The forests issue in East Gippsland, and in particular the Erinundra Plateau (spelt differently in Errinundra National Park), has been ongoing for decades, dividing the community in townships, in courts, in the media and in the forests themselves. Throw in broken promises, seemingly deliberate obfuscation and agreements stretched to breaking point, and it’s not surprising that environment groups feel unable to trust even proper process.
In the nineties the forests issue was the subject of student debates. News articles at the time spoke about conflicting perspectives, particularly relating to woodchipping and clear felling, but indirectly addressing the effectiveness of regeneration, sustainability both for the industry and for the environment, the economic value to state and to timber reliant communities, an agreed definition of forest, effects on biodiversity of habitat fragmentation, effectiveness of statistical evaluation and reporting, standards and methods of measurement, and the effects of deforestation on water catchments. Add to this now the threat of wood fired power stations, disease (phytophthora in particular), prescribed burns and fire salvage logging.
Curiously, these natural threats (disease, fire, drought) give vicforests added incentive to seek out additional logging coupes when, as David Lindenmeyer says, the forest is already under stress, adding clearfelling and prescribed burns is further weakening an already ailing ecosystem.
Forests considered diseased or economically unviable to the timber industry are selected for national parks and conservation areas – the richest and healthiest forests are selected for logging.
At stake is our state’s natural heritage, flora and fauna, and remnants of the state as it was before European settlement.
Stakeholders in the forests debate include local communities, timber communities, educational institutions, tourism, and future generations.
Everything points to the timber industry as being in decline. The Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries 2008 report talks of labour shortages in all facets of the industry and the declining number of forestry graduates while timber industry primaries are squeezing contractors and smaller mills out of business.
According to Hansard 21st August 2007 (p 2485) there were then 525 people directly employed in harvesting and processing but 409 of these would lose their jobs as well as a $50million loss to the area if the 50ha of old growth forests reportedly harvested annually in east Gippsland were protected. Victoria’s state of the forests report 2008 indicates a similar number of employees (in public, private and joint owned forests) yet some industry reporters make the claim that nationally the industry employs 120,000 individuals, putting East Gippsland’s contribution at something less than 0.5% of the industry.
In the timber industry are the state government operated Vicforests (established 2002 to “ensure the Government’s commercial forest operations are open and accountable”), the Victorian Association of Forest Industries (VAFI), the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI), the Institute of Foresters of Australia, the Timber Communities Australia (TIA) with 14 branches in Victoria (2007), the Australian Forest Contractors Association to name just a few.
Internationally there is the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FOA) established in 1958, the UNFF (supporting 2011 year of forests), IUCN (see below).
Meanwhile the potential growth the areas of tourism, eco tourism in particular, and environmental employment opportunities, are recognised by tertiary institutions offering tertiary places in all manner of subjects from research and fire ecology to outdoor education environmental science, yet overlooked in the consideration of Victoria's Public Native Forests.
Wading through just a fraction of the reports available, leaves one confused about the multiplicity of the evidence and astounded that it is being ignored.
Federal and state reports are lost in reshuffles and name changes. DPI, DPIE, DAFF, DSE, LCC, DEWHA, DEST, DNRE, EPA, Environment Australia, Environment Victoria and within these departments multitudes of reports are also to be found containing recommendations and warnings, many in conflict with other reports or Government activities.
Recommendations are adopted in part. For example, in 1986 the LCC made recommendations as to the amount of sawlogs that could be removed to ensure sustainability. This recommendation was accepted but the accompanying recommendation on woodchipping was not. In 1992 the sawlog cut was reduced, but woodchip harvesting, claimed to be the byproduct of sawlog harvesting, has increased by extraordinary amounts.
Endless acts and agreements such as CARS 1997, Regional Forest Agreements 2000, Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, National Parks Act, Annual reporting Act, … reports on performance indicators and sustainability controls such as Monitoring Annual Harvesting Performance (DSE 2008) and the Joint Sustainable Harvest Level statement (DSE 2008) … and State of the Forests reports that repeatedly warn of logging at unsustainable levels both to the environment and to the industry.
And in 2009, the Victorian Government’s Timber Industry Strategy...
The more I read the more I want to ask WHY?
Why are our state owned forests being turned into fence palings and woodchips?
Why is the responsibility for protecting and monitoring our endangered species left to
community groups and volunteers who take time out of work and study, funding their activities from donations?
Why is monitoring not carried out as prescribed by government legislation?
Why has the quantity of sawlogs produced annually fallen since 1992, while the quantity of woodchips has risen markedly from native forest timber supplied by Vicforests?
Why are some departmental warnings ignored and laws changed retrospectively favouring the timber industry?
Why does 26ha of Victorian State Forests felled per day on average not ring alarm bells?
Why, when 2010 is the year of biodiversity, are statistics on our endangered species non-existent or approaching 20 years old?
Why aren’t other nature based industries encouraged and/or promoted for regional areas?
Why aren’t recommendations and research into fire regimes considered in determining prescribed burns?
Why has the timber industry taken precedence over the obvious potential for tourism and education, and principles of conservation in the area?
Why is the recent decision to add protection measures citing the Precautionary Principle, overshadowed by the history of retrospective legislation changes in this debate?
Why, when the protection of old growth forests is an ongoing issue, are governments so reluctant to adequately address it?
Why aren’t effective methods of control for
Why are the 50ha publicly owned old growth forest Vicforest says it harvests annually, so important to the industry given the community resentment of this activity?
These are just a few of the questions I’d like answered.
The most comprehensive knowledge bank on the debate is with Jill Redwood at EEG and Luke Chamberlain at The Wilderness Society.
The economy is but a subset of the ecosystem...
Further reading:
EEG http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/ Environment Victoria http://www.environmentvictoria.org.au/ VicParks reports to the 2007 Bushfire Royal Commission http://vnpa.org.au/admin/library/attachments/SubmissionsNEW/VNPA%20FOPs%20submission+attachments.pdf Forest Stewardship Council
http://www.fscaustralia.org/ Flawed promises Environmental Organisations’ Investigation of Labor’s 2006 Election Old Growth Forest Commitments by TWS, VNPA & ACF 2009
http://vnpa.org.au/admin/library/attachments/PDFs/Reports/Flawed%20promises.pdf United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)
http://www.un.org/esa/forests/index.html IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature
http://www.iucn.org/ IUCN RedList of Endangered Species
http://www.iucnredlist.org/David Lindenmeyer, On Borrowed Time, Penguin, Australia, 2007
Judith Ajani, The Forest Wars, Melbourne University Press 2007
See also
http://www.delicious.com/bimbimbi/eeg
