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)
Thanks for the post, Colin, but I feel obliged to make a few comments.
The first is to ask: exactly what demographs are you a member of when you say “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.” It’s not clear from your post which ones you are claiming membership of.
Second is to say that, while I’m not totally supportive of the term ‘the People’s Forest’, nonetheless it’s a term which by definition includes foresters, timber workers and people who use timber products. I assume this was your intention when you coined the term.
Lastly, you state: “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.” In fact, the whole point of the precautionary principle is to not defer making a decision (including no action) just because there is uncertainty about the input and/or output . Hence, it is not possible to determine unequivocally if something is sustainable AND to apply the precautionary principle at the same time. If something is so certain as to be unequivocal, then decisions can be made on the basis of the known and certain science, so the precautionary principle does not need to be applied in such situations.
Thanks Bernie.
My demograph is that of Joe Blogs, general public, rate payer, tax payer, etc, ‘not’ having a pecuniary interest in,or employment associated with the commodification of our forests.
Yet I care, anyway. I have all of my adult life. Hence, my attendance.
Least represented at the symposium because:
I arrived very early,sat outside and watched people arriving.
I base my calculations on number plates and corporate uniforms, but I reckon the Centre organisers can give you some harder numbers to crunch.
DEC, FPC and other ‘forester’ groups made up a very substantial part of the audience.
Bernie, I did not coin the term Peoples Forest.
I believe it is quite old,universal and in Australia our best Forest Conservators also used it.
People being everyone.All of us.Not just those who have a commercial relationship or dependence on forests as a source of products.
Doh! You may have me with your take on the precautionary principle.(I thought people would get my drift)
I apologise for inadvertently misleading readers (if that’s what I did) by way of incorrect terminology based on definition.
What I meant was this.(Tried in my first article to articulate it)
“In regards to the topic of thinning the, “industry created toothpick forest” (yep, I coined that phrase): It would be totally irresponsible to NOT undertake any (all) treatment, on any portion of the forest, without ensuring that treatment was ecologically responsible and ecologically sustainable.”
I don’t think it is ‘radical’ in 2011 to expect the methodology of designing a plan of action, for this substantial issue, be subject to public scrutiny and an open process.
Thanks again Bernie.
Do you have some comments on my ‘Big Picture” stuff?
How many (living) Jarrah trees like the one in the photo do you know of?
Cheers.
@ Bernie Masters query.
I believe this is my position as stated on PP.
More common ground ,I suspect.
The Precautionary Principle
World Commission on the Ethics
of Scientific Knowledge
and Technology (COMEST)
Published in 2005
by the United Nations Educational,
Scientifi c and Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP
Composed and printed in the workshops of UNESCO
© UNESCO 2005
Box 2. Precautionary Principle, a working definition
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically
plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.
Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is
_ threatening to human life or health, or
_ serious and effectively irreversible, or
_ inequitable to present or future generations, or
_ imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those
affected.
The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis
should be ongoing so that chosen actions are subject to review.
Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the bounds of
the possible harm.
Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to
avoid or diminish the harm. Actions should be chosen that are proportional to
the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of their positive and
negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both
action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory
process.
The definition of Precautionary Principle that is contained in legislative statutes here in WA is defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1986 as follows:
The precautionary principle: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
It seems as thought UNESCO has learnt a lot betwenn1986 and 2005,whilst our statutes seem to have remained stagnant.I’d be interested to see whether the EPA or other departments have other ‘mission statements etc, but it’s all semantics, in the end.
By the way you left out the second half (omitted in your post above) of the Precautionary principle (As stated EPA Wa 2004)
B. Precautionary Principle
(1) If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
(2) Decision-making should be guided by:
(a) a careful evaluation to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment
wherever possible; and
(b) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of the options
Happy to hear peoples feedback on the contents” of my post.
It is often of great importance to differentiate between ‘the law’ and ‘government policy’. The law in relation to the Precautionary Principle is as I stated above – it’s a direct and complete extract from the Environmental Protection Act of 1986 (as amended). The second half of the principle that you have quoted in your most recent post is (I believe) a policy statement or guideline made by the EPA in 2004. As such, it is not the law but is simply the EPA’s opinion on aspects of the Precautionary Principle. It is therefore open to a lot more interpretation and discussion than the legal definition that I quoted and, in fact, it’s even open to legal challenge if someone wanted to go down that path.
Deuce.
Very interesting Symposium, well done to those involved!
Being also in the “minority” of those represented, I found the open discussion most engaging, whilst clearly limited in scope and time. The obvious elephant in the room being thinning I was anxious to hear audience responses on the subject.
The various assumptions, i.e. the limited “tools” at our disposal and so on are a product of what? This appreciation of “forest” as a resource is missing so much of the bigger picture. The resource, the asset a forest is is in so dimensions far greater than a plantation or catchment. Its performance as a resource is diminished by taxpayer subsidised interference. The notion of “precautionary principle”, whatever definition you prefer, has already been violated so many ways. Western Australia has within it many biodiversity hotspots, many unique species adapted to a very limited realm and a history of heedless exploitation of anything perceived as a resource. (we mine the earth, the forests and the water) The Water Corp attitude to water needs to become far more wholistic to sustain present if not future demand. Eg; water harvesting (particularly urban), recycling (to soil), dry toilets, reafforestation and greening back the wheatbelt to re establish rainfall etc. To deny our soil of water, as the metropolitan propaganda tells us to do, will reduce the carbon sequestration potential of our soil, and likely also reduce future rainfall and aquifer replenishment.
To risk salinity and reduce the genetic potential of our forests to adapt or survive drought to me seems to lack caution.
First do no harm.
Interstingly the area in the photograph is identified in the 2011-2013 DEC Indicative Timber Harvest Plan as being an area carried over for logging from last year.
The area used to have some magnificent stands of (healthy) Jarrah and Yarri, and nearby was an area of huge Bullcih trees,(large enough that they resembled Karris).
I will try to revisit and report back on the condition of this area, but I doubt I will recognise it.