Acrimonious Debate Achieves Little
Sydney Morning Herald
Sunday September 22, 1996
With regard to the furore over future forestry plans, all governments except Queensland have forgotten the most important aspect of modern logging.
Until World War II all timber cutting was selective. Skilled foresters walked through to mark the individual trees which were felled. The old trees, termite- and fungal-ridden trees full of holes, young trees and the rest of the plant life were left behind. This was ecologically sound and such mature forests are today highly regarded by conservationists.
After the war the economists took over as it was obviously unsound to leave the old, the infirm, the young and the useless trees to compete with new growth - "clearfelling" was their solution. It was an economic gain but an ecological loss.
Our society has information from Europe which reveals the great forests of Scandinavia, through clearfelling, have lost 80 per cent of their previous biological diversity. The same no doubt applies in Australia, where much massive clearing leaves an even-aged stand of useful trees, in essence creating a plantation where once was a diverse forest with high wildlife values.
The timber companies of Queensland are happy with selective logging, making woodchips with waste timber from the logs used in milling. In the old days this was burned.
Of course, if all mature age forests were kept as reserves our society would be even more pleased.
Vincent Serventy,
President, Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia,
September 18 Sydney.
Acrimonious debate over the appropriate use of forest resources has been a feature of NSW life for more than 20 years. Over the past year or so there has been an intense assessment process involving many of the parties in the debate. This process has the promise of reaching substantial agreement on many of the contentious issues, but it is not yet complete. So far there has been an interim assessment but much work is required before it is finalised.
Your editorial (September 17) urges the Government to make decisions in the very near future which are "the most rational and defensible possible". There is nothing either rational or defensible in allocating what may not exist. One of the matters which the assessment has yet to resolve is the size of the potentially available resources. Estimates vary considerably, but if long-term commitments for timber supply are made on the basis of over-optimistic projections then there will only be losers - industry will not have raw materials, the Government will lose credibility, and the environment will suffer.
The assessment process was established to escape from the problem of managing forests on the basis of inadequate information. Rather than rushing to a decision which will determine the pattern of forest utilisation for years to come, the rational course is surely to complete the assessment process as originally promised and to resolve the questions of availability of resources before, rather than after, they have been committed.
Assoc Prof Paul Adams, School of Biological Sciences, University of New South Wales,
September 20 Kensington.
© 1996 Sydney Morning Herald