WITH some 40 significant amendments to the Vegetation Management Act in the past two decades, it is little wonder that decision-making around vegetation management remains a contentious issue for Queensland farmers.
Used by successive Labor governments as a means of pulling in the urban, green vote, farmers have been effectively demonised for their necessary, ongoing management of the landscape to maintain its productive capacity.
After more than of 100 years of development-driven policies for agriculture, it wasn't until the mid-1990s that the vegetation management debate really took off.
Then it was driven by Australia's push to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which sought to limit the production of six key greenhouse gases on a global basis.
"Landholders have been left angry, shaking their heads in confusion and disbelief at the ongoing changes," says Peter Mahony, the chair of AgForce's Landscape and Vegetation Management Committee.
"For many, the need for long-term certainty in being able to budget for and strategically manage complex ecosystems on their properties has been lost."
Unrecognised contribution
Mr Mahony said while governments were quick to claim credit, there has been no recognition of the sacrifices made by Queensland landholders, including that it was farmers who enabled Australia to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Letters written by then Prime Minister John Howard to Premier Peter Beattie spelled out farmers carried the cost by ceasing land clearing in Queensland.
Included in these documents were references to compensation for the loss of property rights, and the cost sharing agreement to be entered into by both the Commonwealth governments and the state of Queensland. These arrangements, although ultimately not fulfilled by the Commonwealth, saw a $150 million compensation package provided by the Queensland government, albeit under the guise of business adjustment.
Ultimately, the Beattie government committed to cease broad scale tree clearing in the run up to the 2004 election, supported by both the Commonwealth and green groups, to the chagrin of angry landholders.
In the succeeding years, AgForce progressed a number of campaigns and numerous formal submissions to Queensland government in response to frequent and unpredictable changes to policy and amendments to the regulatory framework.
The past five years had been particularly challenging, highlighted by major rallies taking place outside Parliament House in Brisbane and headline-grabbing concerns voiced during Beef 2018 in Rockhampton.
"AgForce members earnestly contributed to significant campaigns opposing the 2016 and 2018 Bills with hundreds of submissions and numerous rallies, including two in front of the Queensland Parliament," Mr Mahony said.
"While AgForce has taken different approaches to working with the Queensland government, the record shows that all members of the current government are voting as a block in parliament and are showing no response to AgForce efforts.
"The stalling of significant amendments to the VMA in 2016, only then to see more concerning, regressive amendments legislated by the Palaszczuk government in 2018 were particularly damaging to rural industry."
Mr Mahony said a major challenge with vegetation management was that it was a divisive election issue, usually discussed in a very simplistic and superficial manner with underlying political motivations.
Natural capital
Now the push is on to find a new way to manage the landscape in terms of recognising the concept of 'natural capital' as a way to improve both environmental outcomes and farm profitability.
It involves ending the current approach of regulating and penalising primary producers to achieve environmental outcomes, which land managers say overlooks the enormous potential of a collaborative, voluntary approach based on reward.
AgForce chief executive officer Michael Guerin said farmers were custodians of about half of Australia's landmass, and history has shown that better environmental outcomes cannot be achieved without their active collaboration.
"History has shown that legislating primary producers to manage these landscapes does not improve environmental outcomes, in large part because it enforces a one-size fits all approach that fails to take into account Australia's variety of landscapes and the full suite of management techniques available to farmers," Mr Guerin said.
"The community's most valuable asset - the primary producer's intimate knowledge of their land and the management techniques that work best - are completely ignored and therefore wasted.
"Enter natural capital, a concept based on rewarding farmers for creating positive environmental outcomes such as removing carbon from the atmosphere, maintaining natural landscapes, preserving native flora and fauna, and reducing water usage.
"It recognises that the land can provide more than just food and fibre, and provides additional revenue streams for producers, which would assist them survive through tough times such as the current record drought."
AgForce has collaborated with the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation to outline the pre-requisites required to establish a viable, sustainable capital market in Australia.
AbCF chief executive officer Rowan Foley said the collaboration could deliver environmental benefits and offer wealth-creating opportunities. "Our unique knowledge and skills are not just useful but essential to any genuine, sustainable environmental solution and that is why we actively partner with a range of organisations from across the government, not-for-profit, environment, education and Indigenous sectors," Mr Foley said.
