The Victorian Farmers Federation will ask the State Government for a more balanced approach to native vegetation rules to enable increased land productivity for Victorian farmers.

Currently, farmers are often unable to remove stand-alone native trees in paddocks, even if they offer to replace them with vegetation in alternative locations on their property.

Gerald Leach, The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) Land Management Committee Chair, said the current native vegetation rules only consider environmental impacts, with little or no consideration of economic costs.

"Modelling by the VFF puts the costs of isolated paddock trees in a cropping operation at around $350/year. This includes up to $200 per tree per year in productivity losses alone. The other costs are attributed to additional resources used for spraying and seeding, damage to farm machinery from collisions with trees and debris, and cleaning up fallen trees and limbs."

Mr Leach said that the environmental benefits associated with retaining some types of vegetation aren't realistic and in some cases, are counter-productive.

"The rules assume paddock trees are irreplaceable. Yet these trees support no understory, are vulnerable to natural impacts like extreme weather, and are a less attractive habitat for wildlife due to their isolation and exposure.

"The crazy thing about this is there is so much emphasis on retaining old, dying trees, but when they fall over there will be no new recruits to replace them. In the long term, this short-sighted policy will see a net-loss in native vegetation rather than the net-gain desired by the Government.

"Instead, farmers could replace paddock trees with clumps of native vegetation and corridors in more convenient locations. Denser patches and corridors of native vegetation are more resilient than paddock trees and provide much greater habitat values, particularly for migratory species.

"The problems with isolated paddock trees are not limited to cropping operations. The same trees can be a huge barrier to centre-pivot irrigation, and increased productivity in irrigation districts.

"The State Government must implement changes that ensure realistic benefits are attributed to the retention of native vegetation on private land. These benefits must be balanced by the economic costs associated with their retention. Where the environmental cost of removing vegetation is unacceptable, incentives should be provided to engage landholders in managing and improving this vegetation," Mr Leach concluded.