Independant panel1

Our Submissions to the Gippsland RFA Independent panel

Issue: The Strzelecki State Forest's Status in the RFA process.

The Regional Forest Agreement literature claims that the RFA process will assist in Australia achieving ecological sustainability of its forests through a commitment to the JANIS criteria and the reservation of 15% of pre 1750 forest cover across a forest type's geographic range. It also claims to be committed to effective community involvement.

In 1995 the Strzelecki State Forest was made a Deferred Forest Area pending the outcomes of the Gippsland RFA process. The fact that the land was at that time vested in the VPC was obviously no obstacle to the Strzelecki forests being included in the CAR system. In fact, the inclusion of the native forests of the Strzeleckis being part of the Gippsland DFA is evidence of its having passed through a workshop and consultation phase with Commonwealth and State officials, conservation, industry, unions and community groups and been considered important and significant in the process.

At the Gippsland RFA introductory meeting May 18 1998, the majority of 80 people present were shocked to see that the map supplied showed the Strzelecki State Forest coloured in for plantation use. After considerable and heated discussion, the RFA team said they would review this situation and get back to the public about the status of the Strzelecki State Forest . Nothing concrete on this matter was heard from the RFA personnel until the public meeting November 8 1999, at which the public were told that the most of the Strzelecki State Forest was not included in the RFA process in terms of creating a CAR reserve system. In the meantime, members of local communities and groups had been identifying significant places in the Strzeleckis, calling for a major national park in the Strzeleckis, attending workshops, preparing papers and participating in the process under the belief that the Strzelecki forests were part of the process.

The South Gippsland Conservation Society's submission, no. 349 to the Senate Inquiry into the RFA Bill 1998, highlighted grievances with the RFA process and recommending the rejection of the legislation. They also stated, 'We would like to see a moratorium on logging in controversial areas such as the Strzeleckis while a proper scientific review is undertaken..." (Appendix 1).

Kim Devenish & Julie Constable made a submission to the Senate Inquiry complaining about the Victorian Government's plans to proceed with the privatisation of the Strzelecki State Forest in the middle of a public process (the RFA) and with the considerable public support for a large National Park to be created in the Strzeleckis. Part of the submission stated 'Along with 13,000 ha. of pine plantations, 27,000 ha. of forest in the steep Strzelecki State Forest was vested in the VPC and consequently exempted from the RFA requirements, despite the fact that the 27,000 ha. area was a DFA in 1995. The remainder was exempted from the RFA process because it had been included in the VPC's package. For better or worse, plantation wood has been left out of the RFA equation, but it is incorrect to extrapolate that entire State Forests should be excluded because they have some plantation within their boundaries'. (Appendix 2) We also asked the Bill be rejected on these grounds.

At the Senate Inquiry hearing, we also presented some papers. One dealt with the contradictory messages the public has received in regard to the Strzelecki State Forest and the RFA (Appendix 3 )
In a letter from Richard Rawson, Executive Director, Forests Service, 18/12/97 Kim Devenish is informed that 'Future examination of the Strzelecki's under the RFA process may well identify additional areas for consideration as part of a reserves system..." (Appendix 4)
Environment Australia wrote 19/1/98 'the Strzelecki Ranges fall within the boundaries of the Gippsland RFA......." and "there will be ample opportunity for stakeholder input during the public participation phase of the RFA..." (Appendix 5)
In a letter from Paul Marsh, Environment Australia 3/4/98 (Appendix 6) we are told that 'The RFA process in Gippsland, when fully underway, will solicit community views through public meetings, social assessments and through written submissions and I would encourage you to make use of the opportunity to re-state or elaborate on your concerns at that time..." In regard to the Strzelecki Ranges, the letter states in regard to the JANIS criteria, that 'Precisely how these requirements would impact on the reserve status of forests in the Strzelecki Ranges is uncertain at present and must await the full forest typing analysis that forms part of the comprehensive regional assessment".
Kim Devenish wrote to Philip Davis, 2/4/98 with concerns over the vesting of native forest with the Victorian Plantation Corporation and the integrity of the DFA. (Appendix 7) Phillip Davis, Parliamentary Secretary Natural Resources, 8/5/98 wrote 'If you consider that there are areas of native vegetation that could make an important contribution to the CAR Reserve system in the Strzelecki Ranges, you should convey those views through the RFA process dealing with the development of the Gippsland RFA'. (Appendix 8)

These quotations above suggest that the people writing believed the Strzelecki State Forest to be part of the process and available for the reserve system.

