THE PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO NATIVE FOREST LOGGING
Contents
pageThreatened and Endangered Species 4
Bermagui State Forest Example 6
Private Native Forests Code of Practice 7
Accounting and Auditing Methods and Procedures 9
Summary of the Inquiry’s Interim Findings 10
- Example Submission 11Appendix B - Example Breach Report 13
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO NATIVE FOREST LOGGING
INTERIM REPORT – APRIL 2009
The Public Inquiry into Native Forest Logging is enquiring into logging operations and practices within Australian native forests covered under the various Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs).
The purpose of the Inquiry is to investigate these practices and to make findings and recommendations.
This document presents the Interim Findings of the Inquiry.
While the Inquiry is based in the ACT and is investigating native forest logging practices in the whole of Australia, for the purposes of this Interim Report, it will generally focus on logging practices in NSW, and use mainly NSW examples. The Inquiry notes that many of the practices it has investigated in NSW are substantially similar to the other States’ native forest management and logging practices.
The Inquiry accepted public and other interested parties’ written submissions from April 2008 until July 2008. The Inquiry notes the high standard of the many public submissions and that the extensive interest in, and knowledge of, native forest logging operations and management, was very informing.
The Inquiry visited Forest NSW offices, native forest operations and a number of regional offices. To date (April 2009), the Inquiry has visited three timber mills and a chipping plant. Site visits to regional offices and timber mills were concluded in late October 2008.
The Inquiry has made initial visits to Forestry Tasmania and VicForests to investigate interstate forestry practices, resources and wood supply commitments. We have visited numerous State Forests to view different silviculture practices and logging operations. We have consulted with the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), forest conservation groups, non- government organizations (NGOs), members of the general public and industry groups.
A preliminary assessment outlining key findings was prepared and discussed in November 2008, and, draft recommendations for the Interim Report were discussed in December 2008.
We take this opportunity to publicly thank those many individuals and organizations who took the time to make both written and verbal submissions to the Inquiry. Your assistance has been invaluable and has helped improve our understanding of the issues and complexities around native forest logging operations and the industry regulatory structure.
Most of the natural, terrestrial habitats in the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) areas are part of wider ecosystems dominated by forests. These forests contain a wide diversity of forest types, from tall wet forest to dry open forest, rare littoral rainforest on the coast, cool-temperate, warm-temperate and sub-tropical rainforests. The few remaining tall, wet old-growth forests have trees over fifty metres high and ten meters in girth. Some cool-temperate rainforests contain trees potentially five thousand years old.
Native forests have also been significantly impacted by agriculture, urban development, tourism, invasive weeds and animals, grazing and fire. The Inquiry notes that logged forest is much more susceptible to these damaging impacts than forest which is not logged.
Native forests which are biologically productive having nutrient-rich soils, and those on flatter terrain, are rare. The CSIRO has found that tree associations that characterise the most biologically productive sites are those that are most extensively disturbed by logging or clearing.
The Inquiry notes recent research demonstrating that the carbon carrying capacity of south east Australia’s native forests is many times that previously estimated. For example, it is on average, 3 times the value used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The effects and rate of human-induced climate change have increased dramatically since the RFAs were signed in 1998. Climate change was not considered at all during the Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) process. Further, the significant carbon and water storage capabilities of native forests have not been considered in these assessments. The Inquiry finds that these omissions have compromised the integrity of the RFA and CRA processes.Numerous nationally-listed species in NSW are increasingly threatened by climate change (including species such as the Spotted-tailed Quoll), but the exemption to the Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) leaves things frozen in time, stopped at 1998, when climate change was not considered.
Climate change will dramatically increase other threats to species in the region, through increased spread of invasive species, increased fire frequency and severity, increased spread of forest dieback, and reduced stream flows. The cumulative impact of all these threats, plus industrial logging operations operating under an exemption to the EPBC Act and the RFAs, have resulted in major negative impacts on nationally-listed species. The Inquiry finds that RFA conditions placed on logging operations to ameliorate ecological impacts are increasingly inadequate as climate change escalates.
Forest authorities accounting and information systems have failed to assess the true value of carbon and water resources that are stored in native forests. The value of these stored resources far exceed the royalties received from logging operations, even when carbon is conservatively valued at a price of twenty dollars a tonne.
The Inquiry finds that the carbon issue alone is sufficient reason to immediately cease all native forest logging, but has nevertheless examined other aspects of logging operations and practices as required by our terms of reference.
1. That the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) did not consider the critical issues of climate change or carbon and water storage and are therefore inadequate instruments to determine forest management.
2. The RFAs are severely inadequate to protect forest species and forest habitats. The conservation targets of almost all nationally-listed fauna species and many of the nationally-listed flora species were not achieved through the RFAs substantial additional conservation action is still required to meet minimum benchmarks.
3. The RFAs have not been properly implemented, review timeframes have not been met and key components have not been conducted. The Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1998 has not had its five yearly review.
4. The conditions on logging under legislative regimes, (on which the RFAs rely to deliver ecologically sustainable management), are inadequate. The prescriptions and conditions, while inadequate, are frequently breached and very poorly supervised and enforced. It is deemed, by the Inquiry, to be completely unacceptable that third party appeal rights have been removed.
5. Private lands were not assessed as part of the RFAs, but they are being logged with inadequate regulation at an alarming rate under an EPBC Act exemption.
6. The timber volumes committed through the RFAs are not sustainable. Demonstrably unsustainable timber volumes have been committed for 20 years, and these unsustainable volume commitments unreasonably extend beyond the term of the RFAs.
Inadequacy of RFA conservation outcomes for nationally-listed species
NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian native forests are recognized as being national biodiversity hotspots and have international significance for the wide diversity of plants and animals they contain. They include some of Australia's major refuge areas that will be pivotal in enabling our declining biodiversity to survive into an uncertain future.
The RFAs in NSW did not meet the requirements of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. A large number of forest ecosystem and old-growth forest targets were not met. Furthermore, the RFA results were inadequate to protect nationally-listed species.
Using the NSW Government's own analysis, including data produced for the CRA, it is evident that only one of the 20 nationally-listed forest fauna species met their conservation targets after the RFAs and many nationally-listed flora species have fallen dramatically short of their targets.
The Inquiry finds that substantial additional reservation and conservation action is still required to meet the minimum requirements identified for these species by the CRA.
As an example, four Spotted-tailed Quoll meta-populations were identified by the CRA, for which targets were set to aim for the protection of approximately 1,000 breeding pairs. However, target achievement was extremely poor, with three populations achieving less than 20% of the area targeted. Only in one population was 50% of the target achieved. The average target achievement across the four populations was only 25%. The Inquiry finds that this is increasingly inadequate, in light of the multiple threats to the Quoll posed by climate change, the likely associated increase in fire severity and the potential spread of the Cane Toad.
The Spotted-tailed Quoll is recognised as being an old-growth-related species, and the failure of the RFAs to fully and properly protect old-growth forests means that this species is at extreme risk from continuing native forest logging in NSW.
Other listed threatened and endangered species occurring in the forests of NSW, that are likely to be similarly affected, include:
Long-nosed Potoroo Smoky MouseLarge-eared Pied Bat Golden Tipped Bat
Grey-headed Flying Fox Swift ParrotEastern Bristlebird Regent Honeyeater
Stuttering Frog Fleays Frog Black-breasted Button Quail Green and Golden Bell Frog Heath Frog Wallum Sedge Frog Peppered Tree Frog Giant Burrowing Frog Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby Broad-headed Snake Border Thick-tailed Gecko Southern Brown BandicootPowerful Owl Barking Owl
Sooty Owl Glossy Black Cockatoo
Yellow Bellied Glider Greater Glider
The situation is undoubtedly similar for the listed flora species which occur in NSW. There is no legislative requirement to survey for them, and very few records, so there is no trigger for any action to protect them. Therefore, they are legally allowed to be damaged with impunity by logging operations. They are at grave risk from logging and the associated roading and burning regimes. Listed flora species face grave risks from the inevitable spread of invasive species after logging.
The Inquiry finds that the number of threatened and endangered species has risen since the RFAs were signed, in 1998 and that many threatened and endangered flora and fauna species are at extreme risk from current logging operations and practices.
The RFAs have been poorly implemented and frequently breached
The first five-yearly reviews, specifically required by the RFAs, have still not been completed. Key milestones and obligations set out in the RFAs have not been met, and the annual reporting required by the RFAs has not occurred in a regular and timely manner. Two examples of key measures that have not been met are:
In relation to World Heritage, the north-eastern NSW RFA - section 27 states:
“
Parties agree to actively investigate, and jointly participate in the further World Heritage assessment of the relevant Australia-wide themes specified in Section 3.4.2 (Table 17) of the World Heritage Expert Panel report, including any potential contribution from the Upper North East and Lower North East regions.”The World Heritage Expert Panel recommended assessment and nomination of north-eastern NSW as a centre of eucalypt diversity, but no such assessment or nomination has ever been undertaken.
In relation to timber supplies, the RFA - section 81 states:
“
The volumes in clause 79 are subject to a FRAMES and wood supply review to be completed by 1 December 2006”.However, this review did not take place, and instead the NSW Government re-negotiated new 20-year wood supply agreements in 2003/2004 without meeting these important requirements.
Forestry and National Parks Estate Act 1998 was due in 2003.
East Gippsland RFA signed 1998 was due in 2003.
Central Highlands RFA signed 1998 was due in 2003.
Eden region RFA signed 1999 was due in 2004.
North East Vic RFA signed 1999 was due in 2004.
Upper and Lower North East RFA signed 2000 due in 2005.
Gippsland RFA signed 2000 was due in 2005.
Western Vic RFA signed 2000 was due in 2005.
Southern Region RFA signed 2001 was due in 2006.
The Sustainable Yield Audits 2001 were due in 2006
.The Inquiry finds that there has been a systemic failure of forestry authorities to complete these reviews by the due dates and, therefore, forestry management and regulatory bodies have significantly failed in their duties.
