Regional Forest Agreements - business as usual in the Southern Region?
Dr. Brendan Mackey
Reader in Ecology and Environmental Science
School of Resource Management and Environmental Science
Faculty of Science, The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
November 1999
Introduction
Will a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) for the Southern Region herald in a new era of sustainable development for NSW forests, or will it simply result in ‘business as usual’ and no significant shift towards Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)?
I was personally very supportive of the RFA process when it was first proposed. Indeed I was excited by the prospects of an integrated, community-based approach to resource conflict resolution where the decision-making process was driven by scientific understanding. I have had a great deal of experience in tropical, boreal and temperate forest ecosystems. Despite the good intentions and rhetoric I had encountered elsewhere, the proposed RFA process was far more progressive that anything I had come across in the USA, Canada or S.E. Asia. Here in Australia it seemed we were on the verge of a major breakthrough in forest management that could have positive ramifications throughout the world.
It has therefore been with considerable regret that I have witnessed the reality of how the process has unfolded over the last few years. What you may ask is the basis for my deep concerns, and what implications does this have for the RFA negotiations currently in place for the Southern Region?
Scientific Assessment
As originally conceived, the RFA process was to be underpinned by two foundational strategies. First, scientifically determined criteria would be applied that would have the effect of establishing an Ecological Bottom Line (EBL), that is, a minimum level of ecological protection needed to ensure the long term viability of the forest's environmental values. Second, the timber industry would be restructured to operate within these ecological constraints. The constraints would take two forms. The conservation reserve system would be expanded according to an agreed set of criteria and targets. Off-reserve management would also be modified to protect those conservation values that could not be protected, for logistic reasons, within an expanded reserve system. In this way RFAs would bring about the fundamental industrial reform needed to promote ESD.
Given this, a set of conservation criteria were established by a panel of eminent scientists, and reviewed and endorsed by an even wider circle of experts - such as myself. While concerns were expressed about the details of the criteria, I was one of many scientists who argued that if these criteria were implemented in good faith, then a workable EBL could be established that would provide a sound basis for ESD.
The criteria called for the establishment in each region of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system. Guideline targets were established for Comprehensiveness, and for conservation values related to Wilderness and Old Growth. Subsequently, goals were also established for species of special concern (eg. rare, threatened plants and animals).
Comprehensiveness refers to the extent to which a reserve system contains samples of the major forest ecosystem types in a region. Adequacy entails a suite of considerations that enable an evaluation of the extent to which the long term ecological viability of conservation values is ensured. Representativeness assesses the extent to which the variation and diversity within each major forest ecosystem is protected.
The reality
Given the RFA process was founded on such a sound (albeit imperfect) scientific basis, the reader may be puzzled as to why scientists such as myself are so concerned about how the RFA process has been unfolding.
1. ESD
It soon became obvious that if the full scientific criteria were applied ‘in good faith’ then substantial restructuring of the native forest timber industry was inevitable - as there would simply be less wood available due to (a) substantial increases in reservation and (b) significant modifications to codes of practice in order to improve off-reserve management. Given this, a political decision was made to further modify the RFA criteria so that the scientifically-based criteria were no longer independently applied as a first step in establishing an Ecological Bottom Line. This was a crucial decision as it was now very unlikely that any RFA would deliver ESD, as the modified criteria allowed ecological values to be traded off against economic and social values.
2. Adequacy and Representativeness
In practice, no RFA to date has applied the criteria of Adequacy and Representativeness in a substantial way. Admittedly, the notion of Adequacy is quite complex as it contains a number of considerations. First, it refers to the size and shape of individual conservation reserves and their spatial configuration with respect to each other. For example, we can compare the efficacy of a network of small, narrow, geographically isolated road-side strips versus a few, large, interconnected areas - which reserve configuration would best ensure the long term viability of a meta-population of yellow belly gliders? Second, Adequacy requires evaluation of the condition of the biophysical resources in a reserve. For example, a guild of species may have particular habitat requirements related to mature vegetation structure - these habitat conditions would need to be present in sufficient quantity for the reserve to be considered Adequate.