After visiting Peter Ryan, MP at the State Parliament in February 1998, we received a letter in answer to some of our queries. Mr. Ryan says in regard to the RFA, that 'There has been no compromise of the RFA process in that the intention was always to the effect that plantation land be exempted. Although by oversight that exemption did not initially apply, the IFA has been amended in January 1996 to reflect the original intent." (Appendix 9)
This raises some other points. The DFA maps on the RFA website still show the Strzelecki State Forest to be part of the DFA and Mr. Ryan's response does not explain why native forest has been excluded from the process.

On February 15 we wrote to the Environment Forest Taskforce, (Appendix 10), outlining our fears that the State Government would privatise the Strzelecki forests and stating that no one seemed certain what effect this would have on the RFA process. We wrote a letter to many politicians and the RFA process on April 15, 1998, to inform people that logging was taking place within the Strzelecki DFA (Appendix 11). This letter also informs the RFA process that, 'The State Government's announcement that the VPC and its vested land is to be privatised this year also runs contrary to the public spirited RFA process' and ask that the matter will be dealt with urgently. At this time, there would have been more flexibility while the forest was being managed by the VPC a public statutory body and it would have been wise one would think for the RFA process to oppose privatisation of the management of public native forest in the middle of a public process - especially as this radical change in land management was without community support and defied the principles of the DFA. The SSF was obviously public land in terms of the DFA in 1995; to change its status in the middle of a process such as this is legally dubious.

The RFA process could have communicated to the Gippsland RFA stakeholders through its CRA Forest News newsletter. The ones received by the public made no mention of the stakeholder's concern about the Strzelecki State Forest and the review of its status.

It is gratifying to see that the Consultation Paper acknowledges that a 'range of concerns have been raised by communities in South Gippsland about the management of native forest and plantations in the Strzeleckis. These relate to the manner of sale of the plantations, the appropriateness of transfer of public native forest management to private companies and the delineation of the extent of plantations in maps published in the CRA for the Gippsland RFA'.
Question: Given that the RFA process was supposed to be an open, inclusive public process for all native forests, can the treatment of the Strzelecki State Forest throughout this process be justified?
Question: Can the Gippsland RFA be legally binding considering this change of status from public to private classification during a Commonwealth-State process?
Question: How will the RFA remedy this mistreatment of the Strzelecki State Forest?
Question: How will the RFA address the range of concerns raised by communities concerning the Strzelecki State Forest?
Issue : The RFA fails the public in regard to the Public demand for a large National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest.

In June 1998, 'A Proposal for a 30,000 hectare National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest' by Kim Devenish, Julie Constable and Allan Standering, was formally submitted to the RFA process. The Proposal was backed by a petition organized by Susan Davies MP and letters of support from groups and individuals.

In brief : The proposal sought to have 30,000 ha. of the Strzelecki State Forest reserved, including the 5,000 ha. of reserves already in place. The community saw a clear lack of reserves, with Amcor leasing approx. 8,000 ha, more than the community has in reserves. The Proposal sought to link high conservation areas into a viable reserve, linking sites of botanical significance, LCC recommended reserves and areas of cool temperate rainforest. At present only 8% of public land in the Strzeleckis is protected in reserves.
The Proposal is supported by many groups and individuals including South Gippsland Conservation Society; Australian Plants; Strzelecki Hills Branch Labor Party; Mt. Best Concerned Residents; Environment Victoria and the VNPA. A petition containing 7,000 signatures in support of the Proposal has been tabled in the Victorian Parliament. Appendix 12 for cover letter to the RFA process Appendix 13 Proposal for a 30,000 ha. National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest
No written acknowledgement of this Proposal was made by the RFA process.

While the Social Assessment (CAR report) acknowledged the community's vision for 'a major National Park in the Strzeleckis', p.147, it is not mentioned in any of the other chapters.
The Consultation Papers have also omitted this significant request on p.28 where it lists proposals which have been put forward by the community regarding the inclusion of particular areas in the CAR reserve system.

We would like to point out that the proposed National Park is more than a vision. The Proposal identified key areas, corridors, ways to link high conservation areas and provided already existing documentation from the Department showing sites of botanical significance, LCC recommendations, catchments, flora and fauna species, and the history of the forest. The Proposal continually stressed the need for urgent action and we had been told that the RFA process was the forum for a proposal of this nature.