Logging Regimes are inadequate, regularly breached and poorly enforced
Section 36 of the NSW RFAs relies on the legislative regime controlling logging to deliver ecologically sustainable management. It states that:
“New South Wales confirms that its Upper North East Region Forest Agreement and Lower North East Region Forest Agreement (NSW, 5 March 1999) and any Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOAs) for all or part of the Upper North East and Lower North East regions are parts of the New South Wales Forest Management System and are means by which New South Wales will implement obligations and undertakings arising from this Agreement”
However, the conditions on logging under NSW legislative regimes, on which the RFA relies to deliver ecologically sustainable management, are inadequate, frequently breached and very poorly enforced. These conditions have been subject to change, and have been markedly weakened since the RFA was signed.
In addition, third party appeal rights have been removed in NSW and there is no avenue for the community to challenge the law directly, despite the demonstrated failure of the NSW Government to enforce these laws and prescriptions properly. The Inquiry deems this situation unacceptable.
Two examples illustrate this point:
Firstly, in relation to the endangered Hasting River Mouse, the conditions contained in the Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (IFOA) for this species have recently been weakened for certain core areas for the Hasting River Mouse at the behest of the Forests NSW to increase access for logging.
Secondly, in relation to the endangered Spotted-tailed Quoll, FNSW were recently found illegally logging a Spotted-tailed Quoll exclusion zone in Forestland State Forest in northern NSW. They admitted the fact, but claimed it was a mistake.
Despite numerous documented breaches referred to DECC by the community, there has not been a single prosecution for these breaches of the Threatened Species Licence for the past five years. The DECCs Forest Policy and Regulation Unit is severely understaffed (having only one officer to regulate NSW, for example).
The Bermagui State Forest example
The Inquiry cites the logging in Compartments 2004 and 2005 in Bermagui State Forest (SF), NSW as an example of the widespread systemic failure to adhere to basic regulatory prescriptions, additionally endangering native flora and fauna already under extreme stress.
The Inquiry’s investigation has found that similar systemic failures in other logging compartments are commonplace. The Inquiry spent several days in 2008 auditing the contentious Bermagui SF logging operation. The number of breaches found confirms that the RFA and IFOA guidelines are not being properly adhered to and that operational standards fell well short of best practice.
Four plots with an area of approximately 20 hectares were inspected from a total of 183.2 hectares. A total of 55 breaches were found, 54 of these relate to the Threatened Species Licence. The breaches were evenly spread over the sample plots and suggest that there would be at least 500 breaches if the whole area was inspected.
Most of these breaches relate to habitat tree retention and buffer zones. The breaches expose the critically inadequate application of the required RFA and IFOA prescriptions in the field. Several rainforest buffer exclusion zones were found to be wrongly marked and subsequently logged. A Glossy Black Cockatoo feed tree was smashed by felling a tree directly onto it. Buffer zones for the sensitive cultural sites located in the logging area were inadequate and not well protected.
Due to intense public scrutiny and community opposition, this logging operation was not as intensive as other logging operations in the Eden region. That such a large number of breaches were reported is evidence that Forests NSW cannot follow basic procedures and prescriptions.
This is particularly unacceptable in these important and increasingly rare areas of documented koala habitat, such as Bermagui State Forest. The logging of Bermagui State Forest could have been a model operation for Forests NSW, the local Regional Manager stated that the logging would be undertaken under strict environmental regulations. The Inquiry has found the opposite to apply in this and many other examples.
These “strict” regulations are, in fact, quite basic to follow and many are written with numerous loopholes, so that compliance with the actual intent of the guidelines is regularly ignored. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground, is that forest authorities often do not comply with these simple rules. The many breaches, in this example, demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding of the specific ecology of the area and of the prescriptions required to be met. The Inquiry has carried out inspections of many other logging operations in the past year and has found similar breaches at each logging site inspected, in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania
The Inquiry finds that such multiple breaching of environmental protection measures and prescriptions cannot be explained as ‘a once off mistake’ and can only be explained by a systemic disregard for these basic operational requirements and ignores the community’s valid concerns.
A report detailing the breaches in the above example has been sent to the forestry unit of the DECC for investigation. A copy of that report is included in Appendix B.
Private Lands were not assessed during the RFA Process
The exemption under the EPBC Act relating to RFAs includes logging operations on both private and public lands. This is a major cause of concern, as private lands were effectively not considered or assessed during the RFA process in NSW, except to provide context for the public land reserve decision.
Without any adequate assessment of environmental values or impact whatsoever, private land logging operations are impacting on matters of National Environmental Significance.
Private logging in NSW has an exemption under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997, and the subsequent Native Vegetation Act 2003. It does not require any approval prior to logging except in the cases where it occurs on State Protected Land, where a development consent is required. Therefore, very substantial areas of native forests are intensively logged, with virtually no constraints, from the signing of the RFAs in 2000, to the introduction of a new Private Native Forests Code of Practice in July 2007. The precise area is unknown, because there was no requirement to even report the extent of logging.
The Private Native Forests Code of Practice under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 represents very basic regulation. It is inadequate to protect high conservation value habitats, to prevent substantial negative environmental impacts generally, or to prevent negative impacts on nationally- listed species. Notably, it is far inferior to the license constraints which apply to logging on public land in NSW.
Major failings of the Private Native Forests Code of Practice
The Code of Practice does not require a threatened species survey prior to logging and does not protect habitats unless there is a species record. Given the failure of the RFA's to conduct surveys on private land and the extreme paucity of data on private lands generally, this means that the prescriptions contained in the Code are barely ever triggered. As a result, threatened species habitats are being logged routinely under the Code of Practice.
The Code of Practice does not properly protect old-growth forests or riparian areas, half of the mapped area of old-growth forest has been made available for logging without any assessment, and the remainder can be made available for logging after a discretionary field test. Riparian protections are grossly inadequate, with most streams triggering only a 5m hard buffer, and only prescribed streams triggering a 20m buffer.
The Code of Practice does nothing to protect corridors or promote ecological connectivity, there is no requirement to consider or protect corridors, or areas important for ecological connectivity, from logging and clearing.
The timber volumes committed through the RFAs are not sustainable
In south east NSW (Eden, Southern RFAs) the annual net areas logged have rapidly increased and yields have fallen. In other words, the industry is having to log ever greater areas to maintain the same levels of production. This practice is clearly not sustainable.
The outcomes of the RFAs are not sustainable, even from a timber perspective. Unsustainable timber volumes were committed for 20 years, and these even extend beyond the term of the RFA's. The industry modelling system used to derive timber volumes, substantially over-estimated available timber. Consequently, after the 20 year period of the RFAs, there will be a dramatic short-fall. To achieve the large volumes sought for the first 20 years, the industry has had to dramatically over-cut, resulting in much decreased volumes available thereafter. This is clearly reflected in the industry modelling, which shows a volume reduction by almost 50% after 2018.
For example, in the southern NSW Eden Region, in 2008, FNSW was over quota by 1,311 cu metres and have been over quota for each of the previous nine years by a total of 18,000 cu metres.
Notably, in 2003 the NSW Government re-issued timber supply contracts, (without conducting the promised timber review), for a further 20 years (thus extending the contracts out to 2023). Therefore, timber supplies have been committed outside the 20 year timeframe of the RFAs, without a wood supply review or any required RFA review. These contracts have been extended well past the point at which timber supplies will fall in 2018.
Royalties in SE NSW are now less, in real terms, than they were 15 years ago and the Government agency, Forests NSW, is making less in royalty revenue than it expends in managing woodchipping operations. A similar situation applies in Victoria.
Contractual obligations within the revised 20-year agreements included clauses indicating that compensation would be payable by the Government if State Forests was unable to meet contracted volumes. The contracts provided for exclusion if the cause of non-supply was outside of State Forests’ or the Government’s control. The contracts limit the extent of compensation to ‘…any loss, damage or expense incurred by the company arising from the failure to deliver the agreed volume, and will not include any loss of profits or consequential loss’.In addition, the 20-year contracts have a review clause which permits the Government to reduce the contracted volume allocations following an inventory reassessment after eight years, with no compensation being payable for the reduced volume. The Audit Office has been advised that, if as a result of the eight-year reassessment of timber volumes, State Forests determines that insufficient volume exists within the forests to meet contractual obligations, then the Government can approve a reduction in volume with no compensation being payable. If on the other hand, the Minister approves a revised allocation less than State Forests inventory reassessment, compensation would be payable for any difference.
The contracts require the Government to ‘be satisfied that sufficient funds are available for any compensation before taking any action likely to involve a liability for compensation’. This suggests that the period of greatest financial and operational risk is within the first eight years of the contract period, before the volume reassessment occurs. It is therefore essential that the timber volume estimate is accurate in order to reduce the likelihood of paying compensation to the timber industry.
The NSW Auditor General is currently conducting a performance audit on sustainability of wood supply. The Inquiry finds that these supply contracts are clearly not sustainable.
Inadequate Accounting and Auditing Methods and Procedures
The Inquiry finds that forestry authority accounts and timber volume auditing information is unreliable or difficult to obtain because of the failure of forestry authorities to separate native forest accounts and data from plantation accounts and data.FNSW and the other forest authorities are obscuring the fact that plantation activities are subsidising native forest logging. Export woodchipping of large quantities of native forest therefore is a highly protected industry because of these accounting methods, which lock out inquiries and audits, making any meaningful financial analysis of forestry operations almost impossible.
The Inquiry has found that amalgamation of the finances of plantation and native forest activities frustrates examination of the extent to which plantation activities subsidise native forest logging.
The Productivity Commission has identified that Forest NSW do not operate on a commercially viable basis, and that logging operations are at a large loss to Australian taxpayers annually. As previously noted, the NSW Auditor General is currently conducting a performance audit on sustainability of wood supply. The Inquiry finds that these supply contracts are clearly not sustainable.
