Executive Summary

There is currently an absence of data for measuring the sustainability of native forest logging in Victoria therefore the community and government cannot provide an informed decision on the Timber Release Plan amendments proposed by VicForests.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) have, to date, failed to provide sufficient information to populate the sustainability criteria and indicators (State of the Forests Report 2008) in compliance with the requirements of the Sustainable Timber Act 2004. The State of the Forests Report was designed to enable community to respond to forestry but cannot provide that transparency without data.

In order to help us measure the sustainability of an increased logging regime, we have provided the Department of Environment and Sustainability, Department of Primary Industries and VicForests with a list of stakeholder questions that are based on the governments sustainability charter. We look forward to a scientifically rigorous response to these questions.

Sustainability

Lack of ‘valid’ information for adequate submissions:

The current management guidelines, laws, reports and documents, that should be available to inform government and community groups and provide confidence for a submission, are out of date and/or ‘under review’ as evidenced by;

1. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) and it's model for conservation management, recently reviewed by the Senate and Minster Garret and findings yet to be implemented.

2. The EPBC recovery plan for Leadbeaters Possum not reviewed and not successful in its principle objective to;

 Downlist Leadbeater's Possum from endangered to vulnerable within 10 years (by 2000) based on the IUCN (1994) criteria of population trend and size, extent of occurrence, probability of extinction, and the management of habitat towards a target of no more than a 1% probability of extinction over 250 years throughout the forest within its current range.

The species is now registered ‘critically endangered’

3. Thinnings in catchments in progress and untested by VicForests, Melbourne Water and DSE (VicForests Website 2010)

4. THE state forests timber model - from which we base ‘sustainable’ logging, is considered to be out of date and unreliable by DSE’s own findings (2009);

 ‘Forest description data ... degraded due to fires and time since mapping’.

 ‘Current strategic planning is based on detailed commercial timber data with limited information on the non timber values and remaining state forest estate’.

 (October 2009 DSE Sustainable Forest management Decision Support System Project - Powerpoint)

5. An out dated Comprehensive and Adequate Representative Reserve NOT UNDER REVIEW. The CAR Reserve is the ONLY reserve that guards our species. Its damaged so is likely not to be ‘Adequtely Representative’ any longer.

6. The Regional Forest Agreements under review and out of date.

7. The Leadbeaters possum- Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action statement unpublished and under review. Current operational FFG Action plan, 10 years out of date.

8. The State of the Forests Report 2008, designed to help the community analyse the ‘on ground’ effects of logging, has two thirds of indicator data missing. This report is referencing data based on rainfall patterns and forest health over 12 years (3 mega fires ago) old making it out of date and unrepresentative.

9. The audit on public land by an independent body has been an ‘inactive mechanism’ for measuring risk for two years while UNDER REVIEW. The first approach by the EPA was found to be statistically not representative and could claim very little accuracy in its findings for continuous improvement. The new auditors remain un-appointed at the writing of this submission.

10. The Central Highlands Forest Management plan is also out of date and is yet to be committed to review. This key, technical reference for the ecological management of our forest estate has not been assessed for its efficacy despite its own success being dependent on assessments.

11. Several government investigations, that will eventually inform on conservation and forest health, are under study, and the expected outcome is currently not known such as; the Black Saturday Royal Commission and the Wood and Water study. Should this absence of data still permit current logging operations to be cast as ‘sustainable’? For example; Should logging be allowed to continue when water from logged catchments is in decline (Mein 2008)? Species are moving further into extinction (State of the Forest Report 2008)? Large quantities of greenhouse gases are being released form Central Highlands logging (Mackey et al 2008, Keith et al 2009). The catastrophic, landscape change of Black Saturday has altered the overall health of the forests and logging may have been a contributor (Bradstock 2010). To continue logging may be preempting the outcome of the Royal Commission. All of these risks are under investigation, however logging is allowed to continue and the current proposed amendment is an expansion.

