Extract from an email sent by NSW Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis (former surveyor, property developer, local government councillor) on 20 May 2020:
Timber
harvesting operations take place in around one per cent of State
forests each year, which is around 0.1 per cent of forested land in
NSW.
Well
managed, sustainable timber harvesting operations provide the
essential renewable building products our communities need to rebuild
following the recent fire season, from power poles, to timber bridge
and house frames.
By
ensuring an ongoing wood supply, we will help maintain local jobs
when they are most needed and meet the critical timber supply needed
to rebuild our local communities.
Our
forests have been harvested and regrown many times over the past 100
years. Importantly, they have also successfully recovered from
bushfires before.
A
small number of selective harvesting operations that commenced prior
to the fires have continued under the strict regulations governing
native forestry in NSW.
These
rules require Forestry Corporation to set aside large areas of
habitat in every operation they carry out. These rules have been
developed by expert panels of scientists to ensure wildlife
populations continue to thrive alongside sustainable timber
harvesting.
However,
the primary focus is on salvaging what timber can be recovered from
those badly burnt parts of the forest. These are areas so severely
affected by fires they are largely devoid of any habitat. Forestry
Corporation is also preparing to embark on a massive re-planting
program to recover this estate.
Well, how does one reply to a pottage of misleading statements about a timber industry rife with rule breaking and environmental vandalism?
Firstly the Forestry Corporation of NSW controls more than two million hectares of native and planted state forest in New South Wales and, annually it takes an est. 2.5 million m3 of sawlogs and around 2 million tonnes of pulpwood from these forests, which means it supplies an est 14% of Australia's timber product. This year to date the Forestry Corporation has harvested est. 1.21 million m3 of timber product.
Secondly, on a regular basis the timber industry racks up warnings and fines. As little as four weeks ago the NSW Environment Protection Authority announced that the Forestry Corporation had been fined $31,100 for failure to abide by conditions immposed concerning avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas and retention of habitat trees.
Thirdly, perhaps a few images will clearly show that even after severe bushfires, in the absence of chainsaws and logging trucks, trees will begin to recreate "habitat".
Well, how does one reply to a pottage of misleading statements about a timber industry rife with rule breaking and environmental vandalism?
Firstly the Forestry Corporation of NSW controls more than two million hectares of native and planted state forest in New South Wales and, annually it takes an est. 2.5 million m3 of sawlogs and around 2 million tonnes of pulpwood from these forests, which means it supplies an est 14% of Australia's timber product. This year to date the Forestry Corporation has harvested est. 1.21 million m3 of timber product.
Secondly, on a regular basis the timber industry racks up warnings and fines. As little as four weeks ago the NSW Environment Protection Authority announced that the Forestry Corporation had been fined $31,100 for failure to abide by conditions immposed concerning avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas and retention of habitat trees.
Thirdly, perhaps a few images will clearly show that even after severe bushfires, in the absence of chainsaws and logging trucks, trees will begin to recreate "habitat".
 |
| All photographs found at Google Images |
And then there is this aspect.....
ABC News, 29 January 2020:
Research has also shown forests that are logged post-fire and then regenerated have an increased risk of burning in high-severity crown-scorching fires.
This extra fire risk lasts for about 40 years after logging. That is, a burnt forest which is logged tomorrow will still carry an elevated fire risk in 2060.
A global review published in 2009 showed that links between logging and elevated fire risk is a problem seen in wet types of forests worldwide.
In 2016, an Australian study published by the Ecological Society of America found tree fern populations crashed by 94 per cent after post-fire logging.....
Many burnt trees that look dead now will re-sprout in the next few weeks or months. This is already occurring in the burnt coastal forests of NSW.
These recovering trees must not be logged. They are essential for the survival of animals like gliding possums — research shows that these animals are unlikely to return to forests that are logged immediately after burning for 180 years (if they can return at all).
Heavy logging machinery will kill many of the plants that germinate in the nutrient-rich bed of ashes on the forest floor.
Animals that have miraculously survived in burnt areas can also be killed in logging operations.
Pioneering research from southern Australia has shown that fungi and nutrients in soils can take up to a century or even longer to recover from salvage logging.
Mass movement of soils in areas logged post-burn can choke rivers and streams and trigger fish kills as well as kill many other kinds of animals....
Research has also shown forests that are logged post-fire and then regenerated have an increased risk of burning in high-severity crown-scorching fires.
This extra fire risk lasts for about 40 years after logging. That is, a burnt forest which is logged tomorrow will still carry an elevated fire risk in 2060.
A global review published in 2009 showed that links between logging and elevated fire risk is a problem seen in wet types of forests worldwide.
In 2016, an Australian study published by the Ecological Society of America found tree fern populations crashed by 94 per cent after post-fire logging.....
Many burnt trees that look dead now will re-sprout in the next few weeks or months. This is already occurring in the burnt coastal forests of NSW.
These recovering trees must not be logged. They are essential for the survival of animals like gliding possums — research shows that these animals are unlikely to return to forests that are logged immediately after burning for 180 years (if they can return at all).
Heavy logging machinery will kill many of the plants that germinate in the nutrient-rich bed of ashes on the forest floor.
Animals that have miraculously survived in burnt areas can also be killed in logging operations.
Pioneering research from southern Australia has shown that fungi and nutrients in soils can take up to a century or even longer to recover from salvage logging.
Mass movement of soils in areas logged post-burn can choke rivers and streams and trigger fish kills as well as kill many other kinds of animals....
The Guardian, 6 May 2020:
A group of senior Australian scientists have warned in an international journal that logging native forests makes fire more severe and is likely to have exacerbated the country’s catastrophic summer bushfires.
In a comment piece published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, the scientists call for a clearer discussion about how land management and forestry practices contribute to fire risk.
