts with many
focusing on the need for
more detail about how Net
Gain and habitat hectares
would work.
There were some divergent
views about native
vegetation clearance in
particular. Environment
groups wanted a
moratorium on all clearing
Net Gain Guidelines
Operational guidelines are
being prepared to assist the
introduction of the new
concepts associated with
Net Gain.
A Native Vegetation Permit
tracking system has been
commissioned and will enable
the amount of land clearance
permitted by Local
Government and the
associated offsets to be
accurately recorded across the
State. It will also provide
Local Government with access
to mapped information
through the internet to assist
them to make and record
planning decisions affecting
native vegetation.
Native Vegetation Officers
Ten new Native Vegetation
Officer positions across the
State have been filled to
facilitate the role out of the
Native Vegetation Framework
with a primary role of
supporting Local Government
adopt the Net Gain approach.
or targets set for phasing
out clearing. On the other
hand some farming
representatives wanted
greater flexibility to the
extent that there should
be tradeable clearing
permits. The views of the
48 Local Shires and
Councils represented by
the Municipal Association
Regional Projects
A range of regional projects
have been undertaken around
the State to improve the
understanding and
management of native
vegetation:
• The preparation of
biodiversity asset maps for
councils in the South West,
• The employment of a
Conservation Management
Network coordinator for
the Red-Gum Plains in
East Gippsland,
• Piloting of a labour support
program in the Mallee,
• Implementation of Grey
Crowned Babbler
management
recommendations in the
Goulburn Broken,
• Employment of a Native
Grasslands Officer and
purchase of a seed harvester
in Corangamite, and
• Establishment of a
Community seedbank facility
in the North East.
Two significant research
projects have been funded in
partnership with Land and
Water Australia in their Native
Vegetation Research and
Development Program:
• ‘Landscape level thresholds
for conservation of
biodiversity in rural
environments’ and
• ‘Managing landscapes to
meet public biodiversity
goals and farm business
goals’.
of Victoria’s submission,
broadly supported the
Framework but requested
greater clarity in the
process and reflected the
concerns of some
councils about their
capacity to apply the
Net Gain approach.
The final Framework
provides a strong focus
➤
HOW WILL THE FRAMEWORK AFFECT
THE PLANNING PERMIT PROCESS?
Native Vegetation Retention
Controls and the need for a
planning permit to clear
native vegetation have been
in place since 1989 in all
Victorian planning schemes.
Local Government is
responsible for developing,
administering and enforcing
their planning schemes. These
aspects of Native Vegetation
Retention controls have
not changed.
Amendments made in 2000 to
the State Planning Policy for
Conservation of Native Flora
and Fauna (Clause 15.09) in
the Victoria Planning
Provisions (VPP) introduced
the concept of
Net Gain when considering
development approval
that may involve
vegetation clearance.
In the absence of detailed
performance based guidelines
for applying Net Gain through
the planning system, a range
of approaches have been
taken in Victoria in the
past year.
This has resulted in a decrease
in the clarity and consistency
of planning practices. Local
Councils are seeking
clarification of the appropriate
detailed planning instruments
to achieve the policy changes
on the protection and
improvement of higher
conservation significance
vegetation and a flexible
but accountable approach
for lower conservation
significance vegetation
to enable landholders
to move towards more
sustainable land
use options.
as they go through their
three year planning policy
review process.
The Framework provides a
transparent and consistent
approach to valuing native
vegetation, and a statewide
reporting framework for
accounting for progress
toward the Net Gain result.
Assisting State Government
agencies in understanding
the Net Gain requirements for
public works will be a priority
for the implementation of the
Native Vegetation
Management Framework.
The approach to
implementing the Framework
through the planning system
will be refined following work
with Local Government and
relevant consultants.
The Department of
Infrastructure will, in
conjunction with NRE,
investigate the requirement
or opportunities for any
amendments to VPP to give
better effect to the Net Gain
approach. This investigation
will form the basis of a
Discussion Paper for public
consultation on the matter.