Comments for Blog on Forest Health

Comment on Time to prioritise Ecological Management in Peoples Forest by Colin Fairclough

Colin Fairclough — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:51:38 +0000

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.

Comment on The Challenge for the next Forest Management Plan by Colin Fairclough

Colin Fairclough — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 02:20:41 +0000

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

Comment on The Challenge for the next Forest Management Plan by Hugh Chevis

Hugh Chevis — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:28:17 +0000

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

Comment on The Challenge for the next Forest Management Plan by Colin Fairclough

Colin Fairclough — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:16:45 +0000

“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)

Comment on Time to prioritise Ecological Management in Peoples Forest by Nonie Jekabsons

Nonie Jekabsons — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:27:37 +0000

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.

Comment on Pondering the Symposium – clarifying our values by Colin Fairclough

Colin Fairclough — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:31:26 +0000

Thanks Rima.
Quite interesting.
Of course we can thin till the cows come home but, rainfall timing, intensity and groundwater extraction are the three primary contributors to dam infill.
And AGW is the new driver of such rainfall events.
EG: If it rains 25 mm in an hour do we think the trees (catchment) can uptake the water?

And we should keep in mind that Wungong Catchment Trial is an IFA /Foresters Show-piece.With a financial windfall attached, if the thinning goes ahead.

Has Watercorp (DOW) considered extracting less groundwater in the first place?
Or prioritising our potable water to non-industrial consumers, or are they still keen to allow market forces to drive us towards a total ‘desalination water’ supply going forward?

The recent issue :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-02/mingenew-farmers-outraged-over-water-licence-feature/2868684
throws sustainable water management policy aside, and makes a mockery of sustainable water use.
Sadly there appears to be NO government movement (in either portfolio) to address sustainability deficiencies.(Water or forest)
I wonder why?

Further,if DEC’s silvicultural guidelines were not driven by delivering FPC product, over biodiversity, I could find some merit in their position in regards to this ‘trial’.

Much more enlightening are the findings of Susanne Moore’s survey (presented at the symposium) which reaffirm that, as in the election which saw the demise of the Court government, WA people have a deep connection too, and are very savvy about inappropriate forest management.(This includes DEC employees using the forest recreationally)
Hopefully Watercorp have an eye to watch this powerful precedent, with as much intensity as the Wungong Catchment data.
As noted before, the pendulum MUST swing away from production to ecology, (forest, water etc) if as a community we value the true meaning of sustainability.

I note in the attached picture the canopy is wide open.Something our dry sclerophyll forest were not meant to be.
(And never were, in their most productive state.)
Can any government department / institution validate that by opening the canopy, forest health or production has increased?
Or that representative tree size-has increased overall?

Cheers.

Comment on Time to prioritise Ecological Management in Peoples Forest by Colin Fairclough

Colin Fairclough — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:33:46 +0000

Deuce.

Comment on Time to prioritise Ecological Management in Peoples Forest by Bernie Masters

Bernie Masters — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:14:18 +0000

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.

Comment on Time to prioritise Ecological Management in Peoples Forest by Colin Fairclough

Colin Fairclough — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:51:05 +0000

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.

Comment on Time to prioritise Ecological Management in Peoples Forest by Bernie Masters

Bernie Masters — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:17:13 +0000

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.