The article by the scientists David Lindenmayer, Robert Kooyman, Chris Taylor, Michelle Ward and James Watson comes amid intense debate about the resumption of logging in Victoria and New South Wales in bushfire hit regions.....
In the comment piece, the scientists say much of the conversation in the aftermath of the spring and summer bushfires had rightly focused on climate change, but the impact of land management and forestry on fire risk was often neglected in these discussions.
They highlight this as a concern because land management policy was “well within the control of Australians” and the fires had been used by some sectors of the industry to call for increased logging in some areas.
The paper says industry data showed that some 161m cubic metres of native forest was logged in the period from 1996 to 2018.
“Beyond the direct and immediate impacts on biodiversity of disturbance and proximity to disturbed forest, there is compelling evidence that Australia’s historical and contemporary logging regimes have made many Australian forests more fire prone and contributed to increased fire severity and flammability,” the scientists write.
This occurs because logging leaves debris at ground level that increases the fuel load in logged forests. It also changes forest composition and leaves these areas of forest both hotter and drier, they say.
The article says during the bushfire season fire had spread from logged areas adjacent to old growth eucalypts and rainforests in the Gondwana world heritage reserves.....
The Daily Examiner, 25 May 2020:
The public was recently invited to comment on a draft code of practice – the “rule book” – for private native forestry.
The CoP has been in place for about 15 years, with the current draft resulting from the mandatory five-yearly review.
With the stated aim of ensuring ecologically sustainable forest management, one would expect any review to focus on that aim but unfortunately that has not been the case.
Ecologists and conservationists have two major concerns, the first being that, while there are provisions to protect threatened flora and fauna that are known to inhabit the proposed logging areas, there is no requirement to actually look for them.
In fact, unless there is an official record of a threatened species on the property, it is assumed they don’t occur there.
The second concern is a lack of compliance monitoring and enforcement, for which there is certainly a wealth of evidence.
Although it’s difficult to pinpoint a reason, possibly it relates to a lack of political will to take action against the industry at large.
Perhaps it is a case of under-resourcing, poorly drafted legislation open to interpretation or all of the above but the fact remains that flouting of the code’s regulations is widespread.
Two years ago, the Clarence Environment Centre reported one local case where a PNF operator broke virtually every rule in the book – literally hundreds of breaches.
Logging on creek banks, in swamps, on rocky outcrops and on cliff edges.
Snigging tracks were constructed on excessive slopes and across gullies, erosion control measures were inadequate, threatened species had been trampled by machinery and rubbish such as oil drums and tyres were left littering the landscape.
The investigators spent days on site confirming the reported breaches and finding additional ones, yet almost two years later no action has been taken against the culprits and with the two-year statute of limitations looming, the case will likely be dropped.
Unless operators are held to account, how can we have any faith in the supposed aim of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management?
John Edwards, Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition
In a comment piece published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, the scientists call for a clearer discussion about how land management and forestry practices contribute to fire risk.
The article by the scientists David Lindenmayer, Robert Kooyman, Chris Taylor, Michelle Ward and James Watson comes amid intense debate about the resumption of logging in Victoria and New South Wales in bushfire hit regions.....
In the comment piece, the scientists say much of the conversation in the aftermath of the spring and summer bushfires had rightly focused on climate change, but the impact of land management and forestry on fire risk was often neglected in these discussions.
They highlight this as a concern because land management policy was “well within the control of Australians” and the fires had been used by some sectors of the industry to call for increased logging in some areas.
The paper says industry data showed that some 161m cubic metres of native forest was logged in the period from 1996 to 2018.
“Beyond the direct and immediate impacts on biodiversity of disturbance and proximity to disturbed forest, there is compelling evidence that Australia’s historical and contemporary logging regimes have made many Australian forests more fire prone and contributed to increased fire severity and flammability,” the scientists write.
This occurs because logging leaves debris at ground level that increases the fuel load in logged forests. It also changes forest composition and leaves these areas of forest both hotter and drier, they say.
The article says during the bushfire season fire had spread from logged areas adjacent to old growth eucalypts and rainforests in the Gondwana world heritage reserves.....
The Daily Examiner, 25 May 2020:
The public was recently invited to comment on a draft code of practice – the “rule book” – for private native forestry.
The CoP has been in place for about 15 years, with the current draft resulting from the mandatory five-yearly review.
With the stated aim of ensuring ecologically sustainable forest management, one would expect any review to focus on that aim but unfortunately that has not been the case.
Ecologists and conservationists have two major concerns, the first being that, while there are provisions to protect threatened flora and fauna that are known to inhabit the proposed logging areas, there is no requirement to actually look for them.
In fact, unless there is an official record of a threatened species on the property, it is assumed they don’t occur there.
The second concern is a lack of compliance monitoring and enforcement, for which there is certainly a wealth of evidence.
Although it’s difficult to pinpoint a reason, possibly it relates to a lack of political will to take action against the industry at large.
Perhaps it is a case of under-resourcing, poorly drafted legislation open to interpretation or all of the above but the fact remains that flouting of the code’s regulations is widespread.
Two years ago, the Clarence Environment Centre reported one local case where a PNF operator broke virtually every rule in the book – literally hundreds of breaches.
Logging on creek banks, in swamps, on rocky outcrops and on cliff edges.
Snigging tracks were constructed on excessive slopes and across gullies, erosion control measures were inadequate, threatened species had been trampled by machinery and rubbish such as oil drums and tyres were left littering the landscape.
The investigators spent days on site confirming the reported breaches and finding additional ones, yet almost two years later no action has been taken against the culprits and with the two-year statute of limitations looming, the case will likely be dropped.
Unless operators are held to account, how can we have any faith in the supposed aim of Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management?
John Edwards, Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition
No comments:
Post a Comment