12. The fact that native forests in Victoria are publicly owned, naturally sustainable, assets that also provide life giving functions such as; atmospheric regulation and water cannot be overstated however, their total value has never been measured. Our forests produce a range of benefits that are not adequately apportioned value by the DSE (SOFR 2008) so currently have no financial value attributed to them (SOFR 2008). Timber extraction has been shown through many studies to impair natural forest resilience and more recently, potentially encourage greater fire hazard (Lindenmayer 2010).

The public do not want logging because it is not good for forest health and woodchips are not the best use of the public forest asset. Fifteen (15) councils of Melbourne have demonstrated support in a motion to ban logging in water catchments. These councils are; Yarra Ranges, Bayside City, Moreland City, City of Port Phillip, Whitehorse City, Knox City, Yarra City, City of Kingston, Melbourne City , Maroondah City, City of Boroondara, Nillumbik Shire, Frankston City , City of Maribyrnong and City of Moonee Valley. Furthermore, on Friday 17 October 2009 member councils of the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) passed a ‘no logging in Melbourne’s catchments’ motion.

Here is a list of disturbances on a landscape scale that DSE have yet to measure in relation to the sustainability of further logging on flagship species:

- Prescribed burning in montane ash forests

- 2 major wildfire events in LBP range - 2006/07 and Black Saturday 2009 - both in the CAR reserve.

- 60% of LPB habitat zone - burned.

- Fuel breaks across 600 kms of forests through three bioregions including primary habitat and NO OFFSETS despite promises by Minister Thwaites and Minister Jennings.

- A 'highly likely' case of a lack of retained trees or habitat in coupes across the state forests.

- Coupe burns breaching boundaries into retained forests - cumulatively effecting overall habitat health.

- Thinnings (lindenmayer 2008)

- Salvage logging (Lindenmayer 2010)

In addition to the aforementioned sustainability indicator deficiencies our organisation has witnessed, measured and monitored;

Habitat destruction, logging living forests and claiming the operation is ‘salvaging dead‘ tree’s, killing of 200+ year old trees from regeneration burns, greenhouse emissions, water pollution, air pollution, diminishing water flows, weed infestation and spread, increased feral animal access and activity, pathogenic disturbance from logging, use of chemical fertilisers, oil spills, unintentional operational fires, defecation in closed water supply, failed regeneration of coupes, un-regenerated log platforms and roads, dozed creeks, buried creeks, culvert faults, drainage faults leading to die back, forest constitution change, major and minor road collapse into pristine gullies and rivers, coupe landslides into rivers and streams, soil from roading dumped in pristine gullies, rainforest logging, theft of rainforest species, theft of logs, major absence of habitat trees in coupes, breached coupe boundary fires, dozers through Special Protection Zones, logging in Special Protection Zones, logging Leadbeaters monitoring sites, burning Leadbeaters monitoring sites, logging old growth forests, roads and snig tracks poorly constructed, logging along ridges and ruining visual amenity values, local extinction of flagship species, turbidity, creek diversions, exploding of geologically significant landmarks, all night loud truck activity, dead wildlife in logged coupes, dead wildlife on logging roads, regional community conflict encouraged by timber agencies, threatening behavior from government employees, intimidation and violence from timber workers against stakeholders, arrests of stakeholders in publicly owned forests, fines for Leadbeaters Possum protection by stakeholders, constant high - level industrial noise during all operations..

DSE/VicForests

Despite VicForest now being a separate legal entity, the DSE does not appear to be anymore proactive on environmental risk assessments e.g. No pre logging surveys (Brown Mountain Case 2010).

Public doubt was recently cast as to the independence of DSE from Vicforests by the ABC (March 12010). They reported that the director of forests may have sought the best interests of logging company VicForests, rather than threatened animals, in relation to logging at Brown Mountain. There is evidence of this throughout the Central Highlands forest estate. Should we publicly investigate this relationship? Who should pay for this investigation?