The Public Inquiry into Native Forest Logging Interim Report finds that current logging regimes are not meeting the expectations and intentions of the regulators, the industry or the public. The economic and conservation values and targets expressed in various legislations are inadequate, unsustainable or are not being met at all. The public is overwhelmingly opposed to the uneconomic destruction of native forest and has expressed very real concerns about the negative impacts of logging on native forest fauna and flora species. Timber production should be put on a firm economic footing and based in the existing plantation estate.
The Inquiry finds the RFAs and other legislations to be extremely inadequate and unsustainable regulatory mechanisms for native forest logging. It is unacceptable that legislation review targets have not been met and are years overdue. The various State and Commonwealth regulatory bodies are poorly resourced and limited in scope. Native forest managers have manifestly inadequate auditing and information systems. Despite massive profits to the private sector, particularly in Japan, native forest logging operations and practices are costing Australian taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
1. The RFAs should be terminated.
2. There should be no exemption under the EPBC Act 1999 for any forestry operations in any area.
3. For the timber industry to be solely plantation based using existing plantations. No new plantations are needed to supply Australia's domestic or export wood requirements.
4. Immediate protection of major catchment areas and remediation of water catchment areas to be undertaken.
5. Immediate remediation of threatened species habitat to be undertaken.
1. The Public Inquiry into Native Forest Logging finds that the industrial logging practices in Australia's native forests by the various Forestry Commissions trading as Forests NSW, Forestry Tasmania and VicForests under the Regional Forest Agreements are unsustainable, economically, culturally and environmentally.
2. The Inquiry notes that other authorities catchment planning agencies have almost unanimously concluded that forests are more valuable left standing in catchments than sold as timber.
3. The almost complete consensus of public submissions (97%) was the requirement to leave the land in a better state than it was found and to eliminate or drastically reduce all native forest logging immediately.
4. The Inquiry finds, in concurrence with the Stern Report, that action to avoid further deforestation should be an urgent priority. Accordingly, if no action is taken, the health of native forests and therefore the Australian public will be severely detrimentally affected.
5. The Inquiry finds that large areas of these forest eco-systems have been degraded and changed, over time, by logging and associated practices such as roading, drainage works and burning.
6. The Inquiry finds that native forests are damaged and degraded by current logging practices, that these practices are economically unprofitable and environmentally unsustainable.
7.
The Inquiry finds that current prescriptions and legislation to protect native forests on private land are extremely inadequate.8. The Inquiry finds that current logging practices do not adequately protect Australia's native flora and fauna.
9. The Inquiry finds that there should be no exemption for RFA forestry operations, which are clearly unsustainable, for which key agreements relating to sustainability reviews have been ignored and/or wood supply contracts signed outside the timeframe of the RFAs.
10. The Inquiry finds that native forests are more resilient than plantations in the face of climate change and better equipped to withstand increasing and more severe occurrences of natural disturbance such as fire, drought and storm as predicted under most climate change scenarios.
11. The Inquiry finds that Government owned and managed native forest logging practices have resulted in illegal logging, destruction of old-growth trees in special protection zones, degradation of threatened species habitat and multiple breaches of procedure.
12. The Inquiry finds that there are significant economic, environmental and social benefits to support ending native forest logging and to ensure a swift transition of logging operations into the existing plantation estate.
13. The Inquiry finds that Forestry authorities and regulators should be held accountable for the uneconomic and ecologically unsustainable logging operations, practices and management of Australia's native forests.
A representative example submission received by the Inquiry
18.4.08
THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC INQUIRY
LOGGING IN NATIVE FORESTS.
I can only speak on thirty years of observation in the south east corner of New South Wales regarding the hardwood timber industry and the effects it has had on our climate, water catchments, soil erosion and the siltation of our creeks and rivers. The destruction of our biodiversity. The displacement of wildlife and the destruction of their food chain. The effect it has on the ratepayers of the shires that have a logging programme in their shires, i.e. The cost of roads, infrastructure, and the maintenance of the same caused by the damage of the logging industry.
A Personal Example
I purchased 200 acres of land in 1978. This parcel of land had a permanent creek running through. Before purchase I enquired from the old inhabitants (95 years and older), they stated that the creek had never gone dry since European settlement (1840). I took this as gospel for they had been born and bred in the locality. Approximately 10 years ago the catchment area of the creek was heavily logged and within 6 months the creek stopped running. It now only runs after heavy rain and then stops until the next downpour.
This is not the only creek affected by the logging industry. All the creeks on the south coast are the same. All are silted up, and some have disappeared altogether.
This destruction of our waterways is not wholly caused by the logging industry, also by agriculture and urbanisation both having a major role in the removal of native forests from our landscape.
It is the logging industry who is causing the most damage in our water catchment areas. They are not satisfied with destroying these areas, they are now flogging the timber off the ridge tops, where erosion is that much greater, the regrowth phase is that much slower. In fact in some areas it is a question if regrowth will actually occur.
Up until the establishment of the hardwood mill at Eden over the last few years 100% of all sawlogs were directed to the chipmill, turning native forests into a waste product. Even at the present time I would estimate 70% of sawlogs are still being processed at the chipmill. The Forest Industry Association is still using the same spiel as they did twenty years ago - the chipmill is only using the waste from the logging industry. Where the truth is the waste is left to rot or be burned at a later date. It is the sawlog that gets turned into waste.
With the diminishing hardwood forests either by logging, agriculture or urbanisation, it is having a heavy toll on our climate in conjunction with global warming, we have brought about a big change in our weather patterns to such an extent I would be surprised to see any rainfall on the land mass of Australia in the next 100 years if something is not done now to remedy the situation regarding native forests for the long term.
After the Commonwealth and State Governments made the so-called RFA's they made funds available (millions of $$) to buy out the local log haulage contractors that may be affected by the RFA's. The monies were paid out but most of them are still in the business with new ones coming all the time. In fact in the Bega-Eden area we have Queensland and Tasmanian logging companies advertising for local log haulage contracting, and it is obvious that the native hardwood forests are disappearing at a much faster rate than before with the movement of log trucks through the shire.
Past Logging
We came to this continent just over 200 years ago. It was obvious after the first few years we came to the conclusion that it must be the driest continent on the planet. From day one we commenced to destroy the very thing that governs our rainfall - The Forests.
We can forgive the ignorance of the first arrivals, there is no excuse today to be ignorant of how our environment works. By the removal of our native forests, be they gidgee, belah, native pines, rainforest or brigalow, as well as the hardwoods, it has changed our climate for the foreseeable future, add global warming. This has had the effect to extend our arid zones further to the east, south and north of the continent. The rainfall over the last 20 years is mainly falling on the coastal fringe of the eastern and southern states.
Agriculture
Rural Australia is suffering from drought after drought. Unfortunately it is of their own making, for wherever one traverses over our country there is hardly a tree to be seen. In the past it was government policy to clear the land. We are now all paying the price for such short sighted policies. Urbanisation was and still is a major player in the destruction of our native forests, but with proper planning in the future this trend could be turned around.
In the development of the nation we had to use resources that were available, although even then we took more than our needs, for a large amount of hardwoods were exported without any thought of what it maybe doing to our climate, but they soon found out in the mallee country of Victoria when in the drought of 1944 most of their topsoils blew away. For in agriculture the domino effect takes place, Smith cuts down all his trees and the Joneses all soon follow to the detriment of everyone.
The rot started in a big way in the 1950's when the Hooker Corporation started to clear all the Brigalow forests in central Queensland, creating an immediate dry air corridor from the Simpson desert. The rainfall in the central area of Queensland has been in decline ever since.
Present
The group that is having the most devastating effect on our climate today is the logging industry. With the approval of the State and Federal governments, logging has accelerated to such an extent it is no longer sustainable. The Murray river is the topic of the day, the governments can spend millions of dollars on buying back water and trying to rectify all the problems with the irrigators, but it will be to no avail if they do not address the main cause of the problem and that is no inflows from the catchment areas.
If the logging industry is not removed from the native forests of south east New South Wales and north east Victoria the Murray River and the Murrumbidgee will die along with the river towns and the thousands of jobs that are dependent on the rivers.
Not only does the destruction of native forests have to be stopped but the governments have to reclaim most of the grazing and farmlands in the upper catchment of these rivers, re-establish the original forests and in that way in another 200 years the rivers may still be flowing.
I have always advocated no trees no rain, as is evident around the globe.
Moral of the story
Bill Everard, a Victorian politician from which party I do not know, used to come up to our little country school on Arbor Day and give his little speech. His talk always ended on this phrase:
“Remember boys and girls when you plant a tree that is a day of rain for the future, but when someone cuts one down that is a day of rain lost forever. (That was 65 years ago).The scientists have just come on board; there is now a belief that trees have an effect on the clouds to give up their rain.
(Name and address withheld for confidentiality)
Example of typical Breach Report as submitted to DECC
RE: BREACHES OF EDEN REGION IFOA - TSL AND EPL, BERMAGUI SF. CPT’S 2004,2005
These audits were conducted over several days in compartments 2004 and 2005 of Bermagui State Forest. Four separate areas were inspected, three in cpt. 2005 (two logged, one unlogged) and one logged area in cpt. 2004. During the course of these audits, the following breaches were found.
This appendix contains the field notes for each plot (A-D) with regard to H and R trees.
Rainforest
a) The on-ground location of rainforest must be determined during pre-logging surveys and harvest planning. The location of rainforest to be protected by this condition must be shown on the harvesting plan operational map. SFNSW must include written justification in the harvesting plan where the extent of the rainforest shown on the harvesting plan operational map differs from the extent of the KB rainforest floristic assemblages.
b) A 20 metre wide exclusion zone must be implemented around all areas of Rainforest.
c) Specified forestry activities, except road and snig track construction in accordance with Condition 5.4 f), and road re-opening, are prohibited within all areas of Rainforest and Rainforest exclusion zones.
d) Trees must not be felled into Rainforest or Rainforest exclusion zones referred to in Condition 5.4 c)
above. If a tree falls into an area of Rainforest or a Rainforest exclusion zone, then no part of that tree can be removed from that area.
