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 Forests Agreement to end all forestry disagreement?

By Simon Grove - posted Thursday, 16 December 2010


In this context the ENGOs have done well to turn so many Australians against native forestry, when harvesting eucalypts gives us so much useful stuff that we all use. At the end of the day, forestry is no more about mindlessly chopping down trees than conservation is about mindlessly declaring more and more reserves. It’s also about nurturing forests and protecting these assets over decades and centuries, for future generations. The trouble is that if the media were to portray forestry accurately, it would be very boring for the rest of us. For every image of trees coming crashing down there would be 999 images of forests quietly growing, or foresters in office clothes sitting in front of monitors, coffee-mugs at hand.

It’s odd that the ENGOs choose to come down on forestry so much more than, say, mining, farming or fishing, when forestry is in many ways a paragon of environmental virtue in comparison to other primary industries. I think it’s because native forestry is an easy target: harvesting frontier forests is often very messy, and appears to involve an awful lot of wanton destruction. These aren’t neat woodlots we’re talking about (and from a conservation perspective, we’re lucky that this is so). Foresters can only work with the land they’ve been entrusted with. They appreciate that the frontier won’t go on forever, and that future forestry will be about revisiting old ground. The entire estate planning system is modelled and managed with this long-term view in mind - but what the public notes is the initial, messy harvest, the fire and smoke that rightly follows harvest, and the log-trucks rumbling through town.

Conservation in eucalypt forests need not be all about lock-up. The balance of nature never was so abstract a concept as in a naturally fire-prone eucalypt forest. Yet society’s disconnection from the bush make it difficult for many of us to appreciate the resilience of nature. Bushfires can sweep through tens of thousands of hectares almost overnight, but the forest starts growing back the very next day: it has been this way for as long as there have been eucalypts on the planet.

Advertisement

Today’s old-growth may not be tomorrow’s old-growth, and vice versa. This realisation certainly puts forestry in its place. For a start, it means it’s quite natural to use fire to help regenerate the forest after harvest. It also means that even disturbances as massive as clearfelling have their place, alongside less visually-confronting alternatives. The big-picture view is that conservation in these landscapes is about maintaining resilience and not exceeding tipping-points - keeping the landscape joined up, allowing ample forest to age naturally, and keeping enough ageing forest intermingled within a matrix that is managed to be productively young.

Broadly speaking, that’s what the various Regional Forest Agreements have delivered. Compare the ecological health of Tasmania’s forest estate, and the level of reservation of native vegetation in that estate, with the equivalent statistics for the nation’s rangelands and croplands and you’ll see that we’re in a league of our own.

So where does this more joined-up thinking take us? Well, any conservation gain from exiting native forestry would, in my view, be modest, because it would be in the context of the already-high level of forest reservation. And in reality, the forests would still require active management (at the taxpayers’ expense), for example, to keep weeds at bay and to manage fire risks.

Gradually phasing out native forestry is not a smart proposition either. Experience elsewhere, from the forest concession systems of Indonesia to the South East Queensland Forests Agreement, suggests that if there’s no incentive to manage for the long term, there will be a temptation towards asset-stripping - harvest what you can today because you won’t be allowed to harvest anything tomorrow. The motivation for maintaining standards will be all stick and no carrot - a sort of straitjacketing which promises to sap foresters’ professional innovation and their flexibility to deliver good conservation outcomes.

In my more cynical moments I wonder whether, deep down, that’s what the ENGOs want as it would help validate their anti-forestry stance - a self-fulfilling prophecy. But since the 1950’s, forestry has moved on from its “log-and-leave” days to embrace science and sustainability. It would be a big mistake to go back there again.

The extent of further non-conservation perversities from an exit from native forestry would depend on where we sourced the replacement wood. Can we rest easy knowing that we’re going to import more wood from somebody else’s back yard instead of our own? Perhaps so, if we discount the resultant carbon footprint and trade deficit and if we import from the well-managed plantations of New Zealand, South America or South Africa (though the blue cranes, blue swallows and other endangered birds whose African grassland habitat has been largely afforested may beg to differ). If the world’s not so lucky, our wood will come from the rainforests of New Guinea, the Solomon Islands or Indonesia, where ecological and social sustainability is still but a distant dream. In effect, the cost of exiting native forestry locally could be the export of deforestation and corruption to our near neighbours.

Advertisement

Or we could grow our trees in plantations here in Australia, which is what most people are assuming will happen. You’d be forgiven for thinking that the environmental movement likes this idea. But it’s not very long ago that the plantation sector in Tasmania was being accused of poisoning the waters sustaining local residents and oysters alike, and of killing off rural communities faced with encirclement by tree-farms.

I’m no great fan of the current plantation estate myself. In Tasmania, much of it is on land deliberately and only recently cleared of native forest - a perverse outcome of past agreements. For the future, we have to do better than this - but where? Unfortunately, plantations grow best where crops grow best. Do we want more food or more wood? Marginal agricultural land is often marginal plantation land too, and is often the only part of the agricultural landscape where native trees, shrubs and grasses still hang on. For plantations to thrive here requires intensive management, usually involving fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, which have an environmental and carbon footprint of their own. Conservation gain? Unless it’s very cleverly managed, I don’t think so.

In essence, the war on forestry is a social construct that has become disconnected from a harder reality - the reality of what makes the forest tick (ecology) and the reality of how our management choices impinge on its ecology (conservation). The outcome of this war is a forests agreement that, in forsaking native forestry in favour of a swing to plantations and imports, is not sensible and does not comprise effective conservation policy. It discounts the future and it discounts the cost of conservation in other places. It represents a step away from sustainability, not towards it.

We face horrendous planetary-scale challenges in the spheres of conservation and climate change, and we need vigorous ENGOs to help us turn our social, cultural and economic systems around to meet those challenges. It’s time they left domestic forestry to do its bit for our sustainable future, and moved on to dealing with these more pressing matters.

  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.

28 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 28 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy