Landholders concerned over CALM conservation proposal

The Department of Conservation and Land Management is paving the way for the introduction of legally binding land-use covenants that impose new environmental restrictions upon owners of up to five million hectares (5mha) of the state.

The proposal is the centrepiece of a CALM discussion paper that has attracted 145 public submissions.

The paper, titled Towards a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for WA, is part of what Environment Minister Dr Judy Edwards has described as “more than a 100-year reach” to ensure greater statewide flaura and fauna protection.

The proposed strategy sets two initial target dates, 2010 and 2030, for CALM’s bid to gain legally binding conservation oversight over the 5mha of privately owned or managed land.

Both dates are called aspirational output targets and nothing is said of likely plans beyond 2030.

CALM currently administers 16.8mha of parks and reserves, or 6.6 per cent of WA’s land area.

If the Government and parliament adopt the proposed privately owned land conservation covenants, CALM’s management hold will be extended by nearly 30 per cent, to almost 22mha.

But CALM has also recently acquired nearly 5mha of pastoral leasehold land for conservation reserves under the Gascoyne-Murchison Strategy, and a further 700,000ha is set to be reserved under a forest management plan.

All up this would give CALM oversight over about 22.5mha, or 8.8 per cent of the state’s area.

CALM director Keiran McNamara said he welcomed all comments on the discussion paper, which had been dispatched to 500 associations and individuals.

“All the submissions will form the basis of the next stage in assessment of the state’s biodiversity,” he said.

And Mr McNamara signalled that the move could be just the beginning of things to come, especially if the Government eventually adopted the international scientific benchmark or standard for biodiversity conservation, which stands at around 15 per cent of a country’s or state’s area.

Control of CALM’s huge expanse has prompted the state’s two major land-use business organisations, the Pastoralists & Graziers Association (PGA) and the WA Farmers Federation, to criticise the moves to expand oversight and control.

Both have queried whether CALM properly manages lands it already holds. 

The controversial CALM paper proposes that 1mha of privately owned or managed land would come under the legally binding covenants by 2010.

And this would rise by a further 4mha by 2030.

CALM already has in place what are known as non-legally binding handshake agreements with landowners, which give it oversight over 1mha to protect habitats.

However, less well-known are its recently adopted and legally binding conservation covenants, which it proposes to apply to the 2010 and 2025 target dates unveiled in the discussion paper.

So far 49 such voluntary conservation covenants have been entered into with landholders since 2000, covering 3,884ha.

But negotiations are currently in progress to draw up a further 38 such covenants, which would cover an additional 5,828ha.

If the PGA and WAFarmers eventually accept CALM’s discussion paper, this nearly 10,000ha will be boosted 100-fold within the next five years and a further five-fold by 2030.

In addition, the Perth-based Australian Wildlife Conservancy, holds 450,000ha specifically for conservation purposes with most of it in WA, and the Melbourne-based Australian Bushland Heritage Fund, also own land across the state.

When Dr Edwards released CALM’s biodiversity conservation strategy document, she claimed the state’s biodiversity was at a crossroads in terms of decline and recovery.

“In the past century, at least 18 species of native animals and 15 species of native plants have become extinct,” Dr Edwards said.

“Today, 190 animal species and 357 plant species are threatened with extinction.

“WA is one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world.  The South West is one of the world’s 25 internationally recognised biodiversity hotspots, and the only one recognised in Australia.

“In addition, the state has eight of the nations 15 biodiversity hotspots.”

CALM’s long-term proposal also seeks to directly involve 500,000 Western Australians in their statewide biodiversity program.

But the document has failed to get the all-clear from WAFarmers director of policy, Andy McMillan, who said the CALM proposal was unacceptable on several grounds, including that the department had a poor record of overseeing public lands.

“When CALM has its own backyard in order in relation to land management, with such things as feral pest and weed control and bushfire management, only then should it look over the neighbour’s fence,” Mr McMillan said.

“If CALM persisted with the development of a biodiversity conservation strategy in isolation it will lack credibility with landowners and will be doomed to fail.

“We are prepared to work with CALM and other industry and government stakeholders in developing an equitable strategy but will strongly resist the approach taken in the discussion paper.

“The tone of the paper and strategic direction output targets ranges from dictatorial to coercive to inclusive to condescending.”

PGA land resources spokesperson Bindi Thomson said members held grave concerns over the impact the biodiversity strategy would have on agricultural and pastoral businesses.

“The proposed strategy focuses on engaging the wider community but makes little reference to the interests of landholders who actually earn their living from the land, and often have their life savings invested in it,” Ms Thomson said.

“We support conservation activities that will enhance the long-term environmental, economic and social endurance of the agricultural and pastoral industries, and therefore the community in general.

“However, the net benefits of these activities must exceed the net costs and the benefit must not be delivered at the cost of individual landholders’ property rights.

“Many landholders already undertake conservation activities on their land using their own money and this delivers a public benefit to the wider community.

“If they cannot be confident in retaining their property rights they will not be likely to invest their time and money in conservation work.

“Many are already frustrated with CALM’s inability to effectively manage the land that is currently under its control.

“There will need to be a firm commitment for the Government to give adequate resources to this strategy before they can ask landholders to make a commitment.

“If this proposed strategy is going to deliver on ground conservation it will need the support of landholders.

“Many landholders are involved in landcare and natural resource management programs and will not welcome a new strategy to tell them how to reinvent the wheel.

“CALM needs to clarify how this strategy will build on and incorporate existing conservation activities that landholders have contributed their time and money to.

“When conservation activities are prescribed by government, there is generally a reduction in the affected landholders’ ability to get a return from their investment in the land.

“The State Government must recognise that landholders are the key stakeholders because they have rights, and that they must compensate landholders if the rights are removed or diminished for conservation.

“Recent findings of both the Productivity Commission and the WA upper house inquiry into the effect of oblique public good conservation on private property confirm the heavy cost incurred by individual landowners.”

Mr McNamara said the 5mha in question did not target land currently in productive use but rather remnant bushlands, wetlands, rangelands and revegetated cleared land with the covenants in question envisaged as being voluntary.

“The second thing I have to say is that WA’s formal system of national parks and nature reserves currently stands at about 7 per cent of the state, whereas the world average is about 12 per cent,” he said.

“However, the international scientific benchmark or standard is about 15 per cent, meaning we are only at about half.

“As for looking after what CALM already oversees, we acknowledge we have a large area to manage and we are obviously doing the best with the resources to hand.

“Government has put in significant extra resources but we know we need to do more in areas like feral animals and weed control.

 “But having said that, that doesn’t represent an argument for us not seeking to move towards a comprehensive system that meets the international scientific benchmark.”