Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The answer to Tasmania's wicked forestry problems isn't simple

By Simon Grove - posted Friday, 18 March 2011


  • Reservation is good for conservation – at least for the bits that get reserved. Nature can usually do conservation better than humans, when given the space and time to get on with it. However, in the present situation the overall conservation gain through increased reservation may be slight. That's because there's a big overlap between the forest types deemed by environmentalists to be of high conservation value and those already 'comprehensively, adequately and representatively' reserved through the RFA and TCFA. Furthermore, many of the new reserves will not be in wilderness areas and will need continued management, for instance to control weeds, enhance stand structure and maintain suitable fire regimes. Otherwise, if surrounded by intensive land-uses, they will become increasingly dysfunctional ecologically. Maintaining their conservation values will require money and manpower. Neither were adequately provisioned in the SEQFA.
  • Phasing out native forestry isn't good conservation practice for the areas subjected to the phasing-out. Sustainable forest management is based on ensuring that the long-term condition of the forest is not compromised for short-term gain. This plays out as constraints on when, and how intensively, individual areas of forest are harvested. But where's the incentive for long-term sustainability if there's no perceived future in native forestry? The SEQFA provides a warning of what could eventuate in Tasmania. Will the implementation of ecologically and socially acceptable alternatives to clearfelling be put on hold in a bid to extract the maximum amount of timber from the diminished area of forest available for harvest? Will we see regrowth forests harvested in their ecological youth, simply because it is too costly to wait for them to mature now that the more-mature forest that was planned for harvest is all reserved? Will standards of regeneration slip because there's no expectation of revisiting the regenerated forest anyway? Ironically, the more forest you reserve, the worse the conservation outcomes are likely to be in the un-reserved forest. The corollary to this is that you can do good conservation over a wider land-base if you have a lesser level of reservation that allows forestry to continue at a lesser level of intensity – integration is better than separation.
  • Excluding private native forestry from the restructure is not good for conservation. Continuing native forestry on private land could be seen as conservation-neutral, but for three issues that turn it negative. The first issue is that if the state forests aren't capable of supplying the markets at the same level as previously, then the private forests are likely to fill some of the gap – i.e., we may see an increase in harvesting, as happened in southeast Queensland. The second issue is that private forest landholdings tend to come in smaller parcels than state forest, and managing small, isolated fragments for good conservation outcomes is a lot harder than managing larger blocks of forest. And the third issue is that the 'comprehensive, adequate and representative' reserve system is still deficient in the forest types that can only be found on private land – the incentives for landowners to reserve their forest have not been enticing enough. Conservation is also not something that many landowners can afford to do without a hard financial return. The prospect of a ready market for timber is likely to steer landowners further away from opting in to the state's formal reserve system.
  • Expanding the short-rotation pulpwood plantation estate is probably not good for conservation. In terms of their conservation values, short-rotation pulpwood plantations fall far short of even the most intensively managed native forestry regime. Rather few native species can get even a toehold in these plantations between successive harvesting cycles, though feral weeds can prosper if unchecked. If the plantation is established through conversion of native forest, it's a clear conservation loss. But it could be argued that this is not the case if the plantation is grown on former agricultural land (because it's replacing one intensive use with another). This is only true up to a point. If the plantation displaces relict patches of trees, scrub or grassland, then it is a conservation loss. If it displaces agricultural production onto virgin land elsewhere (perhaps overseas), then it is a conservation loss. If it economically out-competes longer-rotation plantations, then it is a conservation loss, not only because of the intrinsic intensity of management but also because it then reduces our local capacity to make up the shortfall in sawlogs arising from reservation. On the other hand, it could be a conservation gain if the plantation helps reconnect relict patches of trees. Some species of forest birds would recolonise these fragments once they perceived the entire area as continuous forest.
  • Increased economic activity associated with a pulp-mill is probably not good for conservation. Proponents of a pulp-mill tout an increase in economic activity as one of its advantages, but this could be where the conservation impact of a mill is highest, though it seldom gets a mention as it goes against the whole ethos of the 'growth is good' paradigm. As land prices rise, we are likely to see more land speculation, and more subdividing, clearance and occupation of rural and suburban blocks. In ecological terms, this means diffuse but pervasive disturbances to whatever ecosystem currently occupies that land. Often, in the Tasmanian setting, this will be forest. Lots of small clearances for dwellings on large blocks can quickly equate to massive fragmentation. If experience from elsewhere in Tasmania is anything to go by, fire regimes will change, weeds will proliferate, and dogs, cats and rabbits will increasingly prevail over devils, quolls and bandicoots. Of course these issues are not unique to a pulp-mill. But with a mill being hailed as the biggest infrastructure project Tasmania has experienced, it's bound to have a sizeable ecological footprint.
  • Expanding the longer-rotation sawlog plantation estate can be good for conservation, but it depends on how it's done.Tasmanians can expect to see a renewed interest in the establishment of longer-rotation sawlog plantations on farmland, to make up for the shortfall in timber supply. Similar conservation arguments apply to these as to the short-rotation pulpwood plantations, except that the longer the rotation, the more opportunities a plantation offers for native species to colonise. Longer rotations also allow a little more wriggle-room for integrating conservation into overall management objectives, because the relative costs of doing so are smaller. For instance, patches of relict vegetation could be incorporated into the management area, and natural regeneration or revegetation encouraged in commercially unproductive areas. But these are by no means guaranteed outcomes. And not only is the feasibility of producing commercial sawlogs from hardwood plantations still questionable, but plantations aimed at sawlog production are likely to lose ground in the face of competition with short-rotation pulpwood plantations. These factors make it difficult to see how Tasmania alone could make up the shortfall in supply left by the increased reservation of its native forest, even over the two or three decades it would take to grow the trees.

So, overall, the local conservation gain from restructuring seems likely to be minor, with some conservation losses off-setting other gains. The gains will also be contingent on adequate provisions being made for on-going reserve management.

What about conservation impacts beyond our shores? To me, these demonstrate just how myopic we have become in our quest for peace in our forests. Every cubic metre of wood that we, or others, consume has to come from somebody's forest – ours or somebody else's. And every cubic metre that we decide not to produce from our state forests inevitably comes from somebody else's forest. It's quite right that we don't require our state forests to produce more cubic metres than they can sustainably supply. But to require them to produce less than they can sustainably supply assumes that we are comfortable with a trade-off that will require someone else's forest to produce more and fill the gap. The gap won't go away until it's filled – indeed, it's tending to get bigger as global demand increases. It's naïve to assume that the slack can instantly be taken up by sawlog plantations, because any such plantations that are ready for harvest are already serving other markets. Maybe some of that plantation wood will be diverted to serve our market instead, but ultimately the only sort of forest capable of taking up the slack is a 'green bank' – forest that is sitting there unharvested for lack of a sufficiently enticing market. If we've just created an enticing market, we should expect that sort of forest to be harvested. What sort of forest fits the bill? Native forest. And who has native forests in this condition? Locally, private landholders do. Otherwise, we're looking at our near neighbours in the south Pacific. Think tropical rainforests of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Forestry practices there are poorly regulated and frequently corrupt, with often dire conservation outcomes. As a conservation biologist, I don't think this is a good trade-off at all.

Advertisement

So how could we do things better? For a start, recalling that both conservation and forestry can be viewed as applied forms of ecology, we could try and be a bit more holistic in our thinking. I think we would be better off minimising the need for plantation expansion while maximising the opportunities that our public native forests offer for sustainably supplying wood and fibre. Native forestry in Tasmania has a proud track record in innovation, in incorporating ecological principles and in adapting to new management paradigms, while all the time producing the steady stream of wood demanded of it. It's not the dinosaur industry that some would claim. Its major shortfall is not ecological acceptability (although there's always room for improvement), but social. Some people don't like it, and they're very vocal about it. They frame the debate. They make others uneasy. So a big part of the solution is to find ways to engage with people so that management goals can be discussed in an atmosphere of trust and understanding – and if necessary altered; while different ways of achieving those goals can be tested and refined.

I've had a think about what my own, personal set of 'forest principles' might look like, because I do believe that it is possible for us to think our way out of the present impasse in a way that actually gives us good conservation outcomes as well as reducing social division. Rather than the current partisan and non-inclusive approach to a resolution, I would suggest that we need to start again with an independent, science-based review, reporting publicly, and advising our elected governments on the following points (and then trusting them to make the right decisions for us accordingly):

