Better, smarter management of our biodiversity (Chapter 8) by DELWP Biodiversity

BETTER, SMARTER MANAGEMENT OF OUR BIODIVERSITY

To achieve our biodiversity goals, we need a clear plan that all Victorians can work to. The plan needs to provide the right information for decision making, set clear priorities, and use approaches that maximise biodiversity gain.

RELEVANT GOAL

To ensure that Victoria’s natural environment is healthy. Many thousands of Victorians are actively involved in rebuilding our biodiversity, not only for the immediate benefits to our society, but also for the benefit of future generations. They contribute in a variety of roles, from volunteering at the community level to land management, investment and the design and enforcement of environmental regulations. As the biodiversity conservation sector has grown in size and influence, there has also been a diversification of roles and ways of doing business in the sector. Amid these changes, it is now time for a modern plan for Victoria’s biodiversity that we can all work to and that consolidates our strengths. Government will play a critical role as the steward of this system, helping each party to make the most effective contribution to the big picture goals. With Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2036, the Victorian Government is aiming to put the state on a smarter and more efficient pathway to a healthy natural environment. Essential components of the plan include: • The right mix of approaches to address biodiversity decline in different situations; • A shared information base for consistent biodiversity decision-making; • A modernised planning, investment and regulatory framework for biodiversity; and • Strengthened accountability arrangements to deliver measurable improvements to Victoria’s biodiversity.

A modern plan will enable Victoria to be adaptable to a changing environment – particularly with the onset of climate change – and will improve and strengthen alignment between government agencies, non-government organisations and the community. The key components of a modernised framework form the basis of this draft plan and are described in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Regional and community level conservation planning process CONSISTENT INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

STRATEGIC POLICY DIRECTION

CONSERVATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Articulates long-term vision, principles, goals/outcomes and overarching approach to guide decision making and investment across scales and tenures

Statewide targets

Consistent, integrated spatial approach to set priorities for biodiversity planning

Regional targets

Regulation

Research

Conservation reserve systems

Investment

Education

Voluntary approaches

PORTFOLIO OF APPROACHES

Regional biodiversity conservation planning process

REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY LEVEL CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS

Regional Biodiversity Investment Prospectus

Regional biodiversity implementation (priorities can also be delivered through implementation of statewide programs)

Outcomes reporting

EVALUATION AND REPORTING

Delivery and performance

Adaptive management and decision making

Meeting climate change and other management challenges Climate change challenges To achieve our long-term goal of a healthy natural environment, we need to progressively halt the overall level of biodiversity decline across landscapes and seascapes, and continue targeted improvement of biodiversity. This requires active and deliberate management intervention. However, the complexity of natural systems and the increasing level of uncertainty due to climate change make it difficult to decide which conservation efforts will be most worthwhile.

• Encourage gene mixing (where appropriate) to increase the genetic “fitness” of populations to adapt to a changing environment. This could lead to reduced emphasis on the use of “local provenance” material in revegetation projects or mean we are more likely to favour translocation of individuals between populations. Ensure that incursions of new and emerging pests are promptly managed and if possible, eradicated.

A changing climate will bring inevitable challenges for native species, which will need to cope with changing distributions and ecological relationships. Due to the complex interactions between environmental factors such as drought and competition between species, our ability to predict the future for each species is far from perfect and we must manage and make decisions against this background of uncertainty.

• Plan for dramatic changes in habitat where assessments indicate such change is inevitable. Examples of such changes could include a rise in sea levels, or more frequent fire. This approach could include replacing a struggling native species with another (see Alpine Ash case study), the removal of barriers to the inland migration of mangroves and saltmarsh impacted by rising sea levels, or translocation of species populations to additional locations to reduce the risk of complete loss of the species. Develop clear decision-making processes for how and when to respond to immediate biodiversity emergencies such as threats to the survival of species due to major bushfire or drought events.

To help biodiversity adapt to and maximise opportunities for survival under climate change, we will use the following management approaches: • Maintain or improve high quality, intact landscapes and seascapes. • Improve habitat management to restore threatened habitats and relieve other pressures on ecosystems and species – such as from habitat fragmentation and destruction, pest plants and animals, fire, flooding, grazing and pollution. This should improve resilience to climate change. • Enhance opportunities for species to disperse and interact within the landscape by reducing the isolation of protected areas, strengthening habitat networks and increasing the amount of available habitat. Where there are barriers to natural dispersal, or populations are isolated, undertake direct actions such as translocation of species. • Enhance habitat diversity and extent – for example, by increasing protection of remnants in areas of high environmental diversity, or creating new habitats by creation of artificial reefs or wetlands, or revegetation with “climateready” plants, such as species and genetic varieties that are most likely to survive in a newly hotter, drier climate. In some instances this may involve sourcing plants from other areas in Victoria, or even elsewhere in Australia.

• Take an adaptive approach to land and conservation management, which will involve changing objectives and management actions in response to new information. Managing the impacts of climate change may also provide additional benefits and opportunities for Victorians. As outlined in the Plan Melbourne Refresh Discussion Paper, the benefits that may arise include improving our health (e.g. better air quality, less exposure to heatwaves) and creating a more liveable city (a greener more attractive cityscape). Through early action we have the opportunity to see these benefits, and avoid the significant and escalating costs of inaction.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 18 What do you think of actively introducing species to new locations, or actively mixing genes within populations, as part of adaptation to climate change?

VicNature 2050: 10 things we can all do to help nature adapt to a new climate In late 2015, over 200 scientists and participants attended a symposium Managing Victoria’s Biodiversity under Climate Change, organised by the Victorian National Parks Association, The Royal Society of Victoria and The University of Melbourne’s Bio21 Institute. The symposium resulted in the presentation of 10 ideas that could help address the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. These ideas are: 1. Listen, engage and work with people 2. Accept natural areas will change 3. Protect reserves, look after nature on private land 4. Remove threats such as clearing, weeds and feral animals 5. Use natural processes like fire, floods to promote diversity 6. Connect landscapes using climate-ready plants 7. Welcome nature into our cities 8. Record changes in our local area 9. Promote diversity in all that we do 10. Stay positive, informed and engaged More information on VicNature 2050 and the 10 initiatives is available at www.vicnature2050.org

CASE STUDY

Alpine Ash regeneration It is now generally accepted that climate change will result in more frequent and more severe bushfires. This scenario has already started playing out in parts of Victoria’s Alpine National Park. Several major bushfires within only a few years have resulted in widespread death of alpine ash trees and the seed-crop that would enable the species to regenerate. Facing a likely pattern of more frequent fire into the future under climate change leaves land managers with some important choices. Should we replant alpine ash at these sites, knowing that they will need to survive fire for several decades before they are again able to regenerate? Alternatively, should we replant with a more climate-ready (but benign) eucalypt species that performs a similar functional role (including provision of hollows for threatened animal species) but is better able to survive fire?

Other management challenges Although climate change is a likely “game-changer”, it is not the only challenge for our management of biodiversity. We manage for a range of reasons – to provide ongoing conservation and protection, to allow sustainable harvesting of wildlife (e.g. fish stocks), to reduce native plants that have become environmental weeds, and to control over-abundant wildlife. In some cases a native species might become a problem to other species, through, for example, competition, exclusion, or by altering habitats. This occurs when a species has spread or been moved out of its natural range; when natural controls to its numbers are removed; or when it is limited to an area and can’t move out of it because of barriers to dispersal. It is then that managers have to decide whether it is enough of a threat to itself, to other species or to its habitat to justify action. Examples of native species that sometimes require management intervention to protect other biodiversity values include: • Kangaroos, which in some rural areas have increased in numbers due to the increase in reliable water supplies (e.g. stock watering) and pasture for grazing. High numbers of kangaroos can exert high grazing pressure on native plants and wildflowers, a bit like rabbits, and can destroy habitat that ground-dwelling native animals may need to survive. • Noisy Miners, a native honeyeater that aggressively excludes other native birds from favoured woodland habitat. Where woodlands have declined or become fragmented, competition for habitat resources increases, and the Noisy Miner has a significant impact on the survival of other birds. • Sweet Pittosporum is one of the many native plants that, when grown out of their natural area, can become “environmental weeds”. Sweet Pittosporum is a small tree native to coastal wet forests in far eastern Victoria. It is very popular in domestic gardens. It has now become widespread and naturalised in bushland areas outside its range where it affects native habitats through shading, competition and changes in soil nutrients. • Burgan, a tall, fast-growing shrub that, without the natural controls of grazing and natural fire regimes, out-competes other young trees and shrubs and shades out ground-layer plants. It‘s a particular threat to native grasslands in some areas of the state.

Introduced species are another primary cause of biodiversity decline; new marine pests and environmental weeds are emerging regularly. Although Victoria has implemented successful programs to control a number of widespread introduced species, there is a need for a more consolidated, consistent and sustained approach that can effectively tackle key threats such as feral cats – along with over-abundant wildlife and new and emerging threats that we are not yet aware of. But dealing with such threats can be complicated by considerations other than biodiversity, including animal welfare, cultural heritage and hunting (e.g. wild horses and deer). Our approach must therefore recognise that sections of the community value some of these species for particular reasons. Managing bushfires and their effects is also far from straightforward when it comes to protecting biodiversity. Depending on their frequency and type, fires can have significant positive or negative effects on biodiversity. The interaction of fires with other drivers of decline (such as animal pests and weeds) is also complex and not yet well understood. Nonetheless, Victoria’s new approach to fire planning – which divides the state into seven Bushfire Risk Landscapes, and includes extensive community input and solid science – is progressively finding ways to tackle these challenges. It has already shown how ecological values can be included in decision making. The Government’s approach to bushfire management will continue to evolve based on expert advice, current research and recent advances in emergency management planning. The recently released Victorian Government policy ‘Safer Together,’ sets out a new approach to bushfire management. This new approach will combine stronger community partnerships with the latest science to more effectively target actions to reduce bushfire risk. This will ensure fire management actions will be right for the local environment and driven by local community input. Safer Together accepts the recommendations of the InspectorGeneral for Emergency Management’s review of performance targets for bushfire fuel management on public land. Under the new approach, the Victorian Government will introduce a risk reduction target from 1 July 2016, replacing previous hectare targets.

Over-abundant native animals Native sea urchins (Heliocidaris erthyrogramma) have undergone significant population expansion in Corner Inlet, and have been creating ‘urchin barrens’ by grazing on seagrass meadows. They naturally occur there, and no one knows why the populations have suddenly grown, nor how badly they might impact the seagrass meadows that are so important for biodiversity, and consequently for commercial fishers.

The conservation reserve system and resource-use challenges Another major challenge involves how we reconcile competing demands on our land, waterways and seas. If we want a healthy environment, we need to enhance Victoria’s contribution to the National Reserve System, which covers both public and private land and waters, and is primarily managed for biodiversity conservation. The current management and extent of Victoria’s contribution to the National Reserve System may not in itself be sufficient to achieve our goal of a healthy natural environment. Some species and habitat types are well represented in the reserve system, while others are significantly under-represented, since they occur predominantly in agricultural or peri-urban landscapes. (For example, on the Victorian Volcanic Plains bioregion, only 1.3 per cent of the native vegetation is in conservation reserves, and in the Wimmera, only 1.5 per cent.) To deal with potential land use conflicts, it has been suggested that a ‘land sparing’ approach, where agriculture is intensified sustainably and is more clearly separated from areas managed for conservation, can most effectively reconcile biodiversity and land scarcity requirements. The alternative is a ‘land sharing’ approach, where lower-yield agriculture occurs over an increasing area but uses more ‘biodiversity-friendly’ techniques. While both approaches may have their place in Victoria’s future landscapes, we must make better use of regional land-use and marine planning under different climate scenarios to help us decide: • Where and how we set aside additional protected areas to meet baseline biodiversity targets; • Where and how we identify intensive production areas to meet our increasing human needs; • How we can better reconcile interactions between biodiversity conservation and other resource uses (such as sustainable agriculture, fisheries and urban development); and • The timing and location of interventions in changing landscapes and seascapes (e.g. alpine areas and coastlines) to relocate critical species and to identify suitable receiving locations.

The intended outcome for Victoria is: • A comprehensive, adequate and representative protected area system that:

- continues to be the cornerstone of conserving biodiversity

- contains representative populations of most of the state’s plant and animal species and major ecosystems, in terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments

- provides places where under climate change, new combinations of native plants and animals can establish, grow and evolve

- is well managed to best practice standards to increase the contribution of biodiversity outcomes, largely through mitigation of key threats.

• Other public land and waters that are not primarily managed for conservation (e.g. road and rail reserves, State Forests, recreation areas) are managed to deliver conservation outcomes as a secondary benefit, and complement the reserve system. • Expanded private land stewardship areas (managed under covenants, agreements, incentives, partnerships etc.) that are financially productive and biodiverse landscapes, and include species and habitats that may be poorly represented or not included in the formal reserve system. The priority should be on permanent protection. This will be particularly important in regions and ecosystems where the proportion of public land to private is low, and where the reserve system is not sufficiently large or representative.

Role of protected areas on public land The protected area system on public land and waters (which includes national parks, flora and fauna reserves, and marine protected areas) is the backbone of Victoria’s conservation management system. Our long history of public land use planning Victorian Environment Assessment Council (VEAC), Land Conservation Council) has delivered a reserve system with relatively comprehensive inclusion of types of environments and habitats. However the pressures of climate change and changing circumstances of species mean the protected area system may be less adequate for conserving species than was originally expected. Regular reviews of the extent, representativeness and adequacy of the reserve system (particularly in times of climate change) and additional complementary measures on private land will be important for this backbone to continue to function as effectively as it has in the past. VEAC will play a crucial role in reviewing the extent and adequacy of the reserve system. VEAC conducts investigations that are requested by the Victorian Government relating to the protection and ecologically sustainable management of the environment and natural resources of public land.

PRIORITY 13 & 14 Establish a whole-of-government approach to ensure effective and timely response to tackle the most pressing biodiversity threats on public and private land. Deliver excellence in national park and conservation reserve management, and ensure that the system is sufficiently adequate and comprehensive to provide its core function as the backbone of nature conservation in a changing environment.

Achieving biodiversity improvements on private land involves many organisations and a variety of programs, that provide opportunities for landholders to get involved at different levels of commitment. The Trust for Nature, Conservation Management Networks, non-government conservation organisations (e.g. Bush Heritage Australia), Landcare and Land for Wildlife are all prime examples of organisations involved in private land conservation. There is an opportunity to strengthen, align and better coordinate action in this sector to ensure that our current arrangements are the most effective for biodiversity conservation.

Role of private land Private land has a critical role in conserving biodiversity and the network of private protected areas (e.g. Trust for Nature covenants) makes an important contribution to the state and national reserve system. In some parts of the state (e.g. the Victorian Volcanic Plains), very little of the most important habitats, such as endangered native grasslands, occur in the public reserve system. Some of the best and biggest grasslands, and threatened grassland species, occur mostly on private land. These grasslands have a history of light grazing, and continue to be productive grazing farms at the same time as they support important biodiversity values.

CASE STUDY

Trust for Nature In northern Victoria, between 1998 and 2010, Trust for Nature (TfN) undertook a partnership with the then Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) to conserve the critically endangered Northern Plains Grasslands. TfN undertook a targeted program of land purchase and covenanting, to supplement the existing and DSE-acquired conservation reserves. This created a landscape-scale, ecologically connected network of public and private land reserves on the Avoca and Patho Plains, with both public and private land managed to complement each other, using mutually agreed practices.

Environmental land stewardship standards There is a need to explore options to develop clear standards of land stewardship. Having such standards can contribute to the ongoing maintenance of public good values. Such standards should be designed to reward those who do the right thing and leave their land in good condition for future generations. They can also help to provide practical guidance to land managers on how to meet existing statutory obligations. The Victorian Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (s20) includes a requirement for land owners to conserve soil, protect water resources and control weeds and pests. Environmental land stewardship standards would not impose new regulation, but could build on this concept in a voluntary way, with the inclusion of other specific outcomes (e.g. maintaining the presence and regeneration of canopy trees over time, or maintaining current habitat condition). In the first instance the standards could be a set of principles that landholders could use to benchmark their land management practices. On private land that is under voluntary protection, meeting the environmental land stewardship standards would be voluntary but could be encouraged in different ways. For example, they could be linked to incentives and participation in government investment programs. Alternatively, they could be used as the basis of a standard ‘sustainability report’ issued when land is sold, as a signal to buyers and others of the status of the land (e.g. through a star rating system). More broadly, the standards could be integrated into a voluntary “biodiversity code of practice” for key industries to facilitate development of accreditation programs, markets or green bonds (see chapter 7, Investing together to protect our environment). On public land, the standards could help clarify existing statutory obligations and provide practical guidance to management activities. Land managers would be expected to meet the standards, but would show leadership and make further improvements to biodiversity condition.

PRIORITY 15 Significantly increase the extent of private land under voluntary permanent protection and managed under conservation stewardship arrangements and improve the management of protected land now and in the future, to strategically complement the protected area system.

Choosing the right tool for the right job In order to effectively address biodiversity decline and meet our biodiversity goals, we need the right combinations of tools in the right circumstances. For example, to work towards our policy goal of net gain (see adjacent panel) the management of Victoria’s native vegetation must involve investment in the protection and restoration of native vegetation, the management of weeds and pests, and the regulation of permitted clearing. While Victoria’s loss of native vegetation is estimated at about 4,000 habitat hectares per annum, it is important to note that different sources of vegetation loss have different levels of impact, as shown in Figure. 3 in Chapter 2. For example, loss due to permitted clearing is a relatively small part of the total annual loss of native vegetation (and is required by law to be offset by improvements elsewhere), whereas losses due to current natural resource disturbance regimes, such as weeds or excessive grazing, are likely to be much greater, and losses due to routine land use (which are outside the regulatory system and are not therefore offset) are much greater again. This demonstrates that the drivers of decline are those outside of the current regulatory offset system, and that it is essential to use the right combination of tools (e.g. not only regulation) that will address all the impacts that result in the loss of native vegetation.

If we broaden our consideration of biodiversity decline to waterways and marine environments, we need to consider the legacy of historical impacts that may make some species populations unviable, or the impacts of feral predators on our native animals. Water availability, water quality (which can be harmed by catchment pollution and rubbish), and unsustainable exploitation of particular species or habitat components, are other key impacts affecting marine and freshwater environments. These drivers of decline require different responses. Figure 8 summarises the different types of impacts and the combination of tools we need to manage some of the key drivers of biodiversity decline effectively.

Native Vegetation The objective for the regulation of permitted native vegetation clearing is no net loss in the contribution that native vegetation makes to Victoria’s biodiversity, through the application of the three step approach; avoid, minimise and offset. A review of the native vegetation regulations is currently underway to ensure the regulations sensibly protect sensitive vegetation. At a broader level, the Victorian Government remains committed to achieving an overall ‘net gain’, expressed as an improvement in the overall extent and condition of native habitats across terrestrial and marine environments. Not all habitats or vegetation types will need to be improved or increased in order to achieve this goal, but overall gains will need to outweigh losses. The most important places to achieve gains and to avoid losses, are locations with higher relative contribution to biodiversity benefit (as discussed elsewhere in this chapter).

Figure 8: Examples of drivers of decline: impacts and available treatments

IMPACTS OF PERMITTED ACTIVITIES

Ensure harvest is within ecological sustainable levels; and/or require regulatory offsets.

CURRENT REGULATORY INTERVENTION

IMPACTS OF USE OR ‘HARVEST’ THAT IS NOT OFFSET

IMPACTS OF CONTROLLED MANAGEMENT REGIMES

IMPACTS OF INTRODUCED THREATS

LEGACIES DUE TO HISTORICAL IMPACTS

Expand targeted control programs of feral predators (e.g. feral cats).

Counter-balance with investment to re-establish habitat & replenish or move populations.

Regulate to reduce scope of impacts; Enforce legal requirements; Establish voluntary stewardship standards; and/or counter-balance with investment.

REGULATORY AND/OR INVESTMENT OPTIONS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED

RELEVANT OBJECTIVES Halt the overall decline of threatened species and secure the greatest possible number of species in the wild in the face of climate change. Improve the overall extent and condition of native habitats across terrestrial, coastal, marine and freshwater environments. Improve ecological regimes to best support biodiversity in a changing environment.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 19, 20, 21 & 22 How do you think we should address the impacts of feral cat predation on wildlife in areas of high biodiversity value? What does environmental land stewardship mean to you and how might this help you manage the natural environment? Do you think there could be some negative consequences of voluntary environmental land stewardship standards? What do you think are the appropriate options to use to address the various impacts and drivers of decline? What type of regional land-use planning approach would you prefer to reconcile the trade-offs required at landscape scale as part of our adaptation to climate change?

