One thought on “OPINION: An unbelievable decision on native forests”

1. In reference to Ziggy Koenigseder’s emotive letter in both the Coffs Coast and Nambucca NOTA (19/1/24) titled “An unbelievable decision on native forests”, I’d like to correct several errors of fact. There is no “clear felling of our old growth native forests” in NSW. There have been NO EXTINCTIONS from sustainably managed timber harvesting in Australia. All mammal extinctions in Australia have occurred in the arid regions where there is NO forests (removal of Aboriginal burning) or on the islands that dot our coast (pests and weeds). Claims that the timber industry is subsidised are false and a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

   Following the Black Summer wildfires and at least two major flood events, Forestry Corporation of NSW received “tax payer funded grants worth $246.9m since the 2019//20 financial year” to fix public roads, bridges and other public assets. Critics of FCNSW claim these are examples of financial losses by Forestry Corporation of NSW!! Each year, FCNSW receives Community Service Obligation (CSO) funding “to provide a range of community services including recreational facilities, education, regulatory and fire protection services”. The annual cost to NSW taxpayers in CSO funding to manage the 2million hectares of State forests is generally around $17M, which works out to be $8.50 per hectare. This public good funding is often referred to by activists, as subsidies. The last time you could check the NPWS Annual Report (about 2019), before it was hidden behind the veil of the Department of Planning and Environment, the NSW Government was paying around $850 million to manage its National Parks, which equates to $121 per hectare. It would seem that actively managed State forests, which also sustainably produce timber products (did I mention that half the weight of timber is converted CO2 stored as carbon!!), are actually a better spend of taxpayers’ dollars.

   The Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) were agreed to in the late 90’s/early 2000’s – to find a balance between ecologically sustainable forest management, a sustainable timber industry (and regional economies) and a comprehensive, adequate and representative conservation reserve system. Neither side was happy (the timber industry was halved overnight) but both sides of the debate declared that the forest wars were over. Under the RFAs, of the 3 million hectares of public forest on the north coast, 88% is already managed for conservation and only 12% is available for timber harvesting. On average, just 6 trees in 10,000 are harvested each year and then regenerated (a condition of the Coastal IFOA).

   However, even within the areas to be harvested, extensive seasonal surveys are undertaken to determine what flora and fauna species are present or likely to occur and operations are planned to minimise any impacts on those species. Species conservation requires management at the landscape scale, not at the micro or individual scale. Bio-DIVERSITY by its very definition requires a variety of species compositions, structural variations, etc. The more diverse the environment from old growth to young regenerating trees, the greater the benefits for the widest range of plant and animal species. Timber harvesting, where operations are deliberately planned to be spread both spatially and through time across the landscape, provides that biodiversity by creating a mosaic of stand structures, age classes and feed sources whilst maintaining tree species composition.

   Now 20 years later, after the RFA’s were renewed like they were designed to be (because sustainable forestry works on 100 plus years cycles of regeneration, thinning, harvesting and regeneration), those same people who declared the forest wars over from the conservation movement 20 years ago want the rest.

   Reply