BY JIM GREEN
Australia was the sixth largest land-clearing country last year, according to a report released by the Australian Conservation Foundation on March 1. The issue is now a political hot potato.
The ACF report, Australian Land Clearing, A Global Perspective: Latest Facts & Figures, estimates that 564,800 hectares of bushland and native vegetation were cleared in Australia last year, a 7% rise on the 1999 estimate. The clearing to re-planting ratio is about 100:1.
The only countries clearing more bushland than Australia are Brazil (with 2.26 million hectares cleared last year according to the United Nations Food Resources Assessment 2000 report), Indonesia, Sudan, Zambia and Mexico.
Queensland accounted for 75% of land clearing in Australia in 2000, followed by NSW with 18%. Victoria accounted for just 0.4% of the national total — but it is already the most cleared state, with 70% of its native vegetation cover lost.
Excessive land clearing is having numerous adverse impacts:
- salinity through vegetation loss is ruining huge tracts of land and also has serious direct and indirect implications for urban areas;
- land clearing accounts for a substantial proportion (about 13%) of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions;
- land clearing is exacerbating the loss of biodiversity and is placing Australia in breach of international treaty obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity;
- more than 5 million birds are estimated to be killed each year by land clearing in Australia at the current rate, with numerous native animal and plant species at risk; and
- hundreds of native woodland, grassland and other ecosystems are now threatened with extinction because of land clearing.
The ACF wants the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act to be amended to include land clearing as a matter of national environmental significance, triggering federal government involvement in decisions about land clearing and giving Canberra the power to override the states and force restrictions on clearing to protect endangered ecosystems or species.
The ACF is also asking the federal government to establish a binding cap on land clearing, with the cap declining over time to reverse the decline in the quality and extent of native vegetation.
Labor promises
Land clearing has received added attention because of the March 17 by-election in the federal seat of Ryan in Queensland. The Greens will direct preferences to Labor in Ryan on the basis of new Labor policies on land clearing announced on March 7.
Labor has said it will, if elected to federal government:
- "aim" to arrest the decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation by 2005;
- introduce national legislation to regulate land clearing, including a trigger under the EPBC Act;
- end the clearing of habitat in endangered and vulnerable ecosystems and in areas of high conservation value;
- link natural resource funding to environmental outcomes; and
- provide compensation to farmers.
Labor's environment spokesperson Nick Bolkus admitted the new policies were influenced by the Ryan by-election.
Democrats leader Senator Meg Lees said the Labor policies would simply lead to panic clearing before the next federal election.
Democrat preferences in Ryan will go to the Greens and will not favour Labor or Liberal. Democrats environment spokesperson Queensland senator Andrew Bartlett said in a March 8 press release that, "Labor federally should be pressuring Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to act now, not just giving a re-hashed promise to address land clearing, this time by 2005. The Green Party was naive to sell its Ryan preferences so cheaply."
Bartlett said there was a strong sense of deja vu about the Labor/Green deal: "In 1998, Mr Beattie promised to halt land clearing, in return for Green Party preferences in the state election. That promise was not kept. Yet the Green Party is willing to do a similar deal with Labor again in Ryan now ... The Green Party is being naive and Labor is being cynical."
'Eco-taxes'
Predictably, recent debates over land clearing have been accompanied by renewed calls for "eco-taxes". While compensation for small land-holders affected by restrictions on land clearing can be justified, the "eco-tax" debate has assumed broader and more sinister dimensions.
It's necessary to distinguish small land-holders from large land-holders and agribusiness. Large land-holders and agribusiness have been expanding their land holdings and wealth at the expense of small farmers for many years, with the help of the rural deregulation policies pushed by Labor and Coalition governments.
This distinction is not made by the ACF report. It calls for adequate funding "for structural adjustment and incentive packages for land-holders and industry".
No doubt some large land-holders are wondering if the land-clearing crisis could be a blessing in disguise, allowing them to expand their holdings and wealth at the expense of small farmers. This has been the pattern of so-called drought assistance packages offered by Labor and Coalition governments, which have been used to weed out poorer farmers, ostensibly because their farms are "not viable".
"Eco-tax" proposals have been advocated by sections of the environment movement for some years. Such proposals gained momentum last May with the release of a report by the ACF and the National Farmers Federation which called for $60 billion over 10 years to be spent to repair land degradation and salinity damage. Media reports at the time said the proposal would give the federal government fresh ammunition to argue for the sale of the rest of Telstra, in the same way as the Natural Heritage Trust was funded by the partial sale of Telstra in 1997.
Tax-payers would have good reason to be aggrieved by eco-taxes which were hand-outs for rural elites and agribusiness. Moreover, such taxes would be twisted to reinforce stereotypes about "greenies" being a minority interest group taking money from the pockets of ordinary "Aussies".
Eco-tax proposals now appear to be winning support in the political establishment. The Coalition-dominated House of Representatives Environment Committee in early March called for an eco-tax to help raise the estimated $7 billion a year needed to tackle salinity and degraded rivers. It remains to be seen whether this proposal will be linked to Telstra privatisation in the lead-up to the federal election.