Improving information management and decision making To conserve biodiversity, we need to be able to make informed decisions about how, why and where to act. Knowledge and information are essential to good decision making for Victorian biodiversity. We need to know what requires management, what are the best management techniques and what are the areas where we can achieve the best outcomes at least cost. We need to consider factors such as the relative risks, benefits and cost effectiveness of different options, their likelihood of success and opportunities for engagement with community and other partners. Information on government’s priorities, regulations, standards and procedures will be made transparent, clear and easily available through a new web-based biodiversity information portal that is accessible to the public. This will enable all sectors of the community to understand both obligations and opportunities for protecting threatened species and communities. The development of the new Strategic Management Prospects tool will be pivotal in identifying conservation priorities that have the greatest potential to deliver the best biodiversity returns on investment. It is also essential that we use the same information base to determine regulatory effort and investment priorities. This will help us to achieve consistency in our choices about where to act and where we most want to regulate potentially harmful activities. It will also allow us to use standard reporting, and to help us understand whether we have the right mix of tools. A wide range of knowledge and information is available from government agencies, NGOs, researchers, community groups, traditional owners and “citizen science” projects. The challenge is to ensure such information is current, accurate and available to all Victorians. The Government and key partners must continue to identify critical knowledge gaps, coordinate core datasets, and ensure that information is integrated across land, marine and freshwater environments, private and public land, habitats and species. Providing the community with accessible and equitable access to information and sharing information between research and delivery partners will enable more robust and transparent decision making. For example, interactive information systems can provide opportunities for the community to contribute local biodiversity information to the shared knowledge base. An example is the SWIFFT website, a knowledge-sharing network for people with an interest in threatened species and biodiversity conservation.

Due to the complexity of our biodiversity and its management requirements, we need to make decisions that will give us the “best bang for our buck” – that is, we need to invest in projects and places that provide maximum benefits for a wide range of biodiversity assets (e.g. threatened species and ecological communities, species essential for ecosystem function) at least cost. To do this, decision support tools that are consistent, integrated and location-based have been developed to assist with better decision making. These tools will continue to allow us to set goals, targets and priorities. Their use is described in further detail later in this section, under Conservation planning and investment for biodiversity, and Regulatory and legislative framework. Since these tools depend on good information, we will need to invest in acquiring and verifying information that allows us to make ongoing improvement to the tools, and therefore better decisions. An important component of the Government’s information management role is publicly reporting how Victoria’s biodiversity is faring over medium and longer-term timescales, and the effectiveness of management actions. The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability is embarking on a reform process to improve Victoria’s State of the Environment (SoE) reporting beginning with the release of the Framework for the Victorian 2018 State of the Environment Report: State and Benefit. It aims to establish Victoria as a leader in environmental reporting. It commences a reform journey that will continue past the 2018 SoE reporting cycle to deliver a shift to digital reporting, introduce a set of agreed statewide indicators to help make Victoria’s many environmental reports comparable, and will take into account the socio-economic values of our natural capital. It will report on climate change impact and adaptation indicators and will align with international frameworks - the United Nation’s (UN) System of Environmental-Economic Accounts (SEEA) and the new UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Reporting on management effectiveness enables us to measure our return on investment, and demonstrate accountability for government spending. It can identify projects that are working successfully, which may encourage further investment. Reporting also enables us to conduct adaptive management – that is, to refine and adjust actions according to changing situations and information. DELWP will design programs to enable reporting of management effectiveness and will collate and publicly report the results through progressive program evaluations.

SWIFFT SWIFFT (State Wide Integrated Flora and Fauna Teams) is a virtual nature conservation network supported by the Ballarat Environment Network, Federation University Australia and the Victorian Government. It brings together farmers, land and natural resource managers, universities, NGOs, community groups and individuals to share information and learn about threatened species, conservation and community projects. http://www.swifft.net.au

Leadbeater’s Possum interactive map A new Leadbeater’s Possum Interactive map provides public access to up-to-date spatial information on one of Victoria’s most endangered marsupials. The map includes the location of: • Leadbeater’s Possum colonies, including pre-existing records, new colonies identified through targeted surveys and colonies verified from community reports. • Areas where there is a greater than 65 per cent modelled probability of occupancy by Leadbeater’s Possums. • Areas where DELWP has undertaken targeted surveys to identify up to 200 new colonies (from February 2014). The Leadbeater’s Possum Interactive map can be accessed at: http://lbp.cerdi.edu.au/possum_map.php

CASE STUDY

Spatial decision support tools Spatial (location-based) analyses are essential for understanding and integrating natural resource information, and for producing powerful tools to disseminate these insights to a broad audience. DELWP is developing an approach through NaturePrint to facilitate a multi-species, multi-threat Victoria-wide view of protection and management options. NaturePrint provides the potential for shared, readily available information that can be incorporated early on into decision-making processes. The NaturePrint tools are evidence-based, transparent and repeatable. They can maintain these essential characteristics and yet incorporate new information as it becomes available. The tools help to guide strategic directions and give landscapescale information that can be applied to a range of purposes. One of the tools, Strategic Management Prospects, identifies areas and actions with the highest potential return on investment for biodiversity conservation. Strategic Management Prospects will be a key element in our modernised conservation planning and investment processes.

Another tool, Strategic Biodiversity Value, identifies the relative priority of areas for protection based on the importance of the values found there. Other decision-making tools allow examination of individual values and threats. The information is structured to allow scenario testing as people and groups bring their individual questions and improve their ways of doing conservation. See pull-out brochure for further detail on the types of biodiversity conservation questions these tools can address.

PRIORITY 16, 17 & 18 Ensure that all activities that impact on biodiversity are consistently and transparently reported at statewide level. For those activities that are outside the regulatory system, counterbalance these impacts through investment, management or other means. Significantly increase our collection of targeted data for evidence based and adaptive decision making and information products that underpin reporting. Deliver the most cost-effective biodiversity outcomes by developing world best practice decision support tools to identify areas and activities that will inform state and regional planning and local community decision making.

Delivering an effective legislative and regulatory framework The regulatory framework for biodiversity in Victoria is complex. It comprises laws and regulations designed to deal specifically with the protection of biodiversity, as well as laws that deal primarily with other matters but may include provisions relating to biodiversity. Regulatory obligations and processes are sometimes not clear; nor are they always streamlined and predictable for businesses and the wider community. Improvements are needed to help ensure that protection for areas and assets of highest value for biodiversity is well integrated across the framework, and that biodiversity is given early consideration in decision making. Our land use planning system provides a good opportunity to do this and it will be important to strengthen links between relevant legislation to assist the achievement of this outcome (e.g. the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988). Our experience demonstrates that strategic approaches to infrastructure planning and environmental approvals deliver improved results for the environment and the economy. Early identification of spatial options for investment and development, combined with clear and quantifiable regulatory standards, enables proponents to consider and select investment options that minimise regulatory compliance costs. This applies to biodiversity approvals (see Melbourne Strategic Assessment case study) but also applies to other environmental approvals including those undertaken by the Environment Protection Authority. Furthermore, by grouping together projects or programs, offsets can be delivered in a timely way and at scale that reduces administration and delay costs. The establishment of Infrastructure Victoria represents a significant opportunity to establish a coordinated whole-of-government approach to infrastructure planning and strategic environmental approvals. Inclusion of biodiversity data from a range of sources (e.g. State of the Bays and State of the Environment Reports), will ensure the needs of biodiversity underpin regional planning outcomes. In light of the above issues, the Victorian Government is committed to progressively reviewing the regulatory framework for biodiversity to ensure that it achieves the objectives of Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2036 and is consistent with best practice regulatory principles. This process will begin with reviews of the FFG Act and Native Vegetation Clearing Regulations. The Government is also committed to providing opportunities to consider the needs of coastal and marine biodiversity through the creation of a Marine and Coastal Act.

The aim of the progressive review will be to strengthen the framework to: • Integrate legislation and regulations for biodiversity to ensure that obligations and processes are clear, streamlined and predictable, and that unnecessary regulation is reduced; • Provide a strategic and risk-based approach to enable regulatory effort to be focused where it will achieve the greatest benefits for biodiversity and meet overarching objectives; • Enable biodiversity to be considered early in decision-making processes so that adverse impacts are avoided where possible and cumulative effects are taken into account; • Ensure regulatory obligations are applied consistently across land tenures and regulated parties, including public authorities, industry sectors and land owners; • Ensure investment and regulatory activities, and decisions across government, are complementary and consistent with the objectives of this plan; • Enable periodic evaluation of regulatory approaches and impact-mitigation measures (e.g. authorisations, offsets) to ensure that they are achieving their objective; • Improve accountability, transparency and public participation mechanisms to ensure that governments are accountable for their decisions, and that the public has equitable opportunities to get involved in important decisions for biodiversity; and • Provide a risk-based approach to compliance and enforcement, along with measures that create an effective deterrent against ‘non-compliance. In addition, encourage regulated parties to voluntarily improve monitoring, reporting and evaluation processes – including periodic regulatory reviews – to better enable governments and the community to determine progress against objectives and to encourage responses that are well informed and adaptive. The review will provide direction on how to improve protection to the areas of highest value for biodiversity, identified through the statewide standard information base (see the previous section, Information and decision making), and how to provide greater certainty about the level of protection provided.

It is important to ensure that industry and business benefit from greater investment certainty and reduced delay costs, and that industry beneficiaries continue to receive low cost ecosystem services.

CASE STUDY

This could be achieved by establishing clearer thresholds in planning and approval regimes, to provide a consistent and riskbased process. It will be important that the areas of highest value for biodiversity are a focus of government support, particularly where these areas are on private land, while being respectful of landowners’ rights and aspirations for their land. Opportunities will be identified to incorporate the standard statewide information base (see the previous section) into assessment and decision-making processes across the regulatory framework. In implementing the statewide information base, consideration will be given to how information on biodiversity values specific to a site can be used as part of decision-making processes. As part of the review, activities that have a negative impact on biodiversity, but are not subject to regulatory controls, (see section under The right tool for the right job in this chapter) will be reviewed to determine whether the regulatory system has appropriate coverage.

PRIORITY 19 Deliver an effective, best-practice regulatory and legislative framework to protect our habitats for future generations and support the achievement of Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2036.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 23 What do you think of the proposed approaches overall to manage Victoria’s biodiversity? Which ones do you like and which do you have problems with? Are there any missing?

Melbourne Strategic Assessment The Melbourne Strategic Assessment (MSA) conducted under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is an example of a strategic approach to regulation. The MSA assessed the impacts of urban development in Melbourne’s growth corridors on biodiversity, including matters of national environmental significance listed under the EPBC Act, and set out a range of conservation measures to mitigate these impacts. These conservation measures included the establishment of a 15,000 hectare grassland reserve and a 1,200 hectare grassy eucalypt woodland reserve outside the urban growth boundary to offset the impacts of urban development on native grasslands and woodlands. Thirty-six new conservation areas were also created within the growth corridors. Conservation measures will be delivered through a $1 billion habitat compensation scheme. The Victorian Government has estimated the MSA will result in $500 million worth of savings in regulatory costs for industry over the life of the program.

Modernising conservation planning and investment for biodiversity Victoria’s conservation planning and investment approach is dated, inconsistent, complex and fragmented. To achieve the biodiversity goals described in Chapter 3, we need to update our approach and ensure that there is integration across public and private land, as well as different environments (terrestrial, marine and freshwater). We also need to be more agile in responding to new issues, and leverage new funding into biodiversity. We need a clear accountability framework that includes targets, and enables adaptive management and timely decision-making. The key to the new approach is building and maintaining partnerships with those involved in implementing action to conserve biodiversity. This section outlines the new approach to conservation planning and investment with a deliberate focus on biodiversity. However, it is imperative that in the implementation of this approach there is integration across all on-ground action (e.g. fuel management).

Key characteristics of the new approach to conservation planning and investment: • A consistent, spatial approach to biodiversity planning. This needs to integrate species, habitat and processes and support effectiveness across the entire sector. • Remain flexible and adaptive to changes in Victoria’s environmental condition and climate. • Integrated consideration of all threatened species to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of decisions, and to streamline communication of outcomes. • Clearly defined roles and responsibilities that are understood by all partners. • Collaborative governance arrangements at the regional and state level to ensure alignment between biodiversity programs. • A clear record of accountabilities, decisions and actions. • Engages communities, partners and stakeholders in the planning process.

Figure 9: shows the proposed new approach to conservation planning and investment.

ACCOUNTABILITY

LEADERSHIP

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING

USING A CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED SPATIAL APPROACH TO SET BIODIVERSITY PRIORITIES TO ENSURE THAT VICTORIA’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS HEALTHY

Review progress, respond to new information and modify approach to achieve targets (as required)

This information will be used to guide where we invest and where we regulate throughout the landscape.

STATEWIDE TARGETS

VALUE-FOR-MONEY AND PERFORMANCE

All environmental agencies (including regulators and land managers) will need to report on losses and areas of biodiversity gains. This information will be able to roll up to an overall statewide report on progress towards statewide targets.

REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY IMPLEMENTATION Regional biodiversity action will be flexible and delivered by multiple agencies. Action will come from public land managers, local community volunteering, private landowner conservation, government regulation and investment, plus many others.

EVA A N D R L UA EP TI O OR T R

GOAL 2 VICTORIA’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS HEALTHY

NI IO MU LE NAL M AND CO VE L ION PL CO NSERVAT SS ANN ING PROCE

OUTCOMES REPORTING

N NG I

C NN O I

T I ON VA WOR K E R AM E NS G FR N

Establish a project evaluation, monitoring and audit group.

PL A

The biodiversity priorities will be used to set clear and measurable 10 and 50 year statewide targets that will focus efforts on areas that provide the highest potential return on investment for biodiversity conservation e.g. improve or stabilise a defined amount of high priority areas or populations within 50 years.

REGIONAL TARGETS Regional targets will reflect statewide targets and focus regional efforts towards areas that provide the highest potential return on investment for biodiversity conservation. The biodiversity priorities and regional targets will be the basis of the regional conservation planning and investment process.

REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT PROSPECTUS The regional investment prospectus will identify both committed activities and unfunded priorities that are “open for business” for potential investors. It will be regularly updated with information on new investment, partnership opportunities and annual activity reporting.

FLEXIBLE DELIVERY

REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY LEVEL CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS A whole-of-landscape/seascape spatially-based process to ensure alignment of biodiversity activities that focuses on priorities that provide the best return on investment and engages with regional and local communities to ensure delivery preferences, capabilities, partnerships and funding opportunities are maximised. The intention is not to duplicate existing processes (where possible).

Input into other regional plans e.g. Regional Catchment Strategies

The following sections provide additional detail on key components of the proposed planning and investment approach.

Conservation planning framework The state level planning framework will set a consistent, integrated spatial approach for biodiversity planning, and establish statewide and regional targets. The approach will be established through the shared information base and spatial decision-support tools. DELWP’s Strategic Management Prospects tool will be used to kick-start the identification of areas that provide the highest potential return on investment for biodiversity conservation. In the future this information should not only help to guide where we invest, but improve alignment between investment and regulation throughout the landscapes.

Regional and community level conservation planning process The regional and community level conservation planning process consists of three elements: 1. Regional biodiversity conservation planning process 2. Regional biodiversity investment prospectus 3. Regional biodiversity implementation. The regional planning process would involve a collaborative governance model (for example through regional round tables) and would be co-ordinated by a regional government agency (such as the Catchment Management Authority or DELWP). The regional government agency would be accountable in three key areas: 1. As a system steward, it would be provided with the tools to create the right incentives so that the right parties come to the table; 2. Leading community engagement in developing a prospectus to deliver regional targets; and 3. Delivering the government’s financial contribution to the regional targets via a sustainable funding model for Victoria’s biodiversity. The collaborative governance approach will enable improved alignment, co-ordination and integration of actions, decisions and projects across the environmental sector.

All key biodiversity agencies, public land managers and stakeholders – including Trust for Nature, DELWP, Traditional Owner Land Management Boards, CMAs, Parks Victoria, Victorian Coastal Council, Regional Coastal Boards, Landcare and other community groups and local government – would be invited to participate throughout the process. It is essential to recognise the importance of existing plans and commitments. For example, Parks Victoria develops plans for the parks estate through the internationally recognised Conservation Action Planning Process. These plans will nest within the broader regional and community level conservation planning process. The regional round table process will develop a map-based view of current and future options for conserving biodiversity. This will include: a) Alignment between management agencies regarding existing commitments (where appropriate) and identifying potential gaps in existing activity. b) Engagement with the local community to identify where future on-ground activity is planned and to maximise alignment opportunities between the community, government agencies and other stakeholders. As we will be relying on leveraging local community effort, regional targets that promote choices for local action will maximise our chances of success. However the challenge with a collaborative governance model is to ensure that the incentives for the various participants are aligned, that the accountabilities are clear and that a system steward oversees the process and brings the parties together for a common purpose. A key aspect of the regional biodiversity conservation planning process is the inclusion of regional regulators, such as local government. To ensure that we get the best outcomes for biodiversity, the process needs to be aware of the regional regulatory environment and in particular strategic land use planning. This will ensure that the messaging and enforcement of regional investment and regulatory processes are well aligned. As part of the regional conservation planning process, Regional Biodiversity Investment Prospectuses will focus on leveraging new funding. Each prospectus will be used by the regional co-ordinating government agency to communicate investment and partnership opportunities to new investors and community groups. They will also include information on where we have committed to an activity and report on where recent activity has been undertaken. Where possible, the process described above will not duplicate already existing regional processes.

Collaborative governance and clear accountability Collaborative governance recognises the interdependence between institutions and agencies. This is of particular importance in the biodiversity sector where multiple organisations and agencies (government and non-government) are operating to achieve biodiversity outcomes across public and private land, waterways, coasts and marine habitats. Each agency or organisation will come with their own perspective and accountabilities, which will be understood by the group through interaction and negotiation. In collaborative governance it is crucial to establish clear accountability. Each agency will also be accountable for reporting all activity (including actions that have led to biodiversity loss) to the coordinating agency. The coordinating agency will be responsible for collating all information and reporting on the regional targets through an annual regional report.

Our Catchments Our Communities – integrated catchment management in Victoria 2016 - 2019 Our Catchments, Our Communities is a new Victorian Government strategy that is currently under development. It outlines improvements to the current Integrated Catchment Management framework (land, water and biodiversity management) that will support and enhance our environment, community and economy. The strategy outlines the need for and the role of Regional Catchment Strategies (RCS), which will integrate management across land, water and biodiversity There is an opportunity to explore closer alignment between the community-level planning process proposed in Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2036 and the RCS process, particularly when RCS’s are reviewed by CMAs.

Examples of biodiversity priorities • Locations where actions can provide benefits for multiple species. • Important locations for individual species and communities. • Areas where threat management is likely to provide the best cost-effective outcomes e.g. targeted fox control in areas where species most vulnerable to predators occur. • Locations that are of increasing importance in a changing environment (e.g. refuges).

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 24 & 25 Where are the best opportunities to integrate biodiversity with other on-ground activities? What is the best way to build participatory community processes to generate ownership of biodiversity outcomes in local areas? What would you like to see in a Regional Biodiversity Investment Prospectus?

Establishing an accountability framework Statewide and regional targets will be critical to establishing accountability in the new conservation planning and investment framework. There are two key elements to accountability at the regional level: • Each regional coordinating agency should be responsible for reporting biodiversity achievements for that region, informed by regional round tables attended by key stakeholders. DELWP will compile an annual statewide public report, based on the regional reports. • Government will need a mechanism to ensure that funds distributed from a sustainable funding model for Victoria’s biodiversity are allocated on a least-cost basis to deliver regional targets, and include audits of delivery performance. To avoid a cycle of “only finding out when it’s too late”, it will be vital to respond outside of these review time frames to immediate risks to biodiversity such as from bushfires, invasive species, floods and climate change. The Regional Biodiversity Investment Prospectus should consider future scenarios, and how the investment profile would change (including one-off requests for emergency intervention) in response to significant unforeseen shocks. During implementation of this Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2036, the monitoring and audit process should reveal that biodiversity is doing better or worse than anticipated in a particular region. This would warrant adjustment to the allocation of resources or approaches, or additional data being collected in response to a new issue or area of risk or uncertainty consistent with the approved plan.

Performance measures or thresholds could be established. If they are not met, DELWP would determine what action will be taken in response and make this decision public. This may occur in response to new information, a natural disaster or failure of an agency to deliver. Such thresholds could also be formal triggers for third parties to become involved – for example, to require action to be taken. An expert advisory group should be included in this process to advise on the available course of action. This could include, for example, consideration of the preferred role of the Scientific Advisory Committee established under the FFG Act.

PRIORITY 20 Reform Victoriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conservation planning and investment framework to better focus on biodiversity conservation priorities, promote regional partnerships, and report consistently.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 26 What do you think is the best way to manage and respond to shocks or unforeseen events through the conservation planning process?