Last week, a disparate group of 19 scientists presented an 'open letter' to the Parliament of Australia calling for an immediate nationwide cessation of all native forest timber production as a response "to the climate, fire, drought and biodiversity loss crises" sparked by this summer's extensive bushfires.
Amongst the 19 scientists were 7 from overseas universities or institutions in Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand; while 4 of the 19 were marine scientists who would not be expected to have expertise in Australian forests. Those remaining signatories with potential relevance to the issue were mostly Tasmanian-based geographers and an ecologist.
The 'letter' itself was just a 10-line statement released to the media under the banner of the green-left think tank, The Australia Institute. The Institute has a long history of anti-forestry activism, exemplified in the 'letter' by three rhetorical statements about: 1) logging supposedly increasing the fire hazard; 2) plantations being able to supply all our hardwood needs; and 3) that timber production is 'heavily subsidised by our taxes'.
The first of these claims is highly dubious simply because the proportional scale of logging in our forests is so small; the second statement is simply wrong; and the third statement is both wrong and inappropriate given that none of the letter's signatories is an economist with insight into the financial operations of the timber industry.
Overall, the 'letter' reads as a response to the recent bushfires from a cohort of scientists with no practical expertise in this area, but who are using the fires as an opportunity to push another agenda (ie. ending native forest logging) of which they also lack operational knowledge and practical experience. That they have put their name to such a document arguably constitutes an abuse of academic credibility.
Unfortunately, such academic over-reach – that is, vocal scientists publicly claiming a specialist expertise about forestry and fire despite having no qualifications or practical experience in these fields – has become a feature of the recent bushfires and their aftermath. This is despite such behaviour contravening professional academic standards set-down by most universities.
The best example of this phenomenon is ANU ecologist, Professor David Lindenmayer, who, courtesy of the ABC, has become a public 'authority' about matters as far removed from his scientific expertise as the economics of eco-tourism, transitioning the timber industry to eucalypt plantations, the state of Melbourne's water supply, the volume of remaining wood resource, and the socio-economic value of the timber industry. Last November, following the Victorian Government's decision to close the state's native forest timber industry, he added fire management to that list when on ABC Radio he claimed that concerns about the loss of industry workers and equipment on the capability to control wildfires were "Rubbish".
A more specific example relating to the recent bushfires was a mid-January article on the ABC News website, in which Professor James Watson, an ecologist at the University of Queensland (who was formerly a 'senior campaigner' for The Wilderness Society), asserted that: "The science is pretty clear. Many of these fires got out of control in logged areas and logging is the very reason why many species are already endangered". As Professor Watson has not fought the fires one wonders where he gets such insights, and his claimed impact of logging is spurious given just how little of SE Australia's native forests are being used for timber supply. Professor Watson has so far declined to respond to four requests by a senior Victorian forester asking him to point out the science which justifies his strong assertion.
Another example was a mid-January article (which appeared in several news publications) written by Distinguished Professor Byron Lamont and Dr. Tianhua He of WA's Curtin University, which dismissed the value of fuel reduction burning as a fire management tool. While both scientists are plant ecologists, they betrayed their complete lack of knowledge and practical experience of fire management when they asserted that: "Controlled fires are only meant to stop the odd cigarette thrown out of a car window from starting a fire, or lightning strikes igniting the ground flora".
Such academic over-reach by unqualified scientists effectively expressing a personal opinion, is a serious issue because it can shape community sentiment in ways that are out-of-step with the real expertise. Seemingly credible gross exaggerations of the environmental impacts of forestry operations have had a profound effect on political decision-making and, consequently, on the capability to manage forest fire. Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude that the political influence of campaigning activists and academics with little operational knowledge and no practical experience of forest fire management lies at the heart of this summer's fire blackened landscapes.
Central to this has been the progressive overturning of the former State forest multiple-use management approach to appease 'green' sensibilities that have often been supported by academic over-reach. In its place, most SE Australian forests are now under a passive conservation management regime based on minimising disturbance to a supposedly fragile landscape – even though Australian forests are far from fragile and are mostly reliant on periodic disturbance.
This misplaced presumption of environmental fragility has been central to public policy about whether we should produce any wood from our native forests, and the extent (if any) to which we should use cool fire to reduce fuels to help protect us from hot summer wildfires. These policies have demonstrably weakened forest fire management capability through:
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
10 posts so far.