When Does a Lack of Forest Regeneration Become Deforestation?

The services of the DSE are underpinned by an integration of laws and regulations that guide decision making. These laws determine sustainability and DSE must enforce them or face investigation for the unlawful management of a public resource. If DSE was independent from VicForests why would they be allocating any more native forest for logging when restocking suffers an 87% backlog in coupe regeneration after harvesting - Monitoring of Annual Harvesting Performance (MAHP) . This quote is from the state government’s Expert Independent Advisory Panel (EIAP) in the 07/08 MAHP report.

 In reviewing the 2007-08 MAHP report, EIAP expressed their concern that there has been little progress in regards to reducing the large areas of outstanding backlog regeneration and ensuring coupes are regenerated and finalised by VicForests in a timely manner. For several years EIAP have highlighted the importance of providing resources and funds to assist with DSE attempting to reduce the outstanding areas of forest which are understocked or have an unknown regeneration status. This work is fundamental to ensuring resource sustainability within Victoria. If areas that are harvested are not adequately regenerated then harvesting operations can not be seen as being sustainable. EIAP stresses that currently not enough emphasis and due priority is given to silvicultural activities within DSE which over time will compounded the regeneration and sustainability issue and result in a more costly and onerous task. Serious consideration and action must be taken to attempt to deal with this regeneration issue if DSE wish to ensure harvesting operations are carried out in a sustainable manner.

We believe that this backlog that is growing exponentially (as shown in graph 1.1 VicForests Annual Report 2008), should now describe Victorian native forest logging as land clearing or deforestation and is therefore in direct breach of the Sustainable Timber Act 2004.

Graph 1.1 from VicForests Annual report. 2009.

Financial Sustainability

The role of the Minister’s; Joe Helper and John Lenders is to determine whether VicForests are operating ‘sustainably’ from a fiscal perspective. Is VicForests’ use of the publicly owned native forest asset in keeping with business best practice? At present VicForests sells woodchip in the range of $2.50 to $6.00 per m3 stumpage (NEIR report 2010). While Victorian commercial plantations receive $50.60 m3 stumpage (NEIR Report 2010). The price difference is because VicForests do not pay the ‘real costs’ for operations - this is borne by the tax payer whilst plantations receive no such subsidies. This compromises national competition policy.

The average price of a VicForests sawlogs is $40.10 (NEIR Report 2010), where as the average price for 15 year old plantation sawlog in Tasmania is $50.60 (NEIR Report 2010). Essentially, VicForests are selling our 70-120 year old forest for less than that of a 15 year old forest. That’s a longer term investment being sold for a lesser return. Why are ministers of Government allowing this and allowing VicForests to log 1.7 million m3 of native forest at a loss of $5 million per year (VicForest Annual Report 08/09)? Is this sustainable?

165 additional trucks and many East Gippsland loggers moved into the Central Highlands to salvage log the forests after February 7. On February 20 (VicForests media release), thirteen days after Black Saturday, Minister Lenders surveyed the operation and launched VicForests at the smoking forests. Bodies had not yet been recovered from homes and roads. We were told this was ‘for our benefit’.

Regulatory Measures that Fail Conservation and Sustainability

There are many regulatory measures in forestry set up to fail conservation and therefore sustainability including;

-Incentives to clear dead stags for occupational health and safety. If the contractors do not clear the stags then the contractors are not covered by insurance if there is a coupe incident.

-VicForests as the timber police. If a contractor breaks the law (e.g. logs habitat tree’s) they are answerable to VicForests who must report the damage and issue the penalties. Every coupe we survey has breaches that if the correct penalties were in place would put contractors out of work for time periods, under the Sustainable Timber Regulations Act 2006. So who is making sure VicForests are issuing penalties? If VicForests break the law (e.g. such as incorrectly marking out a coupe boundary or fail to identify rain forests) then they are answerable to them selves. We have several examples where VicForests have been accused of breaking the law and they have simply given their interpretation of the legislation resulting in a negative outcome for biodiversity and a green light for logging. (e.g. Logging of Leadbeaters habitat in the Iron Pipe Coupe in the Royston range). Furthermore, any attempts to highlight potential breaches of the law by VicForests to government have been hand balled back to VicForests who have given us the response.

