Dear readers,
On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Ryde.James@anu.edu.au wrote:
>I don't know what area of forest cleared annually in Australia is either
>but I suggest that it is a fraction of what is claimed.
The figure of 550,000 hectares/annum (Habitat Australia, 1995, 23(3), p20.)
was a conservative estimate of the native vegetation cleared in Australia. I
will post the percentages of different vegetation types when I
receive the tables from the states involved in a few days.
>... There are 18
>million people living in Australia now and the reason they do not starve,
>...is because they have worked the land using the full range of modern
>technology. I suggest that there is no point in decrying this,...
Well I wasn't "decrying" that. The point may have been missed so I'll
state it outright:
It is the CURRENT clearing per annum and the ATTITUDES that CAUSE it to
PREVAIL that I was trying to raise people's awareness to. The attitude
being in both Australia and Japan.
I am not suggesting that anybody waste
their energy on feeling guilty about the actions of our ancestors or indeed
their own previous actions: it is the CURRENT and the FUTURE that we effect.
If I quote data for recent years then it is in order to display what is still
likely to be happening, not to suggest that someone should feel guilty.
If other people have ideas on how to curtail
the clearing of native (primary) forests, essentially for paper, then I'm sure
that many people would like to hear them. (I'm not yet asking for the solution
to clearing for agriculture/livestock because this is a forestry forum.)
Possible solutions to date:
1. The answer of planting trees on pasture land (presumably that once was
forest) has been suggested by others and I
reckon it's a good idea. Those trees will take decades to grow so there
is also needed a solution for the meanwhile.
2. A "carbon tax" (as a deterent).
3. Hemp crops. (Successful small companies exist. Only an interim solution.)
4. More recycling of paper. (Already being initialised in some places.)
5. Education of the general public. (In preliminary stage.)
6. Conservation Reserves. (Also in progress.)
7. Urban forestry.
8. Redeployment of personell via government arrangement.
Regarding the state of clearance of Tasmanian native forests (primarily
for export to Japan for paper production):
for 1993/94:
Hectares
Clearfell: to plantation 2120
sow to regen. 2412
no regen. required 24
Selective/retention: 3012
Failed regen. to plantation: 249
----------------------------- -----
Total for state forests: 7817
----------------------------- -----
for 1991/92:
Clearfelling followed by... Non-clearfell
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------
Future Sow NF Plantation Clearing
land use regen. Eucalypt Pine agriclut.
-------- ------ ---------------- --------- -------------
State 35% 10% 4% 51%
Private 17% 17% 1% 20% 45%
(I gratefully acknowledge Forestry Tasmania for supplying the data in
the above two tables.)
(regen.= "regeneration to native forest", State= government's land,
"clearfell" and "selective" in the above tables are Forestry
Tasmania's terminology.)
(I get will get the total area for private land and for
other states and provide total soon.)
>
>>Also what might be happening with
>>the Australian data is that some of cleared areas of forest (for forestry)
are
>>being seeded with eucalypt and so the area is claimed to be forested once
>>again.
>
>
>Well yes, that is exactly what is happening.
It appears that where primary (old-growth) forests in Tasmania (at least)
were clearfelled/selectively logged and sown with eucalypt (often aerially)
the new vegetation is called "regeneration to native forests".
The seed may have either come from a different
area of land or collected during logging. I believe that principally
eucalypt seed is used, not seed from the understorey trees. Some areas where
the highest trees are not eucalypts are treated similarly.
There are various aspects of the forestry treatments during and
after felling that cause the new vegetation, its volume, ecology,
(including animal inhabitants) to be quite different to that of the forest
before logging. The treatments are often quite different to natural events.
This situation would prevail for at least a couple of centuries over
significant monotone areas. This also would not be the case in the majority
of possible natural disturbances to the forest.
Therefore the term "regeneration" is misplaced.
Due to the: 1. area size of individual coupes
2. intense nature of forestry treatments in the coupes
3. need to convey recognisable and veritable information to the
general public so they can make knowledgable decisions
I propose that these areas of "regeneration to native forest" be called either
"tree farm", "woodland" or "plantation" in line with
dictionary definitions and recommendations of the Forestry Stewardship Council
that I quote below. I believe the number "3." reason above to be highly
significant in the procurement of civil harmony and in conservation. Also
"regeneration" is not the only term needing to be clarified for the
general public, another for example is "sawmill waste".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chanbers Twentieth Century Dictionary", 190x, Edinburgh:
Forest - a large uncultivated tract of land covered with trees and underwood
Wood - ...a collection of growing trees
Plantation- a place planted: a wood or grove...
Harvest - the time of gathering in the ripened crops...
Sow - to scatter seed that it may grow: to plant by strewing:
to scatter seed over
Forest Stewardship Council "Principles and Criteria for Natural Forest
Management" June 1994, Oaxaca Mexico:
Plantation- Forest areas lacking most of the principal characteristics
and key elements of native ecosystems as defined by FSC-approved national
and regional standards of forest management, which result from the human
activities of either planting, sowing or intensive silvicultural treatments.
Primary forest- An ecosystem characterised by an abundance of mature trees,
relatively undisturbed by human activity. Human impacts in such forest
areas have normally been limited to low levels of artisanal hunting, fishing
and harvesting of ofrest products, and, in some cases, to low density,
shifting agriculture with prolonged fallow periods. Such ecosystems are
also referred to as "mature", "old-growth" or "virgin" forests.