(Note: NPWS does not intend to take proceedings where SFNSW can demonstrate that the tree was
accidentally felled into Rainforest. The tree will not be considered to have been accidentally felled if the
felling is a result of poor judgement on the part of the faller.)
e) Harvesting machinery is prohibited within areas of Rainforest and Rainforest exclusion zones, except for the purpose of road and snig track construction in accordance with Condition 5.4 f), and road re-opening.
In plot C the rainforest buffer exclusion zone has been incorrectly marked in places. The exclusion has been placed at the edge of the rainforest or with only a few metres of buffer around it. The following points were marked;
A: 0234554, 5966163 B: 0234558, 5966186 C: 0234544, 5966133
At point A there were stumps in what should have a 20m buffer. Point A also had a snig track within the buffer zone. At points B and C there were heads in what should have been the 20m buffer.
At 0235180, 5965708 (outside plots) there are 3 stumps and ground disturbance in what should have been a buffer. The marking of the exclusion is along the edge of rainforest, not a 20m buffer. The poor identification of rainforest in this area is of great concern. It seems that where there were trees that they wanted the buffer on the rainforest gets omitted. This is not the intent of this prescription.
Tree Retention
h) Regrowth Zone Hollow-bearing and Recruitment Tree Retention
ii. Hollow-bearing trees retained in accordance with Condition 5.6 h) i. of this licence must meet the requirements of Conditions 5.6 f) iv, v, vi and vii. of this licence.
5.6 f) iv Retained hollow-bearing trees must be selected from the trees with the largest dbhob within the two hectare area and must be live trees and should have good crown development and minimal butt damage.
In 3 of our plots trees were found marked H that do not meet this prescription. In all plots it was observed that the trees marked or left unmarked were of smaller DBHOB than the stumps.
Plot A: Tree H4 is a Corymbia gummifera with a small crown. Considering that this species is not harvested for sawlogs or pulp and in this operation would have been left standing anyway, the reason and value of marking this tree is questionable. H6 is not of the largest diameter class with a nearby unmarked tree of a greater DBHOB.
Plot B: Trees H2, H3 and H4 all have poor crowns. H3 and H4 are not of the largest DBHOB, with larger stumps nearby. H4 was also suppressed.
Plot D: H4 is not of the largest DBHOB and is partly suppressed.
5.6 f) vi Trees retained outside the net logging area must not be counted as hollow-bearing trees. Stags must not be counted as hollow-bearing trees.
In 2 plots trees were found marked H that were in stream exclusion zones and therefore not in the NHA. Many of these trees were inside the taped exclusion zones. The marking of these trees is a perfect example of the lack of knowledge of the IFOA prescriptions by the SFO who marked these compartments.
Plot A: H2 is 14m from a 1st order stream. H7 is less than 10m from an unmapped drainage line and H8 is right in the UDL with exclusion marks all around it. H13 is within the cultural exclusion zone, again with tape around it. This exclusion zone was marked well in advance of habitat tree marking and so the marking of this tree is astonishing.
Plot C: Trees H2, H3, H4, H6, H7 and H23 are all within 10m of UDL’s. Most of these are inside the exclusion tape and H3 is right on the edge of the bank. H22 is 14m from a 1st order and inside the exclusion tape.
5.6 h) iii. Recruitment trees retained in accordance with Condition 5.6 h) i. of this licence must meet the
requirements of Conditions 5.6 g) iv, v, vi and vii. of this licence.
5.6 g) iv Retained recruitment trees must show potential for developing into hollow-bearing trees. Retained recruitment trees must have good crown development and should have minimal butt damage and should not be suppressed. Mature and late mature trees must be retained as recruitment trees where
they are available.
In 3 plots, trees were found marked R that do not meet this prescription.
Plot A: Trees R3, R4 and R11 all have a small DBHOB. These trees are not mature or late mature.
Plot C: Trees R7, R13 and R14 all have poor crowns, R13 has had its top blown off. R12 and R14 have butt damage from past fires. R16 and R18 are of small DBHOB and are not mature or late mature. R16 is also suppressed.
Plot D: R1 and R2 both have a small DBHOB. They are not mature or late mature, there are many larger and better unmarked trees in this area. R1 is also a Corymbia gummifera of poor form.
5.6 g) vi Trees retained outside the net logging area must not be counted as recruitment trees.
In 3 plots, trees marked R were found inside stream exclusion zones and therefore not in the NHA. Most of these trees were inside the tagged exclusion zone area.
Plot A: Tree R2 was found to be 12m from a 1st order stream.
Plot B: Tree R3 was only 13m from a 1st order stream.
