Dr Chrissy Sharp
The critical question we face is how to maintain the health of our State Forests as we face the challenges of a drying climate, an inheritance of massive disturbance and mounting examples of tree decline. It is very urgent to begin to devise such a plan because we may not have the luxury of decades to reflect on the solutions before more widespread tree deaths and other ecological impacts become critical.
Given the habit of Jarrah to regrow dense thickets after intense logging I believe that to assist forest health will require well managed thinning programmes where we have the background research to justify them. The Forest Management Plan needs to provide the justifications for such management based on past research both at Wungong but more generally from decades of post-disturbance thinning. All field operations must be precautionary. Yet most of all we will need the courage to act as we explore resilience. Otherwise we will have widespread and unacceptable tree decline and dead forest patches on our collective consciences.
Facing these problems is made all the more difficult by the conceptual legacy with which the various stakeholders are so thoroughly imbued after decades of the “logging debate”. I would love to see the letting go of entrenched arguments around the old paradigms of conservation versus logging, given the level of disturbance in most State forest outside the reserve system. The concept of ‘health’ offers a helpful first principle to begin anew because, at least in theory, it is an objective that all stakeholders do share. So the management experience that foresters offer can be uncoupled from having to supply particular categories of timber demand to focus on restoration of past disturbance and ways to maximise resilience and carbon storage. In turn the greenies might need to drop their instinctive distrust of any and all management proposals, climb out of their trenches and bring their deep commitment to bear on establishing a new paradigm. And the scientists? They need our support to devise research and management solutions with insight and courage. In that way we can work together for the greater cause of putting the forest health first.
Our knowledge of the dynamics of forest ecosystem health is still small but not insignificant. Existing knowledge, critical new research programmes and precautionary applied science can form the basis of management: the test for all management, whether that is more disturbances or none, should become whether it fosters the resilience of the trees and all life in the forests. I propose that ecosystem health becomes the guiding principle of the next Forest Management Plan.
“I propose that ecosystem health becomes the guiding principle of the next Forest Management Plan.”
Me too.Christine.
Can we now have an ecologist running the show instead of a forester?
Would anyone let a carpenter fix their teeth?
I’d love to get WA’s Chief Scientists input on this issue.
We almost did.
It was the highlight of the day that she opened the symposium with so much hope and light, and the lowlight when she left us all, to do a huge circle and end up back in the 1980s.
If only our most revered people were allowed to speak their minds more often, and not just cut ribbons.
(Even when it grated with the hierarchy)
Christine,
I applaud your courage in proposing a new paradigm for approaching the management of south-west WA forests. In the current circumstances of declining rainfall and rising temperatures, and the environmental impacts that result, we need to use very piece of knowledge and every piece of practical experience available. Much of this resides in the practical operational and research experience of forest managers, including foresters. This knowledge should be used to create a forest that is as resilient as possible.
Hugh Chevis
Hugh,
Thinning the forests is not a new paradigm, nor is burning it.As a former DEC Manager and Trained Forester you would have overseen the massive tree size changes and forest health issues developing for yourself.
Having the forest managed with the integrity of the ecology as the priority (and staff fulfilling that requirement) would be a new paradigm.
For way too long the State has demanded a financial return at all costs which is why we are now defining/selling habitat trees as forest waste.
And why the FPC is draining valuable tax payers dollars for little financial gain and no ecological benefit which can be independently verified.
(Remembering that the FPC cannot function without the Environmental assessments / Approvals given by DEC.)
This is where community trust has broken down and why a more inclusive approach / process is required.
That is where any ”new paradigm” begins, but it is certainly not where it ends.
Hopefully it ends in a healthier forest (with a cohesive community and respected Forest Conservation department) whether that delivers a financial windfall or not.
Hugh, please see my original post (and picture) to see why we need a “true” new paradigm driven by true sustainability.
It is amazing how much fear the idea of ‘’community engagement’ manifests in bureaucracy.
Why?
Colin Fairclough