nsw government

Congratulations go to the Nature Conservation Council, on its successful legal challenge, earlier this month, to the NSW government’s land clearing laws. Although it does seems likely the government will come back with something similarly appalling.

In that regard, pro-logging Rob de Fegely, currently Chair of Sustainable Timber Tasmania, Co-chair of the Commonwealth Government’s Forest Industry Advisory Council and a member of the Far South Coast Regional Advisory Committee for NSW National Parks, recently spoke about his preferred approach to south east forests.

According to Rob ‘it’s time people step up, be brave, put politics aside, and re-engage in what has been a divisive and emotionally charged issue’. He went on to ask “ . . . As a private landholder I am likely to improve habitat for lyrebirds, koalas, bandicoots, and potoroos, but where is the direction to do that? . . . And how do we build that across the landscape to link in with National Parks, the Forestry Corporation, Crown Lands and others to develop a system across the South East where we would end up with a landscape we are all proud of?”

Co-coinciding with Robs questions has been the release of twenty spotted quolls into federal land, Booderee National Park at Jervis Bay. This follows the previous apparently successful release of bettongs, bandicoots and potoroos, the latter from forests around Eden.

Having stepped up and submitted some brief comments on the RFA rollover, largely a rehash of the flora reserve comments. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the greatest impediment to any positive change is the Forestry Corporation.  This seems particularly the case given its general disregard for forests and threatened species.  On the other hand my recent meeting with the NPWS, in the Flora reserve, was at least amicable, although who knows what will come of it.

I was advised that some sort of report will be produced on the 30 odd submissions received about the reserve draft plan, prior to the release of final plan. The final plan for the Flora reserves is similar to the clearing laws, because it too requires the agreement of the NSW environment Minister and the primary industries Minister. While hoping for a positive outcome, It seems likely the latter Minister will have a significant influence.


Forestry Corporation has released its proposed logging schedule for the financial year. Included in the list are two compartments, 2069 and 2003, in Bermagui State Forest. Of particular interest is 2069 that was last logged back in 2011/12.

At the time and as indicated in the Harvesting Plan map below, I though it was generous that logging was constrained to the east and west of the compartment. This left an intact strip in the center, connecting north to south.

Now not many years on, the intention is to trash all of it and the last intact connection between koalas in the Flora reserve and Kooraban National Park.As reported in the Narooma News, neighbours around Compartment 3058 of Corunna State Forest are concerned about it also being scheduled for logging. Corunna State Forest is about 20km north of the Bermagui compartments and there are koala records in and around both locations.

While forestry has acknowledged the potential presence of koalas, any notion that its arguably unAustalian approach translates to caring about any native species is unrealistic.

Assuming it happens, tomorrow I’m to meet with Kane, the Director – South Coast Branch NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Alan, the NPWS Manager Eurobodalla Area.

The purpose of the meeting is so Kane and Alan can inspect the fence.I’m not exactly sure what this involves, although I guess many fences don’t have wombat gates and overhead access points. So this fence is a little different to others.

Of course it’s possible that like Forestry, the NPWS may prefer to get rid of the fence. Should that be the case, I probably won’t be much help.

After spending too much time on them, my comments on the  Murrah flora reserves final draft working plan, have been dutifully submitted. Based on experience, there is no certainty that anyone in the OE&H will read them. Should they be read, there is somewhat less certainty anyone in the OE&H will understand them and some what less certainty they will be acted on.

While it would be reassuring to think the proposal for adaptive management in the working plan actually meant something. The impediment to adaptive management, as pointed out in ‘Options forestry-acting on uncertainty’ (Bormann & Kiester 2004) is clearly associated with ‘spurious certitude’.

That is, the NSW government agencies all believe they know what ecologically sustainable forest management is and that’s what they do, so there is no need to learn from experience or change anything. Then there is the native forest logging industry, that, from the governments perspective, has to be supported at any societal or environmental cost.
For those who feel this approach is reckless, at best. The ultimate outcome could be disastrous.

Recently published in the journal Nature is paper titled “Europe’s lost forests: a pollen-based synthesis for the last 11,000 years“. According to the paper Europe’s forests reached their maximum extent between 8000 and 6000 years ago and then began to reduce. However, sometime after 4000 years ago the rate at which the area of forest reduced, greatly increased.

The reduction was greatest in southern Europe and an example given is Lake Dojran, between Macedonia and Greece. Here, pollen retrieved from the lake pointed to a large erosion event some 3200 years ago. At the time people had been clearing the temperate forests for agriculture and there was an increasing demand for timber, to build boats. Soils had been depleting for some time, but the large erosion event topped it off.