Chapter 6 of 'A Proposal for a 30,000 ha. National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest' discusses how the proposal complements the aims of the CAR criteria. Please read this chapter. We also point out that the 'Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR reserve System for Forests in Australia', makes specific reference to urgent matters - 'Where gaps have already been identified and current threatening processes may preclude future reservation options, immediate action should be taken to ensure that the CAR reserve system is established'. On page 11 of the Proposal we state that "In the case of the Strzelecki State Forest we identify these gaps and threatening processes to be:
-the lack of conservation measures
- the ongoing misrepresentation of the true quality of the bush
-the attempts to change the status of the public land in the 1960's (leases to Amcor) and the 1990s (vesting in the VPC).
We also make it clear in our correspondence and telephone calls with RFA personnel, that the privatising of the Strzeleckis was a threatening process, which was attempting to remove the Strzelecki forests from the process.
- Letter to Paul Marsh Feb 15 (Appendix 10) . 'There is an urgent need for you to become more familiar with Victoria's current state plantation situation by reading the summary headed, 'Victorian Plantations - Corporatised, Vested and on the Verge of being Privatised' as we are worried by rumours that the State Government plans to fully privatise the VPC as soon as Parliament resumes in Autumn and no one seems certain what repercussions this would have on the RFA process.' {Brochure, Appendix 14} See also letter to Paul Marsh, April 15 1998, (Appendix 11) about logging in the Strzelecki DFA.
The CAR document also says that there is a risk to the long term survival of forest communities and individual species if an area is inadequately reserved. In the 'Proposal' we point out that only 8% of the Strzelecki State Forest is currently reserved and that forest management was also a threatening process in the case of the Strzelecki forest. Please see p18 -19 of the Proposal.

The Consultation Paper reports that the Strzelecki Ranges provides habitat supporting the only endemic koalas in Victoria, and it is scientifically confirmed that these are of the widest genetic diversity in Victoria. p.59

The issue of whether non-plantation areas in the Strzelecki Ranges should be available for inclusion in the CAR reserve system has been raised during the public consultation process.

Question: Why weren't these threatening processes (privatisation, forest management) acted upon urgently in the RFA process?

Question: Given, the Gippsland RFA is not reaching the 15% CAR target for wet forest and the consistent claims by Gippsland residents for a reserve in the Strzelecki wet forest, how may the RFA process assist the public's desire to have a large National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest ?

Question: Given that centres of endemism, species richness and refugia are important criteria in the development of a CAR reserve system, have any recommendations been made by the RFA in respect of the Strzelecki koala habitat and the CAR reserve system?

Issue : The Depiction of all land (bar reserves) in the Strzeleckis as plantation.

This issue was raised at the first RFA public meeting in Yarram May 18 1998. Locals pointed out then and subsequently that this is an erroneous depiction. The map accompanying the Consultation Papers still classifies this land as 'land leased or licensed for plantation purposes'.
Only one quarter of the Strzelecki State Forest is plantation. If every bit of eucalypt reforestation is added to this, then the total amount is one third.
This issue still has not been addressed, negating much hard work by local stakeholders and local knowledge.
The Consultation Paper has acknowledged this concern on p.61 where it says,
"How do you distinguish between native forest and plantation, how are these defined and who developed that definition. Concern that the Strzeleckis cannot easily be defined as plantation or native forest, and that some areas mapped as plantations in the Strzelecki Ranges are actually regenerated forest."
'The Strzelecki Hardwood Reforestation Scheme" (Appendix 15) discusses this issue. We would like the issues raised in this paper to be considered by the Panel.

The claimed existence of eucalypt plantation in the Strzelecki State Forest has been the cause of the vesting of most of the forest in the VPC and later lease to HVP. This led to the RFA excluding it from being considered as part of the CAR reserve system, despite the fact that only a small portion of the DFA was claimed plantation and that areas classified as plantation were being seriously questioned by local communities.

We would like to see this issue addressed and remedied.

