The impact of formal regulation and offset policy on the rate of deforestation in Australia

The impact of formal regulation and offset policy on the rate of deforestation in Australia

Megan C. Evans1*, Andrew K. Macintosh2, Philip Gibbons1

1 Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment2 ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, ANU College of Law

SHE XIX ConferenceAustralian National University, Canberra, 5-8 February 2013

Loss of biodiversity is still a problem (surprise!)

2

• Habitat loss largest threat to biodiversity in Australia (Evans et al. 2011 BioScience) and globally

• Deforestation rate climbing: 2.7 million ha/year (1990 to 2000) to 6.3 million ha/year (2000 to 2005) (Lindquist et al. 2012)

Source: Hoffman et al. 2010 Science

Environmental policy

Public provision Regulation Suasion Economic

Friction based

Price based

Quantity based

3

• Protected areas (NRS)

• Caring for Country

• Voluntary guidelines, codes of practice

• Traditions and norms

• Native vegetation legislation e.g Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)

• EPBC Act 1999

• Reverse auctionse.g BushTender (Vic), Environmental Stewardship Program (Aus)

• Biodiversity offsets

e.g BushBroker (Vic), BioBanking (NSW)

• Revolving funds

• Financial incentives• Market based

instruments (MBIs)

Adapted from MJA 2010 and Coggan et al. 2008



Friction based

Price based

Quantity based

4








• Revolving funds


instruments (MBIs)

• Native vegetation legislation

• EPBC Act 1999


4

Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 (NSW)

Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)

Native Vegetation Retention (NVR) controls under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)

1987: permit to clear required under Soil and Land Conservation Act (SALCA) 1945

Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)

Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA)

?



Friction based

Price based

Quantity based

5






• Revolving funds


instruments (MBIs)



• EPBC Act 1999





Friction based

Price based

Quantity based

6






• Revolving funds


instruments (MBIs)





• EPBC Act 1999

A tree for a tree:Biodiversity offsetting

• Broad goal is to achieve no net loss or net gain of biodiversity

• Rapid growth in uptake: policies exist in 45 countries, and in development in another 27

• Global annual market size is $1.8-$2.9 billion

7

Source: Gibbons and Lindenmayer (2007)

Madsen et al. (2010). State of the Biodiversity Markets Report

Total Wetland and Stream Mitigation Banks (USA)1980-2009

8

“...no net loss of native vegetation within Australia by July 2001.”

“ It is quite clear that this target will not be met…”ACF, Natural Heritage Trust Annual Report 1998/99

No net loss?

Source: Australia State of the Environment 2006

Evaluation of environmental policy

9

“…evaluation can cut through and resolve data-free debates about the relative merits of different approaches”

Bottrill & Pressey (2012)

“If we want to ensure that our limited resources make a difference, we must accept that testing hypotheses about what policies protect biological diversity requires the same scientific rigor and state-of-the-art methods that we invest in testing ecological hypotheses”

Ferraro & Pattanayek (2006)

10

No net loss?

11

• Timing is important

• Offset schemes and regulation are interrelated

• Other factors?– Bartel (2004) observed that land clearance rates had declined in some

states following the enactment of legislation, but they had also fallen in states with little or no regulation.

• Socio-economic drivers, rainfall, arable land remaining

– Suggested that best way to examine impact of policy is to analyse satellite imagery

Bartel, R. L. (2004). Satellite Imagery and Land Clearance Legislation: A Picture of Regulatory Efficacy? Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 9(1), 1–31.

No net loss?

Evaluation of environmental policy

12

…crucial, yet rare

Ewers, R. M., Laurance, W. F., & Souza, C. M. (2008). Temporal fluctuations in Amazonian deforestation rates. Environmental Conservation, 35(04), 303–310

• Some work on deforestation inside/outside PAs

• Extensive literature on drivers of deforestation

• Few (if any) quantitatively analyse impact of policy timing

FAO. State of the World’s Forests 2012.

Aims of this study

1. Quantify rate of deforestation in Australia from 1972-2011

2. Disentangle effects of climatic, economic & social drivers from the regulatory & policy impacts on deforestation rate

3. Determine whether ‘market based’ offset policies have significantly different impact on deforestation as compared to ‘command and control’ regulation

13

Forest Extent & Change

14

Figure 1: Map of available forest extent and change products. Areas shaded yellow are the intensive landuse zone.

• Derived from Landsat satellite imagery; discriminates between forest and non-forest cover

• Used for international carbon accounting obligations

• A forest is defined as vegetation with a minimum 20 per cent canopy cover, potentially reaching 2 metres high and a minimum area of 0.2 hectares

• Source: Department of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency (DCCEE)– ~ 700 tiles (39 years, 20 epochs)

• Reclassified data from:– 0 (no forest), 1 (forest), to:

– 0 (no forest), 1 (primary forest), 2 (regrowth forest)

15


19771972 1977_reclass

• GIS analysis using R raster package

• Calculated forest cover according to:

– State

– Land Tenure • Leasehold, Freehold, Public

– Land Use• Conservation & Natural Environments

• Cropping

• Forestry

• Mining

• Other Agriculture

• Pasture

• Residential

16


Initial resultsForest cover

17

Initial resultsDeforestation rate

18

Next steps

• Data issues– 1989 satellite changeover

– Uneven temporal gaps

– Clarify whether data is appropriately ‘masked’ – e.g forestry, fires

• Covariate selection

• Time series modelling

19

Thanks

Email: [email protected]

My blog/website: economical-ecology.com

Twitter: @megcevans

www.nerpdecisions.edu.au

www.ceed.edu.au

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.economical-ecology.com/

http://www.twitter.com/megcevans



http://www.nerpdecisions.edu.au/

http://www.ceed.edu.au/

ReferencesBartel, R. L. (2004). Satellite Imagery and Land Clearance Legislation: A Picture of Regulatory Efficacy? Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 9(1), 1–31.

Bottrill, M. C., & Pressey, R. L. (2012). The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conservation Letters, 5, no–no. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00268.x

Coggan, A. (2008). Best practice mechanism design and implementation: Concepts and Case Studies for Biodiversity.

Evans, M. C., Watson, J. E. M., Fuller, R. A., Venter, O., Bennett, S. C., Marsack, P. R., & Possingham, H. P. (2011). The Spatial Distribution of Threats to Species in Australia. BioScience, 61(4), 281–289. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.8

Ewers, R. M., Laurance, W. F., & Souza, C. M. (2008). Temporal fluctuations in Amazonian deforestation rates. Environmental Conservation, 35(04), 303–310. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). State of the World’s Forests. Rome.

Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Plos Biology, 4, 482–488. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105

Lindquist, E. J., D’Annunzio, R., Gerrand, A., MacDicken, K., Achard, F., Beuchle, R., Brink, A., et al. (2012). Global forest land-use change 1990 - 2005. Rome. Marsden Jacob Associates. (2010). Review of the Environmental Stewardship Program.

The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing version 2.7.2. Vienna, Austria.

21

The impact of formal regulation and offset policy on the rate of deforestation in Australia

Documents

Transcript of The impact of formal regulation and offset policy on the rate of deforestation in Australia