Plot C: Trees R1, R2, R3, R4, R9 and R10 were all within 10m of a UDL. All were within the marked exclusion zone.
i) Where more than 30 crushed Allocasuarina seed cones have been found beneath an individual of
Allocasuarina spp., indicating intensive use by the Glossy Black-Cockatoo, the tree must be retained and protected from specified forestry activities.
j) Significant Food Resources
At co-ordinates 0234074, 5966587 we observed a stand of Allocasuarina with a head from a stringybark tree felled into part of the stand. An inspection of this unfortunately found a crushed GBC feed tree. There were many directions available to fell this tree away from this stand and yet they have aimed straight for it.
k) Protection of retained trees
ii. In the course of conducting specified forestry activities, logging debris must not, to the greatest extent practicable, be allowed to accumulate within five metres of a retained hollow-bearing tree, recruitment tree, stag, Allocasuarina with more than 30 crushed cones beneath, eucalypt food tree, or Yellow-bellied Glider or Squirrel Glider sap feed tree. Logging debris within a five metre radius of a retained tree must be removed or flattened to a height of less than one metre. Disturbance to ground and understorey must be minimised to the greatest extent practicable within this five metre radius. Habitat and recruitment trees must not be used as bumper trees during harvesting operations.
A few breaches of various parts of this prescription were found in several plots.
Plot A: Trees H3 and R4 have both been used as bumper trees. With the position of the snig tracks it is obvious that these trees were going to be impacted. H3 also has a rollover pushed against it and suffered ground disturbance within 5m because of this. The stand of Allocasuarina mentioned above, the head is >1m high and within 5m of a feed tree.
Plot B: H2 has ground disturbance within 5m. This tree has also suffered logging damage.
Plot C: R7 was found to be used as a bumper tree.
6.13. Yellow-bellied Glider
Petaurus australisc) Where there is a record of a Yellow-bellied Glider in a compartment or within 100 metres outside the
boundary of the compartment, the following must apply:
i. Within a 100 metre radius of each retained Yellow-bellied Glider sap feed tree, observation or den
site record, 15 feed trees must be retained. Yellow-bellied Glider sap feed trees must not be counted towards these 15 feed trees. Retained feed trees must have good crown development, should have minimal butt damage and should not be suppressed. Mature and late mature trees must be retained as feed trees where these are available.
iv. The feed trees retained in 6.13 c) ii. and iii. must be marked for retention.
In plot C R16 and R18 marked as YBG-2 and YBG-6 are of small DBHOB and not mature or late nature. R17 is also suppressed. Only 14 YBG trees could be found that were marked. There is a large stump in the general vicinity of where YBG-15 should have been.
EPL SCHEDULE 4
OPERATIONS WITHIN NATIVE FOREST FILTER STRIPS
18. Trees must not be felled into filter strips.
At co-ordinates 0234870, 5966063 a tree has been felled into a UDL exclusion. The exclusion marked by the SFO is insufficient as the UDL can be seen to continue past the tape marks.
5.6. Tree Retention
h) Regrowth Zone Hollow-bearing and Recruitment Tree Retention
i. Hollow-bearing and recruitment trees are to be retained at a variable rate in the Regrowth Zone
depending on the Habitat Quality [see Condition 5.6 d)] and the number of hollow-bearing trees
present per hectare of net logging area. The number of hollow-bearing and recruitment trees to be
retained in the Regrowth Zone must be determined according to the following table.
When all of the marked trees that do not meet the prescriptions are removed from the count, then all 4 plots contained insufficient H or R trees to meet the required number.
Plot A is approximately 7ha requiring (7x4) 28 trees to be retained. In this plot there were 7 H and 8 R trees marked that met the prescriptions, a shortfall of 13 trees.
Plot B is approximately 1.5ha requiring (1.5x4) 6 trees retained. There were only 2 H and 3 R trees that meet the prescriptions.
Plot C is approximately 10ha requiring (10x4) 40 trees retained. There are 10 H and 9 R trees that meet the prescriptions. This is less than half the number required.
Plot D is approximately 1ha requiring 4 marked trees. There were only 3 H trees that met the prescriptions.
The above has been based on the tree retention for low quality habitat. Very few of the trees had visible hollows and as there is no requirement to retain H trees if they are not available, then the majority of trees should have been marked R not H. If the habitat quality were to be classed as moderate this would necessitate an increased retention rate per hectare, causing this breach to be even greater than what appears here.
Whilst this operation is of a much lower intensity than that usually conducted in the Eden region, the number of breaches found in the areas inspected is still disturbing. With the amount of public scrutiny of this contentious operation one would think Forests NSW would ensure total compliance with the IFOA. Sadly this is for from reality on the ground. The audacity of Forests NSW marking of H trees, R trees and the rainforest boundaries shows their total contempt for the IFOA prescriptions. Most of these breaches are similar to those in our previous reports on Gnupa 729, Nullica 711,713, 717,734 and Glenbog 2314, 2315. The ongoing abuse of the tree retention prescription on this landscape level can only have dire consequences for hollow dependant species.
In total 55 instances of non compliance with the IFOA were found in the surveyed area, approximately 20ha, or about 11% of the NHA. At this rate there is potentially over 500 breaches in these 2 compartments. Forests NSW operation needs to be urgently inspected by DECC. FNSW did not log these compartments in a sustainable way and did not comply with all environmental prescriptions.