Issue: The EVC Maps & the Strzelecki State Forest

The EVC maps which were published with the CRA report show large cohesive areas of wet forest in the Strzeleckis. The extent of native forest in the HVP Strzelecki lease should not have been a shock to the RFA teams, as we had been saying as much all along, and using NRE data as evidence.
The EVC map showing the extent of wet forest in the Strzeleckis supports the original DFA maps.
However, there is a serious problem with the EVC maps. Please read the following letter we sent to Sherryl Garbutt concerning these maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

29-10-99

re: Gippsland RFA - CRA Report
To Sherryl Garbutt, Minister for the Environment, Government of Victoria

Dear Ms Garbutt,
Having studied the Gippsland RFA's CRA report and maps, we feel the need to draw your immediate attention to a matter which we believe is of serious concern.
The 7000 ha. of Hardwood reforestation in the Strzelecki State Forest, now under Hancock Victorian Plantations management was classified by the DNRE as Wet Forest (category 30) in their Ecological Vegetation Class maps. This classification was personally verified to Kim by John Davies, Brian Ward and Peter McHugh, who are all from either Traralgon or Warragul DNRE. However this classification has been altered in the RFA maps and the HW reforestation is now lumped into the same vegetation class as pine plantation ( 149: pine and HW plantation). Botanically speaking, Mountain Ash forests have virtually nothing in common with Pine plantations. This move is not a botanical decision but a political one. Intended land use has no place in EVC maps, but might be more appropriate for land tenure maps or land use maps. EVC's should be the jurisdiction of botanists and must be approached purely from a botanical perspective. It is important that they be free from tinkering. Botanists have decided that the HW reforestation fits the Wet Forest category. As far as we can gather, DNRE still classify the areas in question as Wet Forest and there has been no directive to alter it. The decision to remove it from that category and lump it into a new category along with pine plantations defies the precedent set by DNRE botanists, has no scientific basis and undermines the credibility of the EVC's.

The method by which HW "plantations" on land leased to HVP have been mapped is also flawed. Neither DNRE or the RFA prepared these maps. Instead, this task was left up to HVP, who are not impartial observers, but a self-interested business holding the timber rights to this land. Reports, personal experience and observations made by the local community have already shown grave errors in this mapping, with areas of natural regrowth and old growth wrongly marked as plantation; areas of public native forest converted to plantation since 1986, when the Timber Industry Strategy supposedly stopped this practice; areas of native forest converted to plantation since vesting took place in 1993; failed plantations marked as native forest; etc.

The validity of the HW reforestation being labelled as plantation is also questionable for a host of reasons too long to list in this letter. Some of the main reasons are as follows: Most definitions of plantation require signs of intensive management, and regular spacing. Strzelecki HW reforestation, on the whole, lacks both these characteristics. The original intentions behind the HW reforestation was clearly a multiple-use strategy, to "restore beauty and productivity" (LCC 1980) . The current use of the term plantation suggests a singular use - wood production. In a great deal of cases, the areas labelled HW plantation are in fact regenerated native forest logging coupes. Only in the Strzelecki State Forest has regeneration after harvesting been allowed to be called plantation. In all other State Forests, these areas must retain the label Native Forest. The defiance of the 1986 Timber Industry Strategy directive to cease the practice of clearing Native Forest on Public Land in order to establish plantations is also of concern. Since 1986, around 1200 ha. of HW "plantations" were established in the Strzelecki State Forest, most of which were established on land that carried Native forest immediately prior to establishment.

The extent of pre-1750 Wet Forest presently in reserves in the Gippsland RFA region is 7.5%. In order to bring this figure up to the minimum 15% targets, the Gippsland RFA is faced with the choice between reserving a large proportion of Wet Forest which exists in smallish patches through the Great Dividing range - (a move that will no doubt meet with a great deal of disapproval from the local communities to the north), or the creation of a major National Park in the Strzeleckis, where the bulk of remaining unreserved Wet Forest still exists - (a move that already has widespread approval from local communities in south and central Gippsland).
Please refer to the Gippsland RFA EVC map. Wet Forest is marked in as Dark Green. It is obvious that the Strzeleckis contains the largest, most cohesive areas of Wet Forest in the region. Had the HW reforestation also been marked in as Wet Forest, as originally intended, the fragmented appearance of the Dark Green would disappear, and it would become all the more apparent what an unbroken and cohesive area of Wet Forest exists in this area. The area of Public land in the Strzeleckis carrying Wet Forest would more or less resemble the LCC's Strzelecki "hardwood zone" ( South Gippsland area district 2 final recommendations 1982) and the RFA's own 1995 Deferred Forest Area map, which form an obvious basis from which to create a cohesive, workable, high quality reserve.

