Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation
permitted clearing regulations
Background
• The removal of native vegetation has been regulated in
Victoria since 1989 through the planning system
• A permit is required to remove, lop or destroy native
vegetation unless a right or exemption exists
• The current policy settings (Victoria’s Native Vegetation – A
Framework for Action) have been in place since 2003
• A consultation paper (Future directions for native vegetation
in Victoria) outlining proposed reforms to Victoria’s permitted
clearing regulations was released in September 2012
• On 22 May 2014, the Minister for Environment and Climate
Change released the final package of reforms for
incorporation into planning schemes
• The new arrangements will commence in September 2013
The current policy settings
• The currently policy settings for permitted clearing are
included in Victoria’s Native Vegetation – A Framework for
Action (NRE, 2002) which were incorporated into planning
schemes in 2003.
• The Framework:
– introduced a statewide objective for biodiversity (net gain) and
for permitted clearing (no net loss)
– established methods/concepts to measure and classify different
types of native vegetation (conservation significance, best and
remaining habitat, habitat hectares)
– introduced the three step approach ‘avoid, minimise, offset’ to
the permit process
– established rules for the ‘like-for-like’ offset arrangements
• The requirements of the Framework were used as the basis
for determining obligations under state controls for the
purposes of the Melbourne Strategic Assessment.
The permit process
Pre application
Landholders plan
their project with
regard to
expected costs
and regulatory
outcomes.
Application
Landholders
submit
information on
characteristics of
the native
vegetation to be
removed.
Landholders
demonstrate
avoidance and
minimisation.
Decision making
If permitted, offset
Government
determines
whether
avoidance and
minimisation is
sufficient.
Landholder
undertakes offset
on their own land
or purchases an
offset from a third
party.
Government
decides whether
or not to grant the
permit.
Government
undertakes
activity to monitor
and enforce
permit conditions.
Future directions for native vegetation in Victoria
•
•
On 14 September 2012, the Minister for Environment
and Climate Change released a consultation paper.
Key issues:
– confusion regarding the objective of the regulations
– coarse/subjective systems of measurement and
classification
– costly information requirements, particularly for low
impact permits
– no clear decision guidelines for application of mitigation
hierarchy.
– unworkable offset arrangements: costs not
proportionate; prices volatile; compliance low
– unclear roles and responsibilities between state and
local government.
• The consultation paper proposed four priority reforms and five supporting
reforms.
• More than 200 submissions were received in response to the consultation
paper from stakeholders and members of the community.
Issues with the permit process
Pre application
Landholders plan
their project with
regard to
expected costs
and regulatory
outcomes.
Application
Landholders
submit
information on
characteristics
of the native
vegetation to
be removed.
Decision making
× Costly
and
subjective
Government
determines
whether
× Difficult
avoidance and to assess
minimisation is given lack
of guidance
sufficient.
× Lack of
clear guidance
× System complex
to understand and
navigate
Landholders
demonstrate avoidance
and minimisation.
Government
decides
whether or not
to grant the
permit.
If permitted, offset
Landholder
undertakes
offset on their
own land or
purchases an
offset from a
third party.
× High
cost and
difficult
to source
Government
undertakes
activity to
monitor and
enforce permit
conditions.
× Cost and
× Subjective given
lack of guidance
difficulty of
compliance
makes
enforcement
difficult
Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation
permitted clearing regulations
• Four priority reforms:
– Priority reform 1: Clarify the objective of the native vegetation
permitted clearing regulations
– Priority reform 2: Improve how biodiversity value is measured and
defined
– Priority reform 3: Incorporate risk and proportionality in decision
making
– Priority reform 4: Ensure offsets provide appropriate compensation
to the environment.
• Five supporting reforms:
–
–
–
–
–
Clarify roles and responsibilities of state and local government
Better regulatory performance
Improve offset market functionality
New approaches to compliance and enforcement
Continuous improvement.
Priority reform 1: Clarify the objective of the
native vegetation permitted clearing
regulations
• Address confusion regarding the scope and focus of the
regulations
• Achieved through amendment of the Victoria Planning
Provisions and new incorporated document
– objective amended to ‘no net loss in the contribution made by native
vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity’
– native vegetation clause refined so biodiversity objective is distinct but
considered but alongside other native vegetation objectives (e.g. amenity)
– corresponding amendments made to the State Planning Policy Framework
regarding biodiversity
• Will support greater transparency and accountability particularly
between state and local policy.
Priority reform 2: Improve how biodiversity value
is measured and defined.
• Address concerns regarding the cost and accuracy of existing
systems of measurement and classification
• Move from reliance on information collected at site level and take
advantage of mapped and modelled values provided by spatial
layer:
– streamline site assessment methods to focus on the collection of raw
data at the site level
– adopt modelled outputs for landscape scale information, such as
strategic biodiversity value and habitat importance for rare or threatened
species
• Designed to support consistent application of rules and address
concerns regarding cost and assessor variability
• Supported by commitments to periodically update spatial layers to
incorporate known changes, new data and improved analytical
approaches.
Priority reform 3: Incorporate risk and
proportionality into decision making
• Address lack of consistency in regulatory outcomes.
• Introduce risk-based pathways for assessment of permit
applications.
– enable landholders to self-assess their risk-based pathway using location and basic
proposal information
• Align application, mitigation and offset requirements to reflect risk
and proportion of impact.
– no additional information required, no mitigation required and general offset
requirements for low risk-based pathway permits
– site-based validation, mitigation and offset requirements in proportion to risk and
impact for moderate and high risk-based pathway.
• Designed to minimise administrative burden and ensure
compliance costs (in the form of offsets) are proportionate to
impact.
Decision making under current policy settings
Permits to remove native
vegetation are typically
small:
- 90 per cent of DEPIreferred permits have
24 per cent of impact.
- DEPI-referred
permits account for
only one third of
permits (remaining
permits are decided
by local government)
• No differentiated pathway to guide assessment and decision making
• Uncertain and unpredictable outcomes and disproportionate costs,
particularly for small impacts.
Risk-based pathways in practice
•
Risk determined by:
• Location risk (from
location risk map)
• Extent risk (size of
clearing)
•
Risk-based pathways
enable landholder to get
a clear indication of their
likely regulatory
experience using basic
information.
•
Risk-based pathways
improve certainty,
reduce costs and
support proportionate
decision making.
Priority reform 4: Ensure that offsets provide
appropriate compensation to the environment
• Address concerns regarding offset market functionality
– difficult to source cost-effective offsets, particularly for small
impacts
– offset market subject to delays, volatile prices
– low levels of compliance with offset obligations
• Redesign offset requirements to reflect significance of
impact:
– general offset: For impacts deemed to be low or not significant,
offsets focused on securing high value biodiversity assets.
– specific offset: For significant impact on species habitat, offsets
need to specially compensate for that impact.
• Supported by establishment of low cost compliance
pathways including over-the-counter schemes, property
vegetation plans.
The reformed permit process
Pre application
Landholders plan
their project with
regard to
expected costs
and regulatory
outcomes.
 System
accessible and
easy to understand.
Landholders able
to get an
understanding of
their likely
regulatory
experience through
provision of basic
information.
Application
Landholders
submit
information on
characteristics
of the native
vegetation to
be removed.
Decision making
 Risk
based
pathways for
assessment.
Majority of
applications
able to be
completed
without
specialist
advice.
Landholders
demonstrate avoidance
and minimisation.
Government
determines
whether
avoidance and
minimisation is
sufficient.
 Clear
Landholder
undertakes
decision
guidelines
offset on their
regarding
own land or
any
purchases an
mitigation
requirements offset from a
third party.
Government
decides
whether or not
to grant the
permit.
 Clear link
 Application of
mitigation based on
risk and impact
If permitted, offset
between information
provided and
decision making
process
 Costs
designed to
be
proportionate
to impact
Government
undertakes
activity to
monitor and
enforce permit
conditions.
Improved
compliance with
permit conditions
due to proportionate
outcomes and well
functioning offset
arrangements.
What the reforms mean for planning
• Change to the biodiversity clause 12 in SPPF
– clearly sets objectives and expectations for strategic
planning and site based decision making
– ‘no net loss’ stated as the objective for permitted
clearing (not ‘net gain’)
– removal of Biodiversity Strategies sub clause
• Changes to clause 52.17 Native vegetation
– ‘no net loss’ as the stated objective in this clause
– biodiversity considerations made separate from other
native vegetation management objectives
– embeds risk-based pathways for application
requirements and decision making guidelines
Benefits of the reforms for local government
• Clearer process for applying the state’s native vegetation
biodiversity requirements
• No specialist knowledge required to apply rules in
relation to biodiversity for low-risk applications
• Increased support available for local government:
– strategic planning for biodiversity
– compliance and enforcement of native vegetation rules
– setting up over-the-counter offset schemes
Next steps
• Information sessions for local government to be held
around Victoria
• Period for councils to familiarise themselves with the
changes
• Training to be provided by DEPI
• Amendments to take effect in September 2013
Supporting reforms
Supporting reforms have been identified to support the
implementation of the regulations and improve
performance of the regulatory system.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Define State and Local Government planning roles
Better regulatory performance
Improve offset market functionality
New approaches to compliance and enforcement
Continuous improvement
Benefits of the reforms
•
Better targeted environmental outcomes:
– improved systems of measurement and classification to support identification of
important native vegetation
– clear link between risk and impact of a proposal and the decision making
guidelines
– increased compliance with offset obligations due to new rules
•
A system that is accessible and easy to understand
– clearer guidance and information about processes
– reduced complexity in understanding and meeting obligations
•
Improved certainty for landholders and the environment:
– provision of upfront information to support awareness in the community
– improved regulatory design regarding information, decision making and
compensation
•
Reduced costs to the community
– streamlined information requirements to reduce reliance on costly specialist
advice
– offset arrangements designed so that costs are in proportion to impacts and
rules are simplified to support compliance.
Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation
permitted clearing regulations
Communication and information documents
Overview:
•
Minister’s foreword
•
Summary of documents
•
Implementation
schedule
Summary of
consultation process:
• Summary of
consultation process
• Key issues raised
regarding priority
reforms
• Response on how they
are dealt with in the
reforms
Amendments to the
Victoria Planning
Provisions:
• Guide to the changes
to the Victoria
Planning Provisions
Biodiversity
information tools for
use in native
vegetation decisions
• Provides a summary
of the biodiversity
information tools
(spatial layers) that
have been developed
to support the reforms
Reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation
permitted clearing regulations
Regulatory documents
Biodiversity assessment
guidelines
• Replaces Framework as
incorporated document in
the VPP
• Outlines objective,
application requirements,
decision guidelines and
offset obligations
Native vegetation gain
scoring manual
• Outlines offset
standards, scoring
system and
arrangements for
establishing offsets.