- VicForests have no commercial interest in forest retention. They are a business charged with the responsibility to produce timber.

-No public monitoring, surveying or witnesses on the coupes, because when they become active, they become part of the Safety of Public Lands Act 2006, therefore, its illegal to conduct community monitoring. In our own water supply, we are not legally allowed to monitor water quality or the forest and species that are becoming locally extinct in our Yarra tributaries due to logging and fire.

-No legal requirement for pre-logging surveys. What they don’t know, they can’t be blamed for.

-No commercial competition in native forestry for best practice or national competition. VicForests sit safely in a commercial refugia defended by Acts of the Crown and regulations that function solely to produce timber and no other independent company can compete. Thank the DPI for this.

-No financial investment in other forest functions such as biodiversity e.g. Approximately 60 DSE biologists were sacked by the Brumby government. Water should be considered a more important function of the forest that should be valued. Currently we can not comment on this because the Wood and Water Study is under review and now 3 years overdue.

What we are compelled to use as a reference for measuring the sustainability of the addition of 144 new coupes in the Central Highlands is a compendium of out dated literature, acts, agreements and action statements under review. In contrast there is a wealth of records that reveal current logging is unsustainable.

TRP Amendment Key Questions

To responsibly and legally approve the listed amendments, the state government agencies and VicForests will need to answer the following with evidence based research;

1. What will be the immediate and long term impacts and cumulative effects from logging these additional coupes on;

• Water - Quality and Quantity
• Carbon storage
• Rainfall
• Leadbeaters population, health and distribution
• Regional communities
• Tourism
• Regeneration
• Viticulture

2. How much is the current wood resource worth to taxpayers compared to the other financial gains that can be utilised? eg. Water, carbon, biodiversity, tourism?

3. Does this logging make our landscape more fire prone? What are the risks of industrial logging around Kinglake, Toolangi, Chum Creek, Healesville, Marysville, Buxton Narbethong, Granton, East Warburton, Warburton, Powelltown, Noojee and communities in the Baw Baws?

4. Are prescriptions being adhered to in all coupes, all of the time? If not what are the impacts? Which prescriptions are failing to be implemented? What are the offsets for the environment?

5. Why are penalties for obvious breaches not being awarded to logging contractors?

6. Who polices the activities of VicForests and contractors? What are the consequences for VicForests for failing a prescription and who is accountable? What is the process for notifying a breach by VicForests?

Summary

Successive Victorian and Federal governments have recognised and researched many threats to the environment. From investment in research, there exists legislation and regulations that if applied, can capture and arrest threatening processes. However, if these regulations, and legislation merely exist as a platform for reference, lip service or documents full of un-applied advice, then the efficacy of their existence must be questioned,. The continued timber operations predicated on their objectives, not application, is breaking Commonwealth law.

Until such time as the State government , DSE, DPI and VicForests can provide;

Adequate information in relation to sustainability indicators

A business model that is capable of delivering sustainability

Regulatory measures that are proven to work and deliver sustainability

Comprehensive answers to the TRP amendment key questions in this submission

Then VicForests should not be provided with any more native forest resources including, but not limited to, the TRP amendment until such a time that a risk assessment deems it ‘sustainable’.

In order to protect VicForests major customers, the government should immediately place a moratorium on all native forest logging and commission an independent risk assessment in relation to sustainability based on the International Standard ISO3100.

As community stakeholders we request an independent evaluation of the value of unlogged native forests for wild life, water, carbon and our tourism dependent futures.

We have voluntarily spent a decade monitoring these issues, have documented evidence and have witnessed every claim we have made in this submission. We are happy to provide further information on request.

MyEnvironment Inc.