Land and biodiversity at a time of climate change: FAQs
Home | Green Paper | What you've said | Initial Consultation Paper | Victoria's natural environment | Governance | Media releases | FAQs
Why should we care about biodiversity and ecosystem services?
Healthy biodiversity underpins natural ecosystems and the services they provide such as soil for growing food, clean water, pest control, and the regulation of climate, floods and drought. Healthy ecosystems are essential to Victoria’s economy. Victoria’s natural resources support primary industries, that are estimated to be worth over $9.3 billion annually and are important generators of jobs and income.
What impact will climate change have on Victoria’s biodiversity?
Climate change is a long term threatening process that scientific modelling indicates will magnify land and biodiversity decline. It will add to the problems we already face. Increased variability in weather patterns will increase stresses on many ecosystems and threaten ecological function, often in ways we cannot predict. The capacity for Victorian ecosystems to adapt to a changing climate has been reduced because our landscapes are highly fragmented.
Future climate scenarios indicate the Victorian climate will be warmer and drier, particularly in northern Victoria. The latest projections from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that climate change in Victoria will continue to manifest itself in a variety of ways. These changes are likely to include more days over 350C, less annual rainfall but more intense rainfall events, fewer frosts, more days with very high and extreme fire danger, less snow cover, more extreme weather events (floods and droughts).
Protecting biodiversity places an unfair burden on farmers. Why should farmers and private landholders bear the cost?
The protection of biodiversity is something for which the whole community needs to take responsibility. Government, business, industry and individuals in both metropolitan and regional areas need to work together to solve the problems we face.
Many Victorian farmers have developed successful sustainable farming practices which improve biodiversity while maximising the long term productivity of their land, eg planting trees that can act as shelter for livestock, reduce salinity and erosion and improve soil health. In coming years, farmers will have increased opportunities to be involved in new and expanding markets.
For example, the Government’s $14 million ecoMarkets project includes funding for implementing a number of EcoTender demonstrations across Victoria. EcoTender adopts a similar approach to the highly successful BushTender program but includes river and estuary health in addition to terrestrial habitat protection and restoration.
Climate change is real. Don’t we need to be serious about cutting emissions and not tinker at the edges with offsets?
We do need to work hard to avoid and minimise emissions. There will be instances where this is not possible, and emissions may need to be offset. The growing international offset market may be a good opportunity for investment in land and biodiversity management in Victoria.
The Australian Government is developing a national emissions trading scheme due to commence in 2010. The Victorian Government which for nearly nine years has shown national and international leadership on policy and actions to reduce emissions is contributing to discussion around the design of the scheme.
The Victorian Climate Change Summit held on 4th April explored a number of ideas which will inform these discussions. A formal biosequestration market is likely to be one element of the response to climate change.
Shouldn’t we just let the carbon market evolve and not interfere with its development?
The water market shows that a properly designed market can be successful. We want to make it easy for people to invest in biodiversity and we want to give people who don’t own or manage land the chance to participate in improving biodiversity outcomes.
As the carbon offset market expands, the Victorian Government is considering the role it could take in verifying claims of biodiversity improvements undertaken in Victoria. This may be through the National Carbon Accounting Scheme to help the standardisation of the Australian industry.
What are we doing to ensure we have enough water for the environment?
Victoria has gone through extensive water management reforms to ensure a secure supply of water for all users, including the environment. The Our Water Our Future policy and the Victoria Water Plan outline critical actions to secure water for Victoria’s growing population and economy in light of drought and climate change. The community has been engaged through sustainable water strategies and the government will investigate options to address the impacts of land-use changes on water availability.
Won’t biolinks increase fire risk?
Consideration of fire risk will be built into the planning process for the development of potential biolink zones. Fire risk is likely to increase under climate change whether biolinks are established or not. Good fire management can support biodiversity outcomes. Fire is a natural part of the Australian environment and an important process in many ecosystems. The revised code of practice for fire management on Public Land includes managing fire regimes for multiple outcomes including biodiversity and water as well as protecting human assets.
What effect will there be on public land areas designated as biodiversity refuges?
Public land is the largest source of intact native vegetation in Victoria and will be integral to the creation of biolink zones. Using public land as a base, parcels of remnant vegetation in the zone can be used as stepping stones to link habitats. This will enhance the resilience of ecosystems but have little impact on the multiple uses for which public land is already utilised.
Shifting the focus from investing in individual species towards protecting ecosystems may mean the loss of species that have special significance. Don’t we have a responsibility to future generations to protect what we have and not pick what species to save?
A recent CSIRO report for the Australian Government stated that because of the inevitability of significant change in species and ecosystems as a result of climate change, we need to “reassess the core challenge of conservation and embrace the task of managing the change to minimise the loss”. It also advocated an ecosystem approach.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other recent reports suggest climate change could instigate a mass wave of extinctions. Given that Government has a finite resource base, we need to build ecosystem resilience so that more animals don’t become endangered and to support species to successfully adapt.
The Green Paper provides us with an opportunity to debate how best to use our resources to support the adaptation. Investing resources into species that are already highly endangered may not be the best value for money.
Victoria aspires to a long-term goal of a Net Gain but it has not yet been achieved. Since European settlement, approximately half of Victoria’s native vegetation has been cleared for agricultural and urban development. This includes 80 per cent of the original cover on private land. It will take extended effort to reverse the 150 years of clearing that has occurred. We’re working hard to close the gap between native vegetation gains and losses.
The first approximation report tells us how we’re going to reach our ultimate goal of reversing the decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation. Encouragingly, active management of conservation reserves has led to significant gains on public land - at the rate of almost 6,000 habitat hectares per year.
We have been successful in clearance losses of woody vegetation on private land which is now well down from the levels of 10 – 20 years ago. However, there have been some substantial losses in quality on private land, much of this being degradation of native grasslands.
Are farmers compensated for protecting native vegetation?
Farmers who protect native vegetation are contributing to the public good as well as improving biodiversity on their own land. Many have participated in publicly funded incentive programs such as BushTender. A key challenge for native vegetation management is balancing regulations with incentives. The more important the vegetation is because of its quality and rarity, the more interested the Government is in protecting or investing in its protection and enhancement.
As well as the BushTender program the Government has also developed offset schemes such as BushBroker to prevent net loss of native vegetation and as these are extended across the state they will help prevent the decline in native vegetation.
Does increased fuel reduction through planned burning put further pressure on the habitat of threatened species?
Fire is a natural part of the Australian environment and is an important part of many ecosystems. The increased risk of fire due to climate change means we need to continue to manage risk through fuel reduction and planned burning. Fire management regimes include ecological outcomes and by supporting biodiversity we protect our natural assets.
Who is responsible for the management of pests and weeds?
Land managers are responsible for controlling pests and weeds on their land. Both have the potential to cross boundaries, so the Government, private landholders and the community need to work in partnership to maximise efficient use of resources. A biosecurity approach considers a wider range of emerging threats impacting on the economy, society and the environment.
Will resources be taken away from weed management to concentrate on the new biosecurity approach?
The Government will continue to support community effort against weeds and pests, however, allocating money for prevention is much more cost-effective than tackling pests once they are established. We want to target invasive species early, reducing their overall impact and long-term costs associated with management.
How does the biosecurity approach work?
It focuses resources on prevention and early intervention against weeds and pests. It identifies and responds to threats based on an assessment of risk and impact across the landscape. It gives priority to high risk weeds and pests that threaten the environment.
Are we doing enough to increase our knowledge of the environment and ecosystem functioning?
We need to do more long-term research and monitoring and better co-ordinate and analyse the current range of data sources that come from the local, state and federal government, industry groups and NGO sector. This data can be used to create long term models on the viability of land management practices and health of biodiversity.
How can we be more strategic with our research?
We need to identify and support research capabilities that have a national application in regard to natural sciences, thus creating a critical mass and greater co-ordination of resources. There should be greater co-ordination between the university sector and state and local government. All public investment in research needs to be based on the premise that it delivers a clear public good or addresses a market failure. Research and development in sustainable farm practices that support biodiversity outcomes has a clear public good.
What do you have in mind for Catchment Management Authorities?
The Government remains committed to the Integrated Catchment Management model. However, we are seeking people’s views about how to improve things further. For example, to get further gains in priority setting, knowledge management, investment, streamlines processes and accountability. Importantly, we are keen to strengthen community and landholder involvement in CMA processes.
