Blog on Forest Health

by Marleen Buizer

Forests and urban bushlands in Southwest Australia are in decline. It is not known to what extent factors such as increasing drought since the 50s/60s, fragmentation of the landscape due to urbanisation and exploitation of natural resources, and logging have contributed to this decline. It is clear however that the future of the Southwest Australian landscape requires serious and immediate action.

It might not always be possible, in such a changed environment, to go back to pre-European landscapes. So what kinds of intervention are possible and desired in such a context? This is a question that is relevant for politicians, industry, professional land managers and the wider public. It has particular reference to friends groups and others that are already through their workplace taking part in ecological interventions. Another important question is how various stakeholders work together and how this could be improved to accomplish the important task of achieving ecosystem health. Recently published research among restoration volunteers has illustrated that this group has no illusions about the future of their landscapes. Volunteers often take a realistic and informed stance, which they base on intensive hands on observations and experiments. They work hard to try to improve their bushlands, either alone or with their local government or other land managers.

A Forum and Sundowner is being held on 29^th March to share ideas about engaging community for ecosystem health. How can participation be most meaningful in WA? What opportunities do we have, including academics, policy makers and citizens, to improve our practice in working together for ecosystem health? The Forum will be opened by Lyn Beazley Chief Scientist of WA, and Professor Katarina Eckerberg from Umea University, who will share experiences from Sweden. See the attached for details about location and registration.

CoE 2012 sundowner invite_LR

By Michael Renton

As climate changes, some plant species will start to die out in areas where climate becomes unsuited for them. Individual plants will not be able to move to find new areas where climate is more suitable, of course, but through seed dispersal, some species may be able to establish new colonies in areas that become suitable.  In this way, the species or population may be able to survive by moving through the landscape and thus ‘keeping up’ with climate change. But this will be made more difficult if the landscape is fragmented by agriculture, or if the species has poor seed dispersal. Which species will be able to move fast enough, and which will lag behind? Can we do anything to help them? The answer to these questions can be provided by PPunCC.

Not punk:

But PPunCC!

PPunCC (Plant Persistence under Climate Change) is a new model that predicts the likelihood of plant species being able to move through fragmented landscapes fast enough to keep up with changing climates. The image at the top shows a ‘birds-eye-view’ of a fragmented landscape. There is a climate gradient from dry in the east (right) to wetter in the west (left). Here we are simulating one species that likes a relatively dry climate. At the beginning, the climate in the far east is suitable for this species, but over time the climate becomes drier, and the part of the landscape suitable for the plant moves towards the west. Red areas are unsuitable for the species, because they have the wrong soil type, or are cleared for agriculture or urbanisation. Orange cells are suitable in terms of soil and land use, but do not currently have any of the species growing there, probably because the climate is too wet or dry, while white and yellow cells have a population of the species. The lighter the cell, the more populated it is. Can you see the population moving across the landscape over time? The middle plot shows the total population at different points along the gradient as time changes, and the bottom plot shows the total population size over time.

This species is one of the lucky ones. It moves fast enough to survive. But we simulated thousands of different types of plants with different characteristics, and found that the future was not bright for many of them. Trees fared particularly badly; few were predicted to move fast enough to keep up with the changing climate, mainly because of the relatively long time they need to establish, mature, and produce seed. In the top PPUNCC image, notice that there is a kind of orange path through he landscape. This shows an example where we have simulated some targeted restoration to produce a corridor through the unsuitable landscape. Such targeted restoration does increase the number of species predicted to survive, but not by a huge amount. This warns us that we may need to consider options like assisted migration or translocation of species if we don’t want to lose our most vulnerable plant species.

Rima Itani, Water Corporation

What a herculean effort the symposium of October 21st was. As an audience member the passion of the speakers shone through on a broad range of topics; I wouldn’t want to be a Phytophthora spore in Peter Scott’s line of sight for instance.

For Water Corporation, it was the perfect time to listen to the knowledge presented and reflect on the current findings of the Wungong Catchment Trial. The intellectual discussion that took place around the Trial clearly solidified our common value for the future of the northern jarrah forest. I thought this would be a good medium to reaffirm the purpose of the Trial and what determines its continuation. It may appease many questions out there and invoke curiosity to investigate the science behind it.

The progress and continuation of the Trial is based on the overall water and environmental benefits achieved. The data collected so far has encouraged Water Corporation to continue. It is just one part of our multi-faceted supply and demand strategy to achieve climate resilience for the Integrated Water Supply Scheme. The Trial has helped us understand ways ground water levels can be restored by managing the forest back to its original water-efficient structure. By favouring large trees, about 30 to 50 trees per hectare are retained which promotes an old-growth structure close to the one that used to exist. The Department of Environment and Conservation’s silviculture guidelines is the framework in which this is done to ensure overall forest health is maintained or exceeded. Over 12 years since 2005, this treatment will cover 2800 ha out of the 12,485 ha that is the Wungong Catchment.

Progress is reviewed through 18 Key Performance Indicators that are weighed up. This ranges from biodiversity studies for flora, fauna and aquatic fauna, nutrient and forest health monitoring as well as stream flow and hydrological data. The objective of the Trial is to determine how water yields from catchments can be increased whilst maintaining a sustainable forest environment.

Findings can be found at www.watercorporation.com.au/wungong

You can also subscribe to Wungong Whispers for regular updates on the Trial.

Reply to John Clarke’s previous posting, by Colin Fairclough.

NB This posting contains quotes from a previous posting by John Clarke in bold. Reactions by Colin Fairclough are in plain format.

My thanks, also, for the hard work the Symposium workers / presenters / caterers/ etc, did. I was also moved by the palpable commitment (connection) the majority of researchers projected.

Background:
I am a member of the most under-represented demograph at the Symposium, and the most *under-represented demograph* in the development of WA’s current Forestry Policy. We have the ‘least’ effective input to current Forest Management Planning. I attended the Symposium as an optimistic participant, in the drive for achievable, sustainable, community ‘acceptable’ solutions, to a *forest* in crisis (“The Peoples Forest”). Several times, on the day, I felt I was propelled back to the 1980’s. Thankfully, Paul Barber succinctly highlighted that the word ‘community’ was under-represented in discussions / presentations, broaching policy planning, thereby negating ‘community’ driven solution strategies / options.

“I’m still worried that there was/is not enough articulation of and widespread support for clear, realistic and achievable actions to redress some of the problems identified”.

Widespread support will come (if it was meant to come) by an *OPEN and INCLUSIVE involvement* of all stakeholders, as was enthusiastically discussed and positively received in the closing stages of the Symposium Wrap-Up.

“Some of the small scale projects on small reserves as reported at the symposium are fine, but there is a need to take actions on large, landscape scales”.

The precautionary principle must apply. NO action should be undertaken on a large scale, until it is ‘unequivocally’ proven to be sustainable, effective and ecologically appropriate (Through an open process).
All parties (not just the IFA, DEC, FPC and Industry) need to stop forcing short term cycles (long term impacts!) on the Peoples Forest in search of ‘preferred’ outcomes. Any thinning ‘TRIAL’ MUST be scaled / paced accordingly, and with full community support. ‘Blanket thinning’ of all forest types, on all soil types, in a rapidly diminishing rainfall environment is fundamentally flawed. Sudden clearing of native vegetation has ALWAYS precipitated Salinity issues in WA.
As noted, at the Symposium, by Dr Neil Davidson, of the CRC on Forestry, the (unacceptable) risk of depleting genetic health of the current (industry created) re-growth, by way of wholesale thinning, will compromise the genetics of the healthiest, most vigorous ‘disease resistant’ individuals ( forests), going forward. The Timber Industry (major beneficiary of any subsequent forest products) must provide comprehensive research infrastructure / funds for any / all thinning trials. The minimum infrastructure would include comprehensive (independent) ecological, geological and hydrological studies (baseline and ongoing) (All data would be publicly available).

“There are really only two tools at our disposal: use of fire and silviculture (thinning)”.

This position (dichotomy) is an IFA policy position. Fire could actually deliver a new paradigm of forest structure. It’s a diverse ecosystem, NOT a plantation. (eg. A struggling canker infested Marri forest, is highly possible, post burning.) Natural, time-driven selection may be the safest route for Jarrah thinning. All options on a, ‘small scale’ and ‘long term’, time frame need to be given EQUAL weight. Repeat Message! Sudden clearing of native vegetation has ALWAYS precipitated Salinity issues in WA.

“Foresters are generally unanimous in their views in this regard, but their voices tend not to be widely heard”.

Not so.
The IFA is far more influential at the current policy level than are all non-fiscally *dependent stakeholders*. (*My demographic.) (e.g.: The recently released FMP for Karri and for the Dryandra mallet.)
The IFA work with the assistance of FPC and DEC, and have a far greater access to their data, policies and ‘ears’ than the average ‘ forest advocate,’ group or individual has. As confirmed, by Geoff Stoneham DEC, at the symposium, despite forest collapse and climate change, the Jarrah forest harvest rate looks set to continue at the same, or greater, rates in the next Jarrah FMP. The IFA has helped drive that outcome. Many FPC and DEC employees are actually members of the IFA.
‘Generally unanimous’ is like half pregnant.

“I have recently assumed the position of chair of the WA Division of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and will be doing my best to promote our policies”.

Given the Peoples Forest is a public asset; this policy development process should be shared and published widely for full community input.

“Our primary concern is for the ongoing health and welfare of our native forests”.

Here is the ‘Common Ground’ from which all stakeholders ‘could’ work together!
However;
South West Forest communities recognize the primary interest of the IFA, DEC (Forest Division) and the FPC is to ‘commodify’ the Peoples Forests. 100,000 plus Ha of juvenile stands (industry created) proves that ecological values have long been ignored, in seeking a sustainably managed forest.

“(As no doubt most people would be) but unlike some people, foresters accept that our forests can and should be managed for all their values, and that all acceptable users of those forests should be given a fair go”.

(Who does the IFA define as ‘acceptable users and ‘some people’.) At no time since the inception of the IFA, has the timber industry ‘NEVER’ had access to the Peoples Forest for fiscal advantage. The IFA ‘fair go’ policy should be extended to the iconic WA species most at risk of the current and Draft Jarrah FMP plan for The Peoples Forest.
Starting with the ‘building block’. The unique Jarrah Forest itself (and its associated flora / fauna).
On this ‘fair go’ point I would like to see the IFA position change, on the wholesale removal of habitat trees for firewood and for industrial char.
WA has three species of endangered Black Cockatoos. Many of their few remaining habitat hollows are infested with feral bees, invasive parrots and galahs, kookaburras and other secondary species.
This firewood/char industry is the lowest possible value use possible for stored carbon, let alone viable habitat.

“We support sustainable use of forests for timber production”.

Sustainable use means the bole size should not be continually diminishing. But it is. If the IFA has a ‘desire’ to restore health to our failing Jarrah Forest, they are to be commended. However, this process must be ecologically driven, and not used as a tool to set up another income stream capitalising on the industry created ‘toothpick’ forest.

“I was encouraged by the remarks from Chrissy Sharp”.

Dr Sharp, I believe, suggested thinning TRIALS, which is an acceptable concept to many.
(Such trials would need to be done at a small scale, independently managed and researched. At all stages they must be community driven and accountable to full and open public scrutiny). I also recall her emphasis on reconciliation and moving forward.. She stated that the largest remaining jarrah trees should be left standing (Something never on the IFA RADAR).
I am sure Christine Sharp will clarify her position.

BIG PICTURE STUFF
* Open inclusive: dialogue, research and policy development, is the way forward.
* Without prioritizing Ecology over production more forest collapses are imminent.
* Treatment options should be based on sound independent science (small scale and open trials) and must be ecologically driven.
* These trials should be compared to all other options including ‘do nothing’ options.
* The IFA, FPC, DEC must immediately establish hardwood plantations to supply industry.
* The true history of WA’s forestry management can be found by analyzing the continually ignored recommendations of WA Royal Commissions of 1903 and 1922 and other subsequent Official Enquiries into Forestry.
* Recommended reading “The Trees That Were Natures Gift”, Irene Cunningham,
(If you want to know about how we no longer have, what we once did.)

Un-doctored photo of Neil Murray, (Musician and Writer of “My Island Home”) with what all sustainably logged Jarrah forest should look like.
There are WAY less than 100 of these Ancient trees ALIVE on the Earth.
Trees like this were still being logged in the Eighties. (Under the watch of DEC, FPC (CALM) and the IFA.) (Copyright_2002)