It is useful to compare the three maps (EVC, LCC, and DFA maps) side by side. To make this task easier, we have prepared a web address where all three maps can be viewed together at: http://members.dcsi.net.au/kimjulie/3strzmaps.htm

If you need to refresh your memory regarding the proposal for a National Park in the Strzeleckis, and the situation surrounding the proposal, please refer to our Strzelecki website at: http://members.dcsi.net.au/kimjulie

Yours sincerely,

Kim Devenish and Julie Constable

c.c. Peter Ryan; Peter McGauran; Wilson Tuckey; Susan Davies; Environment Victoria; Strzelecki Working Party; John Dargavel; Hancock Victorian Plantations; RFA: Joint Commonwealth-Victoria Steering Committee; RFA: Joint Commonwealth-Victoria Technical Committee; Robert Hill; Peter Hall; Philip Davis; Bob Brown; Prof. David Bellamy; The Age; VNPA; John Howard; Steve Bracks.

_________________________________________________
Copies of this letter were sent to the Victorian and Commonwealth levels of the RFA and the issue was raised with them at the public consultation meeting in Yarram November 8 1999.

The EVC mapping despite the tampering, shows how there are large cohesive areas of wet forest in the Strzeleckis and once again reveal the lies and misrepresentations that have been perpetuated throughout this 'open and transparent' process.

The public have been insulted by the RFA's acceptance of Hancock Victorian Plantations mapping of claimed hardwood areas. The RFA personel knew that this issue was controversial, and that the Company (HVP) which had bought the Victorian Plantations Corporation was mapping the hardwood 'plantations' themselves. Despite this, the RFA personel did not consult with other key stakeholders on this matter.

Question: Has this issue been addressed?

Question: Some of the letters we received from politicians and bureaucrats regarding the Strzelecki State Forest and the RFA stated that any actions conducted by the VPC should not reduce options for the development of a CAR reserve system. Given that there is a shortfall in reservation of wet forest in the Gippsland RFA, would it be fair to say, that more wet forest in the Strzeleckis given its remnant and depleted status in bioregional terms, should be reserved?

Issue: Private Land or Public Land? More Thoughts

The Victorian Government was well aware prior to the first round of public RFA meetings that the local communities were opposed to the vesting of the Strzelecki State Forest in the Victorian Plantations Corporation- especially the native forest component. A demonstration of eighty local residents gathered on the steps outside Parliament on April 28 1998 to oppose the VPC Amendment Bill, which would allow for the sale and call for a large National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest .
No public consultation process took place to vest the land in the VPC.
The State Government had the opportunity to review the situation. Allan Stockdale said that he unaware that native forest was involved in VPC's holdings and that there was room for negotiation. - Foster Mirror, May 27 p.1. This did not happen.
The Land Conservation Council in its Final Recommendations, said that the Strzelecki State Forest should remain in public tenure, subject to the Forests Act and recommended further reserves be made in the Agnes, Franklin, West Morwell and Dingo Creek headwaters. The VPC legislation threatens these recommendations.

The fact is that local communities regard the Strzelecki State Forest as public forest with a multitude of uses - conservation, timber, tourism, water. The RFA process by allowing this forest to be treated as private land, is further alienating the local communities to whom it is supposed to listen and respond.

The Consultation Paper p.29 says that the National Forest Policy Statement defines public forest as forest on Crown Land for which management responsibility has been delegated to government agencies, local governments or other instrumentalities. It says that 'by this definition, the estate managed by HVP, APP and other private forest managers are not considered public forest.' However, as detailed in Issue1 - The Strzelecki State Forest's Status in the RFA process - the land is Crown Land and was delegated to a public agency when the RFA process began.
At the public forum 7.2.2000 in the Forest Glossary provided, public land is defined as 'all Crown land and land that is owned by a public authority' and private land as, 'land that is owned by individuals or private business firms'. While APP does own private land in the Strzeleckis, the bulk of the Strzelecki State Forest is only leased by Hancocks, and they only have the timber rights to a small proportion of this estate.
The Strzelecki State Forest is public land, and at the time the National Forest Policy Statement was written was like any State Forest, managed by a public authority and was part of this vision outlined in the NFPS.

The radical changes that the Victorian State Government made to the environmental and legislative status of the Strzelecki State Forest should have been subject to an Environmental Impact Statement. The Commonwealth should have intervened in this privatisation, given that the DFAs were in place, the public process had begun and the Strzelecki State Forest was part of the process.

