Earlier this month, the Office of Environment and Heritage released Native Vegetation 2013-14, a report assessing native vegetation data, including vegetation loss. Unfortunately, some people opposing land reform in NSW opportunistically leapt to the most convenient interpretation of the report and equated "unexplained clearing" with illegal clearing, citing farmers as criminals in the process. Unexplained clearing includes routine agricultural management activities such as clearing trees of trees for safety reasons. It also includes the clearing of trees for hazard reduction burns and non-protected vegetation. It is not true that "unexplained clearing" is illegal. The OEH report also fails to recognise vegetation gain, so when one tree is lost and others are planted in its place, only the loss is reported, not the new trees or even the net gain. 

The NSW farming community has consistently demonstrated the shortcomings of the Native Vegetation Act since its inception. The legislation unfairly and inequitably obliges farmers solely to foot the bill for biodiversity conservation on their land, with business potential stolen, restricted or denied on the pretence of a wider community benefit.

As the people on the ground, balancing biodiversity and farm production, it has always been abundantly clear the "lock up and leave" ideology that is inherent in, and underpins, the current legislation, could never work. Land reform is inevitable, necessary and long overdue. We have put a solid, science-backed argument for change in line with the 43 recommendations handed down by the Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel, which the NSW government assembled to review biodiversity laws.

We are not seeking self-regulation of all clearing on all farms – simply a balanced, equitable approach to land management.

In May 2016 the NSW government announced its proposed biodiversity reforms. It follows the government's commitment to reforming biodiversity laws in this state.

The reforms are definitely a step in the right direction but we are asking the NSW government to make key amendments.

We understand that the data upon which the government's satellite maps of individual land holdings are based still need to be completed.

The government has provided self-assessable codes, by which certain types of low-risk activities are allowed, including clearing paddock trees in cultivation areas, thinning native vegetation and clearing invasive native species.  

The government also proposes a system of biodiversity assessment by which landholders can gain financial benefits from managing and maintaining native vegetation on their properties. The cost of obtaining an assessment to enter the scheme however, will be prohibitive for most family-owned farming enterprises and is a situation which the government needs to address to make its reform package workable.

Good environmental stewardship requires active and adaptive management. This debate isn't about farmers versus the environment. It's about the whole community and the environment, and finding the right balance between the need to protect biodiversity with our desire and need to maintain a vibrant, sustainable and productive landscape.