Like ethnic cleansing for endangered bushland

"Compensatory offsets" seems to be the latest term adopted by developers and government to rationalise environmental destruction.

And, like the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "climate change", the term "compensatory offsets" conceals both the nature of the action and those responsible.

The DA for the Catholic land on the corner of Veron Rd and Hillview St, Woy Woy, is due to come before Council's first meeting in February.

This is the second DA by this developer to Council, with the first one having been rejected by the Land and Environment Court.

This time, the developer has proposed compensatory offsets in return for Council approval to destroy a remnant of a plant community that is threatened with extinction.

Last year Justice Bignold of the Land and Environment Court rejected an application to build villas there because this rare plant community of Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland covered all the site, and so destruction of any part of the site was not acceptable.

Additionally, Justice Bignold recognised that this is one of the rarest plant communities listed for protection in NSW.

In the light of this ruling, what amount of compensatory offsets would be adequate for destroying the viability of the remnant endangered ecological community on this site?

How do we calculate the value of a species or plant community to determine what developers should pay for actions that will destroy one of the last examples, and hasten its extinction?

If there were only 10 minke whales left in the world, what sort of "compensatory offsets" would we be asking a developer to pay for killing the 10th whale?

What is the price of extinction? Is there an amount of money that would compensate for UCSW's extinction? If so, who decides? How much money would it be? One hundred dollars, a thousand, a million?

What is the monetary value of the land?

If a third of the land's vegetation is to be destroyed and compensated for, should the compensation be some multiple of the land value?

Should the developer be required to purchase and donate to the community a similar piece of land with this UCSW?

And if no such land remains, why would destruction of this remnant be approved by local and state government?

In the case of this DA, proposed compensatory offsets include using community resources, both council reserves and volunteer labour, to improve the health of the other Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland remnants.

In minke whale terms, this would equate to killing off one whale but allocating community funds to provide better food for the remaining nine.

Another compensatory offset proposed to be funded by the developer is the care of the UCSW on the developed site. That is, the UCSW that is not destroyed by the development.

Again in minke whale terms, this would mean the developer pays for a health care program for the nine remaining whales.

The underlying principle or assumption of these proposed compensatory offsets appears to be: "You have to destroy some bushland or minke whales to pay for protecting the rest."

This destructive principle undermines and contradicts the precautionary principle on which Justice Bignold based his decision.

Further, the idea that it is necessary to destroy some bushland to protect the rest is incorrect.

There is a model of successful rehabilitation of this rare bushland with few community resources and no destruction.

A group of community volunteers has been rehabilitating UCSW for over five years by reducing weeds and destructive human activities there.

The contradictions in the logic of compensatory offsets and the fact that Council already has spent many thousands of dollars in the Land and Environment Court to oppose this development are obvious.

Despite this, it appears that Council has painted itself into a corner.

It has spent all available Peninsula Section 94 funds on the regional pool, and Coastal Open Space Scheme funding guidelines discriminate against the most endangered ecological communities.

This means that neither of these funding sources is available to purchase the land, and so council staff and councillors may be tempted to adopt the developer's compensatory offset proposal.

However other options and alternative sources of funding need to be rigorously pursued before a decision is made to proceed with this destructive DA.

For instance, a nomination for national listing of UCSW is being recommended by the Department of Environment and Conservation. If accepted, this is likely to attract funding.

And, if compensatory offsets are to be considered as part of this proposal, they need to be adequate and at least the equivalent of standards adopted elsewhere in the state, eg the developer provides land many times the value of that destroyed, or an equivalent financial contribution.

I encourage Peninsula residents to make their views known to Gosford Councillors on this matter before February so the Councillors can vote in an informed way.

Shirley Hotchkiss, Umina