**Published name**
1. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you believe that the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework will contribute to high quality Conserved Area additions to the Conserved Area Network?
1.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question. For example, please identify elements of the framework that could be addressed.
One danger is biodiversity being adversely impacted by indirect factors. For example, we are concerned that a proposed quarry being applied for in a green fields site will, if approved, fundamentally affect a wide area. It will obviously be detrimental on the land being quarried but we submit, will cause general attitudinal change so important areas of vegetation nearby will suffer
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘unclear’ and 5 being ‘clear’, how clear is the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework, including figures and diagrams?
2.1. Can you please expand on your response to the previous question. For example, please identify elements of the framework, including figures and diagrams, that could be addressed.
Same qualification as above. Mt Cannibal Nature Conservation Reserve is a protected area. Several properties nearby would qualify as Conserved Areas and owners would be keen to be involved. There are various EPBC listed species present and the general area is theoretically protected by Green Wedge zoning. Despite this, the proponent of the quarry is able to take advantage of what is demonstrably a system designed to help them. Residents, Landcare and Friends Groups in the area who should logically be helping progress to the target 30% are dissuaded. So, the downside from this is difficult to quantify and therefore to include in calculations by your department. It is however, very significant in our local government area of Shire of Cardinia and, we presume, would also be an issue elsewhere in Australia.
3. Are there any gaps in the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework?
3.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question.
I repeat my theme. Factors which indirectly affect attitudes are difficult to allow for but significant to the desired end result/
4. Are there any gaps in the proposed implementation arrangements?
See above
5. Is the proposed site assessment tool for Conserved Areas recognition fit for purpose to identify sites eligible for Conserved Area recognition?
5.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question.
Site assessment criteria have been developed over many years.
6. If you have tested the proposed site assessment tool on a specific site, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you think it was easy to use?
6.1 On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you think the proposed site assessment tool is fit for purpose?
6.2 Can you expand on your responses to Q6 and Q6.1.
What aspects of the tool were good, and what improvements could be made?
No