Secondary forest- The ecosystems that regenerate from a substantial
disturbance (flood, fire, land clearing or extensive and intensive logging)
charactised by a scarcity of mature trees and an abundance of pioneer species
and a dense understorey of saplings and herbaceous plants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Forest is being harvested and
>regenerated in the time honoured fashion that Foresters have employed on a
>scientific basis for at least 150 years.
>...Today in Australia
>native forests which are managed for yield are managed by public bodies...
Actually Forestry Tasmania are not obliged to provide information which they
regard as too sensitive to the public.
>...which have sustained yield and all that that implies...
I argue that the category 1 saw log quota in Tasmania of 300,000m3/annum,
as it is presently met, is NOT SUSTAINABLE if the government of Australia
(and therefore of Tasmania) were to meet its obligations under the
"Intergovernmental Agreement On The Environment" and under
the World Hertiage Act.
>...written into their charters; plus safguards for the
>environment that are as strict or stricter than any where in the world.
Hopefully they are not as strict as anywhere in the world because in
Tasmania the Forest Practices Code:
1. Does not include a clause to ensure that coupes
are checked for endangered species before logging.
2. Does not include a clause to ensure a satisfactory reserve around
the nests of endangered raptors. (The recovery plan for (e.g.) the endangered
Tasmanian Wedge-Tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) can not be carried out
with present funding, (Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, 1992) and there are only about
70 breeding pairs left; suitable nest sites are in short supply.)
3. Has only three enforcement officers for the whole state.
4. Allows compaction on main snigging tracks and the mud can run down
any snigging track for 50 metres.
5. The skidder can "bottom out". (This allows a two foot deep ruts.)
6. Does not have protection for headwaters of streams because class 4
streams can be logged.
7. It was introduced relatively recently, i.e. 1985 and untill 1994 it
was policed by the Forestry Commission itself. There were no prosecutions
until a couple of years ago.
8. A major river was crossed by a skidder (while approaching a coupe through
3 metre native regeneration) in 1994 and no proceedings for prosecution
were engaged.
9. Does not protect (62%) of the nest sites of the Grey Goswawk (Tasmanian
version) which has an endangered level of "rare".
10. Allows for posioning of native vegetarian mammals and birds with
sodium fluoroacetate (1080) without adequate assement of "browsing pressure"
before laying of bait.
>...and an increased awareness of the additional values to society
>that forests bring. Foresters have always known about this ...but it is now
>appreciated by more of the population at large --- even if they way they
>express this new appreciation is to attack the professional forester.
>
It appears that Ryde may have been indicating that I (among others)
was "attack"ing a professional forester. Well I (for one) wasn't. I was
pleading, perhaps too subtly, for the ASSISTANCE of professional foresters.
For example, on 03 Jul 1995 I wrote:
>...it is time for all people in positions
>of responsibility regarding forestry to assess what they can do to
>stop destruction of forests as soon as possible.
There are some professional government foresters (in charge of forests)
in Tasmania that I have almost given up pleading to, but I wouldn't bother
"attack"ing them.
------------------------------------------------------------
On: Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Mike.Slee@anu.edu.au wrote:
>SURELY IT IS ARGUABLE VERY STRONGLY THAT THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF ONE
>(AUSTRALIAN) FOREST RESOURCE WHILST ALLOWING ANOTHER COUNTRY (JAPAN) TO
>INCREASE ITS OWN FOREST ESTATE IS ENTIRELY JUSTIFIABLE AND EXACTLY WHAT THE
>FORESTRY WORLD SHOULD BE DOING.
>
>(I have put this very simply and obviously with some naiviety considering
>reports of logging practices adopted to meet the Japanese trade in some
>countries.)
Please expand on these as this would help them to be halted.
(I refered to so called Australian "sustainability" above.)
>
>As Chris Dean indicated large areas of Australian Forest are clear felled
>to supply Japan. This Australian usage appears sustainable -
>
>1. I know of no large areas of Australian forests destroyed by forestry
>operations including clear felling. (i.e. The forests now carry high forest
>with generally the same species composition and vigour as before). I
>would appreciate being made aware of any Australian areas which have been
>badly affected by forestry operations with details and authoritative
>references specifying the species changes.
Some data are given in the tables above for failed "regeneration" and I've
also referred above to the so called "sustainable".
There are also failed "plantations" which have been replanted after
several years.
"Badly" affected could also include loss of endangered species habitat.
There are large areas which have not been replanted at all.
There are numerous forestry roads which don't regrow and landing sites
which grow poorly. Examples of
larger areas: Florentine Valley in southern Tasmania which
was an ANM concession (20% not regenerated after 25 years). I belive that
something similar happened in East Gippsland (mainland Australia).
Examples of some individual coupes with notably poor regrowth are
Branches Creek near Dazler Range and Bensemens Road in Reedy Marsh.
(Mike, I show you sites myself or can supply names of other people who can
show you such places personally.)
The forestry activities in Tasmania (and possibly on mainland Australia)
relate strongly to the forest policy of Japan considering the amount of
trade in pulp between the two countries. (Figures given in previous
emails.) I propose that the data and arguments given above indicate that
Japan and Australia do not have good forest policies and that this
requires immediate attention by various members of both countries.
Regards,
Chris.
--
chris.dean@anu.edu.au, LPO Box 171, ANU, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
----Native animals need protection from imported domesticated humans.----
Disclaimer: The ideas and data etc expressed above are mine and not
necessarily those of anyone else.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0