The need for the criterion of Representativeness really stems from recognition that we will never have the spatial information needed to fully map the distribution of forest biodiversity. The reality is that only major differences in forest types can be mapped. However within each major forest ecosystem type there exists a bewildering diversity of plants, animals, micro-organisms, and community associations. The criteria of Representativeness was designed to ensure that these additional and essential elements of forest biodiversity are also identified and protected.
3. Comprehensiveness
There are a number of scientifically-based reasons why the criterion of Comprehensiveness should be evaluated against a relatively large number of forest ecosystem types; in the range of 300-400 for a given region. First, from a global perspective, Australian forests have a high level of Biodiversity, particularly in terms of invertebrates, tree and shrub species, and hollow-dependent possums, gliders, birds and bats. Second, remember that in reality the soil is an integral component of the forest ecosystem as the soil profile co-evolves in situ with the vegetation and micro-organisms. Third, the landscapes occupied by Australian forests experience the strongest climatic gradients in the continent. Climate of course is the prime determinant of the taxonomic composition, vegetation structure and productivity of forest ecosystems.
Unfortunately, RFAs have developed and utilised relatively simple forest ecosystem classifications - note that in my professional estimation even classifications with 100-150 types are inadequate to assess Comprehensiveness.
4. Conservation value of Wilderness
Many of the RFAs have made a concerted effort to identify and protect Wilderness Areas. However this has focussed exclusively on the cultural value of Wilderness. I recently co-authored a paper that reviewed the nature conservation value of wilderness from a scientific perspective (a copy of this report to Environment Australia can be found at the following internet address - http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/wwr/anlr_0999/code/pub.htm).
It is often forgotten that ecological systems are different from physical systems. The key difference is that in an ecological system the biota act as a buffer, compensating for and dampening fluxes in external environmental conditions. Furthermore, this buffering capacity is a function of age. By this I mean the more mature the forest ecosystem the greater its buffering capacity. Hence a mature ecosystem has an enhanced capacity to buffer itself against fluxes in water (from climatic drought) and nutrients (through nutrient recycling and conservation). Thus the very environmental conditions that constitute the habitat for plants and animals are largely generated over time by the biota themselves. This buffering capacity is also what we refer to as a scale dependent phenomena - this means the larger the area then the greater the buffer the biota provide.
It follows that places remote from or little impacted by modern technological society will tend to be larger areas dominated by mature ecosystems. If Wilderness is interpreted from this scientific perspective it then becomes highly relevant, indeed I would argue central, to the assessment of Adequacy and Representativeness. Unfortunately these connections have not been made in any RFA.
5. CRA
One of the most exciting components of the RFA process as originally conceived was that application of the criteria was to follow a Comprehensive Resource Assessment (CRA) of the region. The rationale decision-making process the RFA was intended to promote was predicated on access to adequate information. Unfortunately, to date CRAs have either been inadequate (relying mainly on the collation of existing information) or the agreement has been fast tracked and closed without adequate time given to make proper use of the information.
This has resulted in major decisions being made without the benefit of scientifically-robust information. For example, existing data do not enable Net Primary Productivity (NPP) to be mapped at a useful scale. Nor can this phenomenon be adequately predicted from computer models or satellite imagery. NPP is the amount of biomass stored in an ecosystem averaged over an appropriate time period (to account for short term fluxes). NPP is the difference between the biomass generated by primary producers (plants that photosynthesise) and decomposition of this material (by micro-organisms and fungi). The higher the NPP the more food available for all the other organisms in the food chain - higher NPP therefore means more ecologically viable populations. Once again, here is another characteristic of forest ecosystems that is fundamentally important to the assessment of Adequacy and Representativeness and that has not been given due consideration in the RFA process.
6. Off-reserve management
RFAs as originally conceived were meant to result in an improvement to forestry practices such that key conservation values were protected outside reserves. Instead, we have witnessed generally an increase in the intensity of timber harvesting off-reserve as a result of RFAs. Where this occurs it represents an abandonment of one of the two foundational RFA strategies. This is particularly important in relation to the general need to increase the number, type and spatial distribution of habitat trees outside of reserves for hollow-dependent fauna. All other factors being equal, this requires a reduction in timber yield per unit area not an increase!
Monga State Forest - a case study
At this point it may be useful to illustrate the significance of these issues to what is currently happening in the Southern Region, taking Monga State Forest as a case study. My discussion will focus on this question: if the Southern Region RFA were to apply the original criteria with full and substantial consideration to the issues I have raised here, would Monga State Forest be part of an expanded conservation reserve system for the region?
It is critical to recognise that forest ecosystems vary in their degree of similarity. Put simply, some forest ecosystem types are very similar and others extremely different to each other. The forest ecosystems at Monga have their strongest affiliations with the tableland country - most of which has been cleared for agriculture - much of the ecological flows in and out of Monga are associated with the tableland system rather than the coastal forests.
This can be illustrated by a number of Monga’s environmental characteristics:
Monga contains the head-waters of the Mongarlowe River, which flows through the tableland country before joining the Shoalhaven River
the area has a distinctive climate, with tableland temperature regimes but high a-seasonal rainfall
the landscape contains significant flat and undulating areas, as compared with much of the land currently reserved - consequently hydrological gradients are low.
These factors together with the native vegetation cover means that there is a consistent and reliable base flow of water through the Monga catchment
These characteristics make Monga a high productivity environment, that is, it has a very high NPP
Furthermore, Monga contains very substantial and significant areas that have been largely unperturbed by modern forestry practices, if logged at all. Whether we want to call these areas Wilderness or Old Growth is neither here nor there if we fail to grasp the role they play in regulating environmental conditions in this landscape.
These characteristics have many ecological implications and are fundamental to application of the criteria of Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness For example, it is very likely that Monga represents a critical refuge for previously wide-spread tableland biota such as pond breeding frogs. Also, a forest ecosystem classification that fails to distinguish between coastal and tableland climates cannot be used to assess Comprehensiveness. The distinctive hydrological properties of Monga, together with its high NPP, are also critical to consideration of Adequacy and Representativeness.
Unfortunately, if the Southern Region RFA proceeds along the lines of previous agreements it is very likely that (a) assessment of Comprehensiveness will be based on a classification of forest ecosystems that fails to recognise ecologically significant gradients and differences, (b) the scientific value of Wilderness/Old Growth will be ignored, and (c) failure to apply the criteria of Adequacy and Representativeness will result in the distinctive environmental characteristics of Monga that make it a high productivity refugia being ignored.
If it eventuates that as a result of the RFA most of Monga State Forest is not included in an expanded reserve system it will not be because it is of insufficient conservation value. Rather it will be because the criteria have been applied in a way that is blind to the reasons why Monga is of regional conservation significance.
Conclusions
I maintain my respect for the original aims of the RFA process, and for the need to promote ESD. Indeed, like other commentators, I strongly believe that if the RFA payed more attention to investment issues in the plantation part of the timber industry, increased economic prosperity (including enhanced employment opportunities) could be generated for the region with reduced impacts on forest conservation values. So my argument here is not to be interpreted as promoting some kind of anti-economic growth agenda. Rather I am arguing for Ecologically Sustainable Development.
The RFA process must return to the ideals of its origins. Step one must be to first establish the Ecological Bottom Line by applying the criteria of Comprehensiveness, Adequacy, and Representativeness, together with Wilderness, Old Growth, and species-based targets. Then a Comprehensive Resource Assessment must be conducted that considers all the constraints, opportunities and options, inclusive of the plantation sector. Time must then be allowed for this information to be fully incorporated into the decision-making process.
There is no need to settle for a second rate process when we have all the means at our disposal to implement an RFA that could be so good as to establish world best practice. Why not dare to hope that the Southern Region RFA can become an historic marker along the global road towards Ecologically Sustainable Development?
If you would like to further assist the campaign to protect the South Coast forests please contact the South East Forest Alliance c/- National Parks Association tel 9299 0000 or
email npansw@bigpond.com