+1-817-968-5551
+61-488-839-671
+44-7480-542904About Expert
Requirement
Assessment 2: Essay (30%) Option ONE
Topic
Recently the NSW government has proposed a major change in the way land clearance will be regulated and biodiversity will be managed. They will repeal the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and two other legislative pieces and replace them with the Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Analyze the new policy in terms of its ability to achieve sustainability in comparison to the previous policy.
Solution
Analysis of Biodiversity Conservation Act
The government of New South Wales changes the managing practices done to protect and enhance the biodiversity at New South Wales. The new reforms are prepared by best aspects of present programs and policies and the new reform addresses weakness of present system. The recommendation given by independent biodiversity legislations is implemented in the reform. The new biodiversity conservation act and amendment in the present laws will acts as a supporting tool which enables the best available science and data related to the biodiversity. The reforms help to modernize the legislation, policy, financial framework and institutions for the conservation of biodiversity. The reforms facilitate conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development ecologically. The total investments done for implementation is $340 Million which includes prioritized private land conservation program, species-saving program, and new strategic program. The cost of a species-saving program is $100 Million and $240 Million for new strategic and private land conservation program (Mitchell et al., 2015). The investment is for five years. The aim of reform is to provide benefit to all the country with long lasting impact. The act of conservation of biodiversity repeals the threatened species conservation act 1995 and the provisions of plants at the national park and wildlife act 1974.The purpose of the act is to sustain a healthy, resilient and healthy environment for the well-being of the country. The reform is consistent with the ecologically sustainable development principles which include the ecological integrity at bioregional and state level and biodiversity conservation, provides sustainable development ecologically and sharing of knowledge for the improvement of aboriginal and local knowledge which affects the actions of conservation. The purpose of reform is to achieve through facilitating prioritize investment for the conservation of private land for biodiversity conservation which increases the services of the ecosystem. The biodiversity values for the purpose of the act include integrity of vegetation, sustainability of vegetation and values of biodiversity. The act is applied to the animals and plants but not on the fishes and vegetation of marine. The reform removes the restrictions on the clearance of land and threatens biodiversity notwithstanding the claims.
Why take stress when you can take financial management assignment help from the professional experts of Allassignmenthelp.com. You can pay and easily avail of our management accounting assignment help and score good grades. The talented and professional experts on our website will help you and provide you with conflict management assignment help at the most affordable price.
The aim of reform is to facilitate sustainable development ecologically and biodiversity conservation. The aim can be fluffed when the knowledge of farmers is completely related to the importance of native vegetation, no effects of spillover from the clearance of land and the owners of land must take care of the land in the long term and also considers the income earned. The land clearance is increased by the government which leads to increase the emission of carbon and threat increment to endangered species. The new approach is derived from economic theory. The reform repeals native vegetation act, 2003 which restricts the clearance of land and government has implemented a market-based approach which enables the farmers to clear the land flexibly (Productivity Commission et al., 2004). The new biodiversity conservation act applies for risk-based approach and exemption on land clearance is given by NVA. The land clearance is allowed at low-risk level, and the approval is required from local land services. The market of biodiversity is used to offset the impact of land clearance at the risk of a higher level (McKenney et al., 2010). The landowners who clear the land that has to pay an amount in the biodiversity trust fund or buy from the scheme of bio-banking. Under the native vegetation act the clearance of land has to be offset by environment condition improvement of same land on other area which enables the protection of biodiversity at local level whereas the new approach has increased the use of biodiversity markets which enable the offsetting at state level, and it lost the local biodiversity (Priest et al., 2014).
The government has argued that the current system is not delivering the approach. The NVA was implemented in 2004 which reduce the land clearance from 21,500 hectare to 16,000 hectare per year. According to the review in 2009 the legislation enable the conservation of 250,000 hectares from 2006-08. Therefore the aim is fulfilled by NVA by conserving the biodiversity and delivers the sustainable development t ecologically (Drielsma et al., 2016). The government claims that new reform will provide more freedom to the farmers which enable the preservation of native vegetation and in old reform the actions of farmers were limited which provide perverse outcomes (Say et al., 2016). In the new reform the putting of trust in the farmers helps to conserve the environment. According to the market based approach three conditions are required to be applied which realizes the benefits of environment. Firstly the knowledge of farmers must be improved which impacts the native vegetation and on the present and future income. For example, the knowledge of farming regarding the value of native in halting erosion and salinity give wind breaks which restrict the invasions of pest controlling and support the productivity of agriculture. This is only for preserving the native vegetation by the farmers. The second condition is to make a framework of activities which are assumed by the legislations and give benefits to the regional land rather than the landowners. The spill over provides benefits such as control of flood, environmental protection, and others. The farmers are forced under the native vegetation act for spillover because it is directly related to the needs of the society. The offsetting of high risk is required according to the legislations which internalize the spill-over cost, but the offset price which is based on the market is not equal to the social impact and the cost of spill over at the time of clearing the low and medium risk clearance (Drielsma et al., 2016). Thirdly the discount rate given to the land owners is same to the society which is an unrealistic assumption presented in the draft of the legislation. It means that the discounted rate on future income is equal to the rate of discount of society. If the rate of discount of society is higher than the landowner's rate of discount, then more land is cleared which is higher than the need of the society.
The reforms provide economic and social benefits to the society. The reforms enable the management of agricultural land through creating native vegetation regulatory map, expansion of activities which are code based and allowable and new framework which is risk based for native vegetation. The new reform provides sustainable development ecologically through assessing the impact of biodiversity by using the single method by consolidating the present methods into one method. The new biodiversity conservation trust provides the offsetting of biodiversity and governs new private land conservation program. The offsetting strategy is managed by the trust through managing the biodiversity conservation fund. The biodiversity conservation on private lands is enhanced by the new reforms through private land conservation program (BARTEL et al., 2015). The investment of the government is governed by the trust which is guided by an investment strategy as a priority. The voluntary private land conservation by three tier system is provided which consolidate the presented mechanism of the myriad and give incentives to the landowners in a proportionate manner. The new reform will continuously identify the treated species and communities then manage the species in a more effective manner. The government has also planned to invest $100, Million, to support the species-saving program over the five years. The provision for protecting the plants and animals of native is developed through building the penalty provision and compliance for breaching the laws. The drafted bill emphasizes the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development economically at the state level. The bill also gives pressure on sharing the knowledge of the service of ecosystem, biodiversity and actions conservation through monitoring and assessing the environment and reporting the program which is recognized by OEH. The reform develops a new framework which is based on risk for clearing the natural vegetation. The management of land is integrated with local land services act 2013 which provides flexibility to the landowners of rural areas (Williams et al., 2014). The new reforms provide sustainable development ecologically through scheme of biodiversity offsets, funds of biodiversity conservation and biodiversity certification. The conservation of biodiversity private land is done on the basis of three tier system, namely, biodiversity stewardship, conservation and wildlife refuge agreements. The species are threatened and conserve by identifying them and manage them.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the students
Place Your OrderReferences
-
BARTEL, R. and GRAHAM, N., 2015. Property and place attachment: A legal geographical analysis of biodiversity law reform in New South Wales. Geographical Research.
-
Drielsma, M.J., Foster, E., Ellis, M., Gill, R.A., Prior, J., Kumar, L., Saremi, H. and Ferrier, S., 2016. Assessing collaborative, privately managed biodiversity conservation derived from an offsets program: Lessons from the Southern Mallee of New South Wales, Australia. Land Use Policy, 59, pp.59-70.
-
McKenney, B.A. and Kiesecker, J.M., 2010. Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environmental Management, 45(1), pp.165-176.
-
Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S.A. and Clement, S., 2015. Scenario analysis for biodiversity conservation: A social–ecological system approach in the Australian Alps. Journal of environmental management, 150, pp.69-80.
-
Priest, M. and White, A., 2014. Changes to Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act?not what they first seem. Australian Environmental Law Digest, (Aug 2014), p.11.
-
Productivity Commission, 2004.Impacts of native vegetation and biodiversity regulations.SSRN Working Paper Series.
-
Say, B.R.H.Y. and South, S., 2016. Submission on the proposed biodiversity conservation reform package.NSW, 1232, p.28.
-
Williams, P., 2014. Growing houses and trees: integrating biodiversity conservation and urbanisation: An Australian case study. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 6(1/2), pp.152-173.
Give your grades a boost
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
-
1,168,768 Orders
-
4.9/5 Overall Rating
-
5,052 Experts