For the Gippsland RFA to attempt to categorise all land as either public or private, is an over-simplification which leads to unnecessary embarrassment, misunderstanding and confusion. Even Queensland makes a distinction between private land, leased public land and State managed public land. In not doing so, the Gippsland RFA (and presumably the other Victorian RFAs) has failed to provide enough information about leased public land, has excluded the public from participating in future plantation and forest strategies and has concealed the true volume of logs being cut from our state forests.

Question: How may this be remedied?

Issue : The CAR proposed Reserves for various EVC Types

The proposed CAR reserve additions on the whole do appear to make an attempt to reach minimum CAR targets for most EVC types where possible, with a few exceptions:

Not Rare Vulnerable or Endangered EVCs (minimum 15% target):
Shrubby Foothill Forest 72.5% lost,
4.7% reserved, 7.8% additions = 12.5%, while 11.2% is within GMZ areas
To reach minimum, additional 3348 ha. needed

Wet Forest 39.4% lost,
7.2% reserved, 5.2% additions = 12.4%, while 11.3% is within GMZ areas
A further 33% (36,660 ha. - more than half of what remains) is said to be on "private land". Some 30,000 of this is leased Strzelecki State Forest
Even without including the Strzelecki State Forest, reserve targets for Wet Forest could have been met. Wet Forest is obviously viewed as God's gift to the timber industry, especially if it carries Ash type species, as only one fifth of what still exists will be protected in the proposed CAR reserve system and institutions such as VAFI advocating that even the areas in reserves should be opened up for logging.
To reach minimum, additional 2888 ha. needed.

Rare Vulnerable or Endangered EVCs ( reserve target: as much as possible)
Riparian Forest 7% lost,
                          36.1% reserved , 28.7% additions = 54.8%, while 8.1% is in GMZ areas
All riparian forest in GMZ areas should be either permanently reserved, made SMZ or protected by management prescription.
Room to protect an additional 784 ha.
It is high time that all riparian fringes in whatever state and on whatever land tenure type should be protected.
Plains Grassy Forest        77.5% lost,
                                         1.6% reserved, 9.1% additions = 10.7%, while 5.7% is within GMZ areas
Room to protect an additional 5016 ha.

Cool Temperate Rainforest 59.5% lost,
15.3% reserved, 8.1% additions = 23.4%
The remaining 17% is said to be on private land. This is leased Strzelecki State Forest
Room to protect an additional 374 ha.

We can understand why the proposed CAR reserve system falls short of targets for shrubby foothill forest and plains grassy forest, but for Wet Forest, Riparian Forest and Cool Temperate rainforest, we feel that the RFA could do better.
Perhaps Cool temperate rainforest and Wet Forest reserve targets have not been met because in this region half of these extant EVC's lie in the leased portions of the Strzelecki State Forest, and as such are inappropriately considered 'private land'. Some letters we received throughout the process, suggested that the situation in the Strzeleckis would not foreclose options under the CAR reserve criteria. However the shortfall in reservation of cool temperate rainforest and wet forest suggests otherwise.
The CRA report, p. 30 Table 4.1 indicates that more than one third of the Net Productive Area of Mountain Ash and Shining Gum for the Gippsland FMA within the Gippsland RFA is unstocked (2,670 ha.) This suggests that either the Ash and Shining Gum in this region has been recently over exploited or has failed to regenerate.

Mixed Forest (Eucalypt with rainforest forming beneath the canopy) has not been identified at all. Instead, it has fallen into the Wet Forest category. Those familiar with the Strzelecki State Forest would know that a great deal of this Wet Forest is actually Mixed Forest.

Question: How will the RFA process remedy these shortfalls in reservation targets?

The CAR Proposal for Old Growth

"The dispersed nature of the old growth forest of several other EVCs in the Region (Wet Forest, Montane Damp Forest, Shrubby Foothill Forest, Tableland Damp Forest, Montane Grassy Woodland and Montane Herb-rich Woodland) is such that it would be necessary to include a considerable area of non-old growth of already well-represented EVCs in order to achieve comparatively small gains in old growth forest protection." (p. 24 Consultation Paper)

We do not accept this statement in regard to Wet Forest. It is not an adequately protected EVC with only 12.4% of original cover included in the CAR reserve system. More than one quarter of Old Growth Wet Forest is within GMZ. (Table 3.4 p. 25 Consultation Paper)
The RFA calculations that only 4,700 hectares of Old Growth Wet Forest exists is also questionable. The HARIS Database (1984) stated that the Strzeleckis alone, (predominantly Wet Forest) contained more than