  • Revisit some old Agreements. Environmentalists have accepted as fact several conservation-relevant conjectures that are used to justify an anti-forestry stance, yet which others in the debate see as groundless. Let's get to the bottom of these once and for all. How well do they actually stack up? Did the Regional Forest Agreement actually deliver us a 'comprehensive, adequate and representative' reserve system on state and private land, according to nationally agreed criteria, or did it not? Were the original recommendations of the World Heritage Commission (WHC) fully adhered to in the designation of wilderness areas in Tasmania, or were they not? If implementation differed significantly from what was proposed, and if this had significant conservation impacts, then what steps would need to be taken to fix it up?
  • Consider the findings of any further credible conservation planning processes. Conservation planning in Tasmania is of interest to many academics and professional planners, including those in the Tasmanian government. Recent planning exercises have considered the desirability of additional reservation of various vegetation communities in different parts of the state, for their representativeness, their connectivity value, their importance to threatened species or a combination of these reasons. In a cool-headed evaluation of conservation priorities, these exercises ought to carry much more weight than the ambit claims of environmentalists. What do these exercises have to say about the need for further forest reservation in Tasmania: how much, why and where?
  • Consider other institutional models. Environmentalists also claim that the current institutional model for forestry (production and regulation) in Tasmania is dysfunctional, failing conservation and in need of an overhaul. Others claim that this same model represents world's best practice. So is there or isn't there any other model that we could adopt that would deliver better conservation outcomes but would still allow forestry to remain innovative and competitive in fulfilling its primary role? Let's consider the options.
  • A permanent forest estate. Tasmania does not yet have a delineated permanent native forest estate, though it has a policy on maintaining one of a certain size and set of forest types, and of ensuring that no more conversion to other land-uses can occur if it threatens to eat into this estate. Conversion of native forest to plantation has almost ceased in Tasmania (it ceased on state forest several years ago), and it would be a conservation loss if it were to ramp up again as a result of forestry restructuring. Perhaps the time has come for the estate to be defined and delineated once and for all? What are the risks in delineation, and if the risks are manageable, how could delineation best be achieved?
  • Appropriate sustained-yield targets. Harvesting levels on state forests have long been determined by the legal requirement to meet a target of sawlog supply set by the Tasmanian parliament, ostensibly based on the principles of sustained yield. The target does not segregate sources into native forest and plantation. Is this target structure appropriate for current conditions in which the balance of production from native forests and plantations is shifting? Or is it more in keeping with principles of sustainability to have separate long-term targets for native and plantation forests? What checks and balances are, or should be, in place to assure Tasmanians that the target levels are not set so high that they stifle silvicultural innovation and reduce options for integrating conservation into production? Is parliament the appropriate judge of target levels, with foresters' wood-flow modelling restricted to figuring out a way to deliver the target? Or should there be a more explicit role for forest growth-and-yield modelling in determining the target?
  • Best-practice afforestation. How can we ensure that plantation establishment and other forms of afforestation are conservation-positive rather than negative? Is the current Tasmanian Forest Practices system up to the task, or are there other regulatory changes that would help?
  • Help our neighbours. How valid is the argument that importing more of our wood from overseas comes with big conservation losses that outweigh the supposed gains from increased local reservation of native forest? What more can Australia do to help our Pacific neighbours improve their standards of forest management and conservation so that their ecological footprint – and our own – is reduced?
  • Engage!If there's one thing the current forestry situation demonstrates, it is a need to develop ways to enhance meaningful community engagement in forestry matters. It's not just about providing a soap-box for existing foes with firm views – the media do that well enough already. It's about recognising that actually there exist a range of perspectives, a range of fixedness of opinions, a range of levels of knowledge and understanding, a range of concerns. It's about keeping the channels of communication open. It's about trust and openness. It's about respect for others' values. It's about short-circuiting the social forces that currently lead to continued hardening and polarisation of opinions. What models exist that we can learn from? How and when can we make a start in applying them?

I'll finish by recalling here the concluding remarks from that study of the conservation effectiveness of the Southeast Queensland Forests Agreement. The authors' own words are that 'Regional biodiversity goals may be better achieved by implementing sustainable forest management practices across all ownerships and involving all stakeholders and the broader community'. In other words, the authors conclude that you'll get better conservation outcomes if you avoid the simplistic thinking that implies that more reservation equals more conservation; and if you involve ecologists, foresters and the broader community in the decision-making process. I couldn't agree more. Perhaps it's time we looked to the forests of British Columbia, not Queensland, for a way forward in defusing forest conflict in Tasmania.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

For the past nine years, Dr Simon Grove has been a conservation biologist in Forestry Tasmania’s Division of Forest Research and Development in Hobart. The views in this article are his own and are in no way attributable to his employer.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Simon Grove

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Simon Grove
Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy