Recommendation
for the Formal Reservation of remaining blocks of non-leased state forest
in and around the Strzelecki Bioregion
Summary of the main arguments in favour of such changes
- It is well recognised and documented that the Strzeleckis lacks reserves
- Formal reserves are preferable to SPZs (special protection zones) as they have legislative backing.
- Reservation status sends a clear message that these areas are to be valued and respected now and into the future
- In terms of flora and fauna qualities, each of these areas have enough merit to warrant such changes
- Logistically, these changes would be a comparatively easy task requiring minimal time or expense.
- Negative financial impacts are negligible. It could be argued that the financial impact could actually be a positive one.
- Potential sustainable timber yields from these areas are low
- The small amount of resources foregone as a result of such changes are easily offset from any one of a number of sound alternatives.
- Potential environmental benefits from such a change are easy to prove.
- Other extractive activities such as sand, gravel and mining are unlikely to be a major issue
- Changes to recreational uses, if any, would be for the better
- There is overwhelming evidence of broad community support for such a change and an expectation that this should have happened long ago.
- It can be argued that such a consolidation would make management of public land in the Strzeleckis more efficient and more effective.
The following pages elaborate on the previous points, and endeavours to address impacts arising from such changes.
In state forest zoned SPZ( 1, 4, 7, 13, part of 9,14, 15) land management would remain more or less the same. SPZ zoning provides protection similar to a formal reserve, but this zoning is not as good as a formal reserve as SPZs can be rescinded, or these zones can be moved as DNRE see fit. These zones are often referred to as informal reserves, as they have no formal legislative protection. Formal reserves on the other hand cannot be altered or rescinded without the say so of both houses of parliament.
Management of SMZ and GMZ state forest (2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, part of 9, 14, 15) would change insofar as Timber Harvesting, firewood collection and other such uses (already subject to conditions in SMZs) would cease to be an option. This is where most of the debate would be focused, so it is necessary at this point to provide the following snapshot:
These SMZs and GMZs would cover a gross area of roughly 2500 – 3000 ha. Of that, more than half would be either unavailable for timber extraction due to the forest code, or unsuitable due to an absence of worthwhile harvestable volumes. Of the remaining 1000 or so hectares of land potentially available for firewood collection or selective logging, only very low volumes could be extracted, as almost all of these areas are on lower elevations and carry slower growing vegetation types. Compared to the wet forests and pine plantations in the bioregion, the difference in growth rate is dramatic. In Alberton West State Forest (9) the Mean Annual Increment (MAI) is estimated to be around 1 cubic metre per hectare per year. This would more than likely roughly be the average across all the GMZs and SMZs mentioned. Fully exploited to the outermost limits of sustainability, no more than 1000 or so cubic metres could cut from these areas annually. Clear felling a couple of hectares of 25 year old bluegum plantation (with a MAI of 20) would yield an equivalent amount. 1000 cubic metres is a truly paltry amount when compared with Amor’s consumption of 900,000 cubic metres of Gippsland hardwood annually.
The majority of quarrying in this bioregion is not from State Forest land, but quarries have existed on areas 5 and 12 in the past, and may or may not still be in use. If they are still used, and still necessary, reserves could still be made but with the extraction sites excluded.
Turtons Creek has been the subject of mining applications on rare occasions. These application were rejected, a decision which had community support. In the unlikely event that anyone wanted to mine any of these areas of State Forest, it is improbable that permits would be granted (whatever its status) and unlikely that the community would approve.
Reservation would reduce existing recreational use options only where it is clearly necessary to bring about substantial environmental gains due to any such changes. Activities such as Motorbike riding may be reduced, while activities such as horse riding could remain unchanged, and activities such as walking, picnicking, etc, could be enhanced. In other words, recreation activity can be tailored to best suit each site’s requirements, suitability and community expectations.
Native vegetation in the Strzelecki Bioregion has been depleted to 19% of its original extent, making it the most depleted bioregion in Gippsland, and the most depleted forest bioregion in the state.
Due to the severe level of depletion, all EVC types remaining in the Strzeleckis (except Wet Forest) are classified as Endangered, Vulnerable or Rare. Wet Forest, which is depleted to around 50%, is classed as Depleted. As these EVCs represent whole forest communities, it is the communities themselves that are Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare or Depleted, and there is little need to present long lists of individual Endangered Vulnerable and Rare species which reside in these areas to justify this proposal. Clearly, every remaining vestige of native forest in the “Land of the Lyrebird” must be considered extremely precious.
Less than 2% of the Strzelecki Ranges Bioregion is currently protected in reserves. CAR reserve criteria, a standard agreed to by all Australian governments, and major goal of the RFA process, in short calls for a minimum of 15% reservation levels in order to maintain any ecological integrity into the future. Reservation of these above mentioned areas would add roughly 2% to the tally.
The importance of reserves to conservation management is well documented elsewhere. Likewise, the need for a major reserve system in the Strzeleckis is also well documented. In short, reserves:
-Provides a strong signal that people are expected to treat the places in an appropriate manner
-Provide the best chance to native flora and fauna
-Provide legislative protection into the distant future
-Provide the best catchment values – forest allowed to age without undue interference provides the best water quantity, quality, and stream flow persistence, and minimises soil movement
-Provide the greatest scenic values
-Discourage detrimental recreational uses and encourage relatively benign uses
-Promote interest in, and understanding of, the environment
-Fulfil the wishes of many concerned residents
Going back many decades, there has been repeated requests from the community to have many of these areas reserved. The Strzelecki Working Group has copies of the original submissions from South Gippsland Conservation Society and the Conservation council of Victoria regarding the Proposed Mirboo Regional Park (area 14)
Some areas are commonly believed to already be reserves, although the Gippsland RFA map indicates that they may not be ( areas 7, 13).
The main reason for not reserving these areas appears to be that the department wishes to keep them available as a source of firewood. There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that this is not representative of community attitudes. The community have shown much more interest in gaining access to natural.
Locals are well aware of the comparative lack of firewood these days, and many use other forms of heating fuel. Household which regularly use wood fires often source this wood either from their own properties, or from recycled timber, or sawmill off cuts, etc. The vast majority of those who buy firewood are buying it in the hope that its not being sourced to the detriment of flora and fauna values in the remaining bush in the region. Many people are predicting the inevitable return of the farm woodlot and wish to see a wiser, greener approach to growing firewood applied as soon as possible.
The community has consistently shown that it has been sympathetic to the plight of the Strzelecki environment, perhaps more so than the authorities have recognised. Historical records show that existing reserves in the Strzeleckis have been the result of hard-won community initiated campaigns, aided a great deal by local government.
Firewood:
(firewood is an issue in 9 and 14)
The current system whereby a limited number of locals can collect their own firewood in state forests by paying a $12 per tonne licence fee fails to factor in the full cost of production. This is an un-competitive practice as it undermines the profitability of any potential firewood growing industry which would have to factor in land costs, growing time and other production costs into the selling price.
Across the entire Central Gippsland FMA, of which the Strzeleckis is a part, licences are issued for the removal of around 12,000 tonnes of firewood per year, from a gross public land base of over 500,000 ha. The areas in question in the Strzeleckis, being somewhere in the order of 5000 ha. gross, make up just a minute fraction of the Gippsland public resource base. There are no easily available figures as to how much of this 12,000 tonnes is from Strzelecki State forests, so loss of licence revenue due to these areas ceasing to be available cannot be calculated.
Suffice to say that impacts on Gippsland’s ability to obtain firewood will be small and localised. Alternative sources are available, and this is discussed in the next section of this paper.
Sawlogs and pulp logs:
In the undesirable situation where Rare, Endangered and Vulnerable EVCs are to be used as a source of logs, then, arguably, the only areas big enough and suitable enough for any log harvesting to be viable at all is in Alberton West (9) which has around 1000 ha. of GMZ and SMZ. With areas excluded by the code of practice and other areas discounted due to non-viability, etc. we are left with perhaps 500 ha. with a MAI of 1 , bringing its sustainable limit to 500 cubic metres per year, with the theoretical potential to generate roughly around $12000 per annum from log royalties. Ending this might result in the loss of potential licence revenue of up to $12000
As a heating fuel, firewood is only one of three common options. Many who choose the firewood option source it from a variety of places such as sawmill off cuts, pruning and lopping debris, old timber, woodlots, wood from their own properties, etc. The firewood consumption rate is governed by availability and price. There is no set volume that the community “needs”. If, however, a comparable volume of firewood foregone from formal reservation of these areas must be sourced elsewhere, there are a number of options:
1. Loy Yang Power is experimenting with adding woodchips to coal in their electricity production. If this wood is to be burnt it, it can be burnt in fireplaces.
2. All logging coupes leave a great deal of slash behind, whether it be non-targeted tree species felled in the process or unmerchantable sections of logs or branches. Much of this material, which currently is burnt on site could instead be used as firewood.
3. Large volumes of logs are transported from West Gippsland to Geelong to be chipped for export (accordng to Gippsland RFA documents, around 30,000 cubic metres during 97-98 financial year) A proportion of this wood could be sold locally to firewood suppliers. The government states that Victoria is only exporting wood that is surplus to our domestic needs. If we need it as firewood, then local needs must take precedence over exportation.
4. To the credit of many State and Federal organizations, NGOs and individuals, a great deal of time and effort has gone into the encouragement of tree planting on farm land across the state. The community has responded enthusiastically and selflessly to these encouragements. The community has no doubt that the future of firewood lies in purpose-grown woodlots and wish for it to happen sooner rather than later. A little financial encouragement from the state toward the establishment of small localised woodlot enterprises would pay many dividends
5. The Strzelecki bioregion has thousands of hectares of bluegum plantations established by Amcor on its freehold land. This is now owned by HVP and substantial volumes are clear felled annually with the Maryvale mill being its major destination. If a tiny fraction of this is made available as firewood, any “losses” caused by reservations would easily be offset
Needless to say, being green wood, these alternative firewood sources would need to sit for a year before being sold or used.
Any one of the above alternatives could easily offset the meagre
yield that these State Forest isolates could provide. Any one of these alternatives
is possible and preferable to the current system.
The total area these blocks amounts to around 5000 Ha.
The positive impacts of formal reservation of all these areas would outweigh the negative impacts
The negative impacts are relatively small and localised, and can be managed by a variety of alternatives
Substantial public support for reservation of these areas is provable
Implemented in parallel with the proposed reserves of “cores and links” on HVP managed State Forest in the Strzeleckis, reserve levels in the Strzelecki bioregion would be lifted to 7%.
That all remaining blocks of non-leased, non-reserved areas of public state forest in and around the rim of the Strzeleckis (the areas coloured black in the attached map) be formally reserved as an urgent priority.
This proposal was submitted to the State Government by the Strzelecki Working Group, and had the support of the Group
TheStrzelecki Working Group has representatives from:
South Gippsland Shire Council (SGSC)
La Trobe City Council Wellington Shire Council
Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP)
South Gippsland Conservation Society
West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA)
Department of Natural Resources & Environment (DNRE Gippsland)
Friends of the Gippsland Bush (FOGB)
Kim Devenish & Julie Constable
John Jago
Trust for Nature