“The sustainable management of native timber on private land is an important income stream for many farming families struggling to survive the current drought,” said Andrew Hurford, spokesperson for the New South Wales Private Native Forests Group.
“For decades, [Australian] farmers have managed small forest holdings for times such as these – to help put food on the table for their families.
“Calls by Sydney-based greens to increase restrictions on the harvesting of private timber is a cruel blow to many farming families across the state,” said Mr Hurford.
Not only do private native forests provide a living for farmers in these times of stress, but, just as importantly provide work for thousands of timber workers.
“The money generated by private native forestry during times of drought helps to keep small, struggling country towns afloat.
“When the wheat crop fails and you have to sell your livestock because of a lack of rain, income sourced from the sustainable harvesting of timber is a life-saver,” said Mr Hurford.
On the Mid-North Coast, private native forestry generates a staggering $120 million each year to drought stricken communities and employs over 850 workers.
In the Riverina, in south west NSW, the industry contributes approximately $16.5 million each year and over 180 jobs.
“The flow-on effects to the rest of the community cannot be underestimated. It’s the shop keeper, teacher and the local mechanic who are forced to pack-up as well,” added Mr Hurford.
In August last year, the NSW Government was forced by angry farmers, timber mill owners and workers to shelve its plan to introduce a ‘Code’ that would have seen 60 per cent of forests on private land ‘locked-up’ into de facto National Parks.
Mr Hurford fears that if the ‘Code’ goes ahead dozens of communities will suffer the same fate as the Pilliga community in north-west NSW where the State Government ‘locked-up’ the Pilliga Forest into a National Park.
“It was devastating, over $40 million was stripped from local economies, six timber mills were forced to close and over 400 jobs lost. Now the towns have been left to die,” Mr Hurford said.
“With green preferences up for grabs at the next State election, the industry is fearful that an adverse decision restricting timber on private land could result in the loss of 3,000 jobs and $300 million from the NSW regional economy.
“Sound forest management can continue to provide multiple outcomes for the environment, regional communities and the economy. Forestry management actually stimulates the growth of healthy trees, healthy environments and healthy communities,” said Mr Hurford.
————————–
This is the text from a media release from the NSW Private Native Forests Group issued on 9th January 2007.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It is also not widely understood that, unless the forest owner actually enjoys being ripped off blind, native forest harvesting is always a partial harvest. No farmer willingly sells a small tree for peanuts when it will be worth ten times more in 15 years.
So once the tiny metropolitan brain can hold on to the fact that native forest harvesting is partial (selective) harvesting with healthy trees left evenly distributed over the site, it can then begin to grasp the ecological impact of this activity, especially in a drought.
There is nothing that does more to maintain the health and volume of stream flows in a drought than the removal of every second tree in part of the catchment. It means that the remaining stem get a much larger share of the remaining soil moisture and groundwater supplies.
When this groundwater is moving slowly down a gentle slope it means that a much greater proportion of it makes it into the creek to maintain the quality of the waterholes.
The remaining trees capture a slightly higher portion of ground water due to lack of competition but it will take 10 to 15 years before they have grown sufficiently to capture the entire preharvest volume.
And this means that water remains available for longer which enables the trees to maintain leaf moisture content above the critical 65% digestibility threshhold for the leaf based food chain for longer.
Below the 65% moisture level the trees switch to survival mode. They discard much of their leaf mass to the forest floor while releasing polyphenyls to make the remaining leaves both indigestible and nutritionally negative. Maintaining the leaf, sap, bud and seed based food chains is a luxury they cannot afford in drought.
And that means that not only the possum, koala and glider populations survive longer in a partially harvested forest but also the bugs, grubs etc that birds and other animals also feed on. Without it these species undergo population collapse in the order of 90 to 95%. But as they die off, slowly and cruelly, they also gather in the few trees that have access to water and often completely defoliate them.
The beneficial effect of partial harvesting in drought is so significant that there is a strong case, continuity of supply issues aside, for scheduling most harvest operations to coincide with dry periods.
This is especially so when the partial removal of canopy also increases ground cover and fodder reserves to both protect the soil and maintain minimal herd numbers and grassland species.
It is doubly important when one realises that the overwhelming number of adverse impacts that are normally associated with forestry operations, and which form the major part of Code of Practice prescriptions, are only present when operations are undertaken in wet conditions or at times when heavy downpours are likely soon after harvesting.
And while it may take a torrential downpour to break a drought, they are nearly always preceded by smaller, less intense falls that restore ground cover and counteract the effects of harvest activities.
But don’t hold your breath for the bimboscenti to grasp the notion that, just as the reduction of grazing stock is the best way to protect grassland ecosystems in drought, the reduction in tree stocks is the best way to protect forest and woodland ecosystems in the same conditions.
Some loggerheads say selective logging is too dangerous (depends on site)
‘Sustainable harvesting’ is a pretty term but what does it mean Jennifer???
Whose ‘protection’ needs priority? The big ‘forest clearfelling’ transnationals? The small number of ‘forest clearfelling’ workers? Or are we to protect the atmosphere, our biodiversity, our water catchments? Our biosphere?
Which would you give priority to protecting?
Trouble is the word ‘protect’ after the Wielangta decision doesn’t have much meaning.
http://www.on-trial.info/