Reports
Managing native vegetation
The report found the clearing of native vegetation on rural land is not effectively regulated and managed. The processes supporting the regulatory framework are weak and there is no evidence-based assurance that clearing of native vegetation is carried out in accordance with approvals.
In 2014 an expert panel completed a review of biodiversity legislation in NSW. The panel’s recommendations included repealing the Native Vegetation Act 2003, proposing a new Act with the goal of maintaining a healthy, productive and resilient environment for the greatest wellbeing of the community, and recommending that management of native vegetation in the context of existing agricultural management would be assisted and supervised by Local Land Services (LLS).
Following the panel report, the NSW Government undertook major biodiversity conservation and land management reforms which saw the introduction of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) and the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016 (NSW). The reforms commenced in August 2017. The Native Vegetation Act 2003, the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001, and parts of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 were repealed.
Under the legislative reforms, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016, which amended the Local Land Services Act 2013, aim to ensure a balanced approach to land management and biodiversity conservation in NSW.
A core objective of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is to conserve biodiversity at bioregional and state scales. A core objective of the Local Land Service Act 2013 is to ensure the proper management of natural resources in the social, economic and environmental interests of the state, consistently with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
The integrated package of reforms included:
- new arrangements that allow land owners to improve productivity while responding to environmental risks
- new ways to assess and manage the biodiversity impacts of development
- a new state Environmental Planning Policy for managing impacts on native vegetation in urban areas
- significant investment in conservation of private land
- a risk-based system for regulating human and business interactions with native plants and animals
- streamlined approvals and dedicated resources to help reduce the regulatory burden.
Transition to this land management framework began on 25 August 2017 with the commencement of the Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code.
The overall objectives of the reforms are:
- to arrest and ultimately reverse the current decline in the state’s biodiversity while facilitating ecologically sustainable development, in particular efficient and sustainable agricultural development
- enable landholders to improve the efficiency of their agricultural systems and take a more active role in providing incentive and supporting landholders to improve the condition and function of their ecological systems.
The objective of this audit is to assess whether the clearing of native vegetation in rural areas is effectively regulated and managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and LLS under these legislative frameworks. The audit also examined the progress of the Biodiversity Conservation Trust in implementing the Biodiversity Conservation Investment Strategy as a counterbalance to rural land clearing.
At the time of this audit OEH was responsible for preparing the Native Vegetation Regulatory map and for compliance enforcement in relation to unlawful land clearing. Post 1 July 2019, under machinery of government changes, OEH will be abolished and its activities relevant to this audit will be moved to the new Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. For the purposes of this audit we will continue to refer to it as OEH.
|
Conclusion
The clearing of native vegetation on rural land is not effectively regulated and managed because the processes in place to support the regulatory framework are weak. There is no evidence-based assurance that clearing of native vegetation is being carried out in accordance with approvals. Responses to incidents of unlawful clearing are slow, with few tangible outcomes. Enforcement action is rarely taken against landholders who unlawfully clear native vegetation. There are processes in place for approving land clearing but there is limited follow-up to ensure approvals are complied with. Procedures and systems are in place for assessing applications and issuing approvals for land clearing. Approvals contain conditions for managing clearing and setting aside land for conservation as a counterbalance to permitted clearing.
There is limited follow-up or capacity to gauge whether landholders are complying with the conditions of approvals and effectively managing areas of their land that have been set aside for conservation (i.e. 'set asides').
Certificate assessments are used to grant landholders permission to clear. All assessments we reviewed generally complied with the Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code 2018 (the Code).
The rules around land clearing may not be responding adequately to environmental risks.
The Code, which contains conditions under which the thinning or clearing of native vegetation can be approved on regulated land, is intended to allow landholders to improve productivity while responding to environmental risks. That said, it may not be achieving this balance. For example, the Code allows some native species to be treated as ‘invasive’ when they may not be invading an area, provides little protection for groundcover and limited management requirements for set asides. There is also limited ability under the Code to reject applications for higher risk clearing proposals. The release of the Native Vegetation Regulatory (NVR) map has been delayed, limiting landholders' ability to determine if their plans for clearing are lawful.
OEH has applied significant effort in developing a native vegetation regulatory map to guide landholders on which land they can and can’t clear without approval. However, in November 2016 the then Minister for Primary Industries advised Parliament that the two largest land categories of the NVR map will not come into effect until the relevant Ministers are satisfied stakeholders have sufficient confidence in the maps’ accuracy. Not releasing the map has made it harder for landholders to identify the portions of their land that are regulated and ensure they comply with land clearing rules. It has also limited OEH’s ability to consult on and improve the accuracy of the map. There are significant delays in identifying unlawful clearing and few penalties imposed.
Unexplained land clearing can take over two years to identify and analyse, making it difficult to minimise environmental harm or gather evidence to prosecute unlawful clearing. Despite around 1,000 instances of unexplained clearing identified by OEH and over 500 reports to the environmental hotline each year, with around 300 investigations in progress at any one time, there are only two to three prosecutions, three to five remediation orders and around ten penalty notices issued each year for unlawful clearing. Further, OEH is yet to commence any prosecutions under the current legislation which commenced in August 2017. Land clearing and private land conservation investment have both increased.
Clearing of native vegetation has increased in recent years. At the same time, the government is also investing in properties with high environmental value with a focus on improving the mix of endangered ecological communities conserved in perpetuity. Processes are in place for identifying and prioritising areas of land for investment but the funding provided to each region is not always consistent with these priorities. |
Local Land Services (LLS) is responsible for processing notifications and issuing certificates to landholders for managing the thinning or clearing of native vegetation on rural land through the ‘Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code 2018’ (the Code). This work includes monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Code, including the establishment and management of set asides.
OEH is responsible for compliance and enforcement in relation to unlawful land clearing. It is also responsible for producing the NVR map, designed to show landholders where land clearing can occur without approval, where approval is required, and where land clearing is not permitted. Post 1 July 2019, under machinery of government changes, OEH will be abolished and its activities relevant to this audit will be moved to the new Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
Appendix one - Response from agencies
Appendix three - About the audit
Appendix four - Performance auditing
Parliamentary Reference: Report number #324 - released 27 June 2019
Copyright reserved by the Audit Office of New South Wales. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent of the Audit Office of New South Wales. The Audit Office does not accept responsibility for loss or damage suffered by any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any of this material.
Government Advertising 2009
We found that the two NSW Health campaigns had followed the required approval processes and were appropriate. We had some concerns with the two Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) campaigns. The revised Guidelines, which incorporate recommendations from earlier audit reports, are a positive step towards reducing the risk that publicly funded advertising could be used inappropriately. But there are still parts of the Guidelines that require a subjective judgement and therefore do little to help manage this risk. While we did not have any concerns with the two NSW Health campaigns, the two DPC campaigns highlighted these risks.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #194 - released 9 December 2009
Government Licensing Project
The Government Licensing Project (GLP) is standardising and simplifying processes of agencies which issue licences. However, it is currently running over the original anticipated completion date, exceeding the original budget and expected to produce savings less than originally planned.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #192 - released 7 October 2009
Environmental Grants Administration
We found many aspects of good grants management, particularly in the Trust. All of the programs we looked at are clearly aligned to the Government’s objective to improve environmental outcomes. The Trust also has good practices for allocating grants. Performance in respect of results was mixed although many grants delivered tangible benefits - homes were protected from floods, degraded waterways restored and endangered habitats protected.
Generally we found that while both Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the NSW Environmental Trust had a range of strategies to monitor grants these were not always applied consistently or effectively. Grant programs need to be regularly evaluated to see what is working and what can be done better.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #190 - released 26 August 2009
Implementing Asset Management Reforms
Hospitals, schools, public housing, roads, bridges, buses and trains are just some of the assets used by government in providing services to citizens.
The NSW Government’s asset base is impressive in size - with a value of around $167 billion and with government plans to spend around $8 billion acquiring or replacing assets in the current year. Another $2 billion is spent each year on maintenance.
Good asset management is very important to government; even a small efficiency gain in this area can provide significant returns. Good practice by those responsible for managing assets can improve reliability, extend asset life, save on maintenance costs and aid in identifying and disposing of unnecessary or non-performing assets.
Improving the NSW public sector’s approach to asset management has been on the reform agenda for at least a decade. Changes in practice have been accelerated more recently by integrating asset management policy with the budget process.
In this audit we examined NSW Treasury’s efforts to improve asset management practices in the public sector and the progress made by 3 agencies - the Department of Corrective Services, NSW Fire Brigades and the Powerhouse Museum - towards better managing their asset portfolios.
This report informs Parliament and the community on progress to date and what more needs to be done to ensure that agencies manage assets effectively and achieve best value.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #143 - released 12 October 2005
In-year Monitoring of the State Budget
The annual Budget is one of the most important and visible statements about a government’s financial intentions.
Once a Budget is released, it is important to monitor variations from the projections it contains. This is done for two reasons -
- first, to ensure that individual agencies are properly managing their budget allocations and that any genuine emerging need for additional funding is met.
- second, to ensure that any changes to the State’s overall financial position are understood and corrective action is undertaken.
This audit dealt primarily with the second of these objectives.
Budget monitoring involves both agencies and Treasury working together to quickly identify factors that might impact the budget, to clearly understand the implications for their budget position and to take any remedial action needed.
Poor monitoring may reduce the confidence that stakeholders have in the government’s financial management. It may mean that government decisions made in- year or for the following budget (for example on tax measures or spending increases/savings) are based on an incorrect understanding of the State’s true financial position.
I hope that this Report provides some useful insights that will assist in better monitoring.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #141 - released 28 July 2005
Planning for Sydney's Water Needs
Reliably supplying water to our State’s principal city, Sydney, is a major responsibility for the Government.
The community has been made keenly aware in recent years that inflows have been decreasing, and that Sydney has been using more water than is available. In April 2005 the water in Sydney’s storages dropped to 41.5 per cent of their capacity – the lowest level since the construction of Warragamba dam in 1960.
As Sydney continues to develop, it is expected that the demand for water will increase. The way that we use it will need to be sustainable, as it has a direct impact on our economy, our lifestyle and our environment.
In planning for the future the State’s water agencies face a range of uncertainties. But the task is vital.
This report informs Parliament and the community on the progress made - and what remains to be done - to ensure a reliable water supply for Sydney.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #135 - released 4 May 2005
Managing Air Quality
Air is fundamental to our existence.
The quality of our air is a key issue for everyone. It directly affects our health. It also affects our environment, and can even affect our economy.
And air pollution does not respect geo-political boundaries. Pollution produced locally may have regional and global implications.
The substances which may pollute our air can interact in complex ways, which even the best scientists do not fully understand. Strategies that reduce some types of air pollution can make others worse.
All this points to the need for a well-planned and coordinated approach with effective monitoring, review and reporting.
The Government’s plans to address air quality issues place particular emphasis on pollution from road transport as a major contributor to air pollution. Managing these emissions is a critical issue facing governments everywhere, and is an important part of a broader challenge of developing sustainable cities.
This performance audit examines the New South Wales Government’s approach to managing air quality. It is also one of several by my Office in recent times with an environmental focus.
These audits contribute to an understanding of complex issues in public administration and to public debate on issues that affect us all.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #134 - released 6 April 2005
Follow-up of Performance Audit: Collecting Outstanding Fines and Penalties
Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accept from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.
In this follow-up audit, we examine changes following our April 2002 report on how well the State Debt Recovery Office (under the Office of State Revenue) was collecting outstanding fines and penalties.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #132 - released 17 March 2005
Follow-up of Performance Audit: Environmental Impact Assessment of Major Projects
Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.
Major development and infrastructure projects may have significant environmental, social and quality-of-life impacts. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to ensure that major projects are environmentally and socially sustainable and integrated with State, regional and local planning.
The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) manages the assessment of major infrastructure proposals and coordinates whole of Government involvement. In November 2001 we audited this process, then undertaken by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. (In July 2003 the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources assumed responsibility.)
In this follow-up audit, we examine DIPNR’s implementation of the recommendations of the 2001 audit.
Parliamentary reference - Report number #129 - released 1 February 2005