In a Sydney Morning Herald article one of the paper’s authors, Mr Rothacker indicated  ” . . . the link between soil health and agricultural output would have shown up rapidly.”
He went on to add – “Without soil, you basically lack the key component in the eco-system to grow food,” he said. “If you don’t have mature soils any more, you can’t grow that food and you can’t supply a large population.”

As reported in the Bega District News, ” . . . The National Parks and Wildlife Service is hosting two sessions of what they describe as “open houses”, in January for locals and visitors to learn more about the recently created Murrah Flora Reserves.” The first of these sessions was held last Saturday at the Tanja Hall.

Unlike the previous koala information session held at the hall and funded by the Federal Government, there weren’t may cars outside. Upon entering the hall and also unlike the previous session, there wasn’t much information available either. At the time there four people attending the session, two OE&H employees and the most recent NPWS South Coast Director Kane Weeks.

There were three maps on the wall, a couple of A4 print outs on koala monitoring and attempts to grow trees, along with one research paper about fire.

One of the maps showed the vast area planned for regular burning. Another the most recent modeled koala use areas and another indicating areas with a larger volume of vertical fuel load.
Kane Weeks asked me what I thought about the burning proposal. I suggested that all of it has been logged and burned and in the process lost hundreds of tonnes of soil per hectare. The vertical fuel load comes from trees that, among other things, drop large amounts of litter that aids in restoring the soils.

Burning these areas eliminates the litter, so the process of soil restoration has to start again.

According to the final draft for the flora reserves, these matters are too complex. So I wasn’t surprised when Mr Weeks indicated the Forestry Corporation will have the final say on the reserve management plan.


Last year I wrote to the OE&H and Forestry Corporation requesting information relevant to management plan.

From Forestry I requested a document, referenced in the plan and titled ” FCNSW 2016, ‘Logging records for Mumbulla, Tanja, Murrah and Bermagui State Forests, Reserve numbers 187, 188, 189 and 190’, unpublished records compiled by the Forestry Commission of NSW, Eden”

This is the response Forestry sent on January 6.

Hi Robert
It would be best to check this information with the Office of Environment and Heritage who have prepared the draft plan. They would be best placed to advise exactly which documents or records this reference refers to.

I did ask about the document at the information session, but they didn’t know either. The OE&H has partly responded to my request, although the logging records document has been added to the list.

As reported by Sue Arnold in the Independent, the NSW Scientific Committee has rejected a nomination to list koalas around Port Stephens as an endangered population.
According to Sue ” . . . The Turnbull Government is overseeing a thoughtless extinction plan, dressed up as conservation, in which the koala will not survive.

While the Scientific committee’s determination acknowledges the population fits the criteria for listing as an endangered population. Under a previously unpublicised intergovernmental MOU this is now not possible, as per the following quote from the determination.

” . . . 18.Under clause 2.2 of the Intergovernmental memorandum of understanding relating to the agreement on a common assessment method for listing of threatened species and threatened ecological communities (CAM MOU 2015), a population of a species is not eligible to be listed as threatened if the species is separately listed as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.”

Probably not co-incidentally, the NSW and Federal governments are now seeking ” feedback on five-yearly implementation reviews of RFAs and how to extend them for an additional 20-year term.”
The website goes on to suggest ” . . . Consultation will enable a full appraisal of the current RFAs covering the Eden, North East and Southern regions of NSW. It will also drive optimal implementation of new agreements, including what we can learn from our experience over the past 20 years.”

Regrettably, personal experience suggests forests managers have learned very little at a regional scale and this appears to be the situation throughout NSW.

For koalas in the Murrah Flora Reserves, the major issue should be trying to keep trees alive. Unfortunately , along with the rest of the NSW government the OE&H and FCNSW have a blockage when it comes to what trees grow in – soils.

What they rely on is the less than current information, some of which is in the table above, from a paper, Forestry’s holy grail,  titled Nutrient inputs from rainfall in NSW (Turner, Lambert and Knott, 1986). The fundamental argument in this paper is that virtually all the nutrients eucalyptus forests require fall with rain from the sky. So the loss of soil from erosion and dispersion won’t be an issue for hundreds of years.

Regrettably, this argument doesn’t really hold water, pardon the pun. The Calcium inputs from Mogo (4.2 kg haˉ¹ yrˉ¹), the closest station to the Murrah flora reserves, suggests 168 kgs of the nutrient would be deposited over a 40 year logging rotation. However a simple calculation for compartments logged in 1994, to be included in the reserve management plan comments, found around 1.4 tonnes of Calcium per hectare were likely to be removed or burned.

The replacement time for this volume Calcium from rainfall is 333.33 years. Of course this is before accounting for Sodium inputs, that counter the positive influence of calcium.

The OE&H has released its koala recovery proposals for the period 21017-2021. Topping the 12 issues proposed to be addressed is ” Loss, modification and fragmentation of habitat In areas of known koala significance”. Actions proposed include – Existing degraded koala habitat restored and better connected – New koala habitat established and maintained and Permanent landholder agreements established for private land containing occupied koala habitat.

Regrettably, only the first of these is relevant to this area, because attempts to establish new habitat failed miserably and this failure confirmed why there aren’t many koalas on private land. So the disagreement is about how one restores modified and fragmented habitat, including whether there is any benefit dropping and monitoring Woollybut seed-balls.

Another threat the OE&H have cottoned onto is ” Intense prescribed burns or wildfires that scorch or burn the tree canopy”. Given this admission, with luck future NPWS intense prescribed burns may not be in areas with koalas.

Thankfully the threat of a brown forest and associated increased wildfire potential has temporarily passed given recent soaking rainfall. Although far less rainfall was recorded south of Bega, seemingly consistent with the findings in Lunney etal. – ‘Extinction in Eden identifying the role of climate change in the decline of the koala in south-eastern NSW’.

While addressing climate change is a low OE&H priority, I understand the current NSW Environment Minister would like to see a whole of government approach to the koala issue. The problem being that business as usual is still perceived as being consistent with helping koalas. For example and as indicated in the photo above, Bega Valley Shire Council has recently shredded a large number of trees along Benny-Gowings road, where it passes through the Murrah Flora reserve.

This is the first time Council has shredded vegetation along this road and it seems unfortunate that preferred koala feed trees, like the Woollybut, reduced to the large stump in the middle of the shot, were not retained. Of course the same goes for all the other feed trees council shredded, in this area of known koala significance.

While it is difficult to see how this loss of habitat sits with the state government’s proposals, it highlights – again – the difficulty achieving any sort of change to forest management in south-eastern NSW.

Following up on the koala taken into care, it wasn’t fitted with a radio collar when released, several kilometers from where it was found. This omission isn’t the result of a constraint on the OE&H. Indeed, last year the OE&H radio-collared and tracked 20 koalas on the southern highlands. Rather, it reflects the conservation movement’s low interest in koalas, which the OE&H is happy to go along with.

Hence in an article on About Regional, OE&H threatened species officer Chris Allen talks of ‘Small, fragile, and very precious communities of koalas ‘, rather than an endangered population.
Allen also repeats his claim that climate change and fire are the biggest threats to koalas, extensive canopy die-back doesn’t get a mention. This too is mostly a result of of the conservation movement’s desire to ignore the real issues.

After the predictable failure to grow primary tree species on private land, Allen is now suggesting the secondary feed species Woollybutt (E. longifolia), ‘ is really struggling to regenerate’.  So ” . . . Thirty small research plots have been established throughout koala country where a range of bush regeneration techniques are being trialled – one of them is the use of seed balls. “Seed balls are made up of the seed of the target species, clay is mixed with peat mulch and Cayenne pepper,” Chris smiles. “The Cayenne pepper is the magic ingredient that stops ants and other critters eating the seed.”

At this point it seems necessary to believe insects that eat seed are also a threat to koalas, rather than the notion that soils are no longer conducive to tree germination and growth.
The following chart shows the percentage of Woollybutt trees from the first survey data, stratified by size classes. Although the data is poor, it doesn’t reflect trees struggling to regenerate, rather what would be expected from heavily logged forests. What Allen neglects to mention is the increase in non-eucalyptus species and the fact that they can grow where eucalyptus trees no longer can.

Also in the news was the Forestry Corporation, regarding data on firewood NSW Minister for Primary Industries Niall Blair provided to the NSW parliament. The data indicates firewood production rose from nothing in 2002, to 2,365 tonnes in Eden and 38,926 tonnes in Southern during 2016.

The article was followed by a letter to the editor, from forestry manager Danial Tuan, suggesting the information had been misrepresented because forestry have always sold firewood and ” . . .  the timber was previously sold and reported in a different residue category.”

However, according to Forests NSW 2005 ESFM plan, 4,500 tonnes of commercial firewood and 1,579 tonnes of domestic firewood were sourced from the South Soast region in 2002-2003. This volume, signed off by then Minister Ian Macdonald, is 48 times greater than the recent information.

It does seem prudent to take the information, stemming from public forest managers, with several grains of salt.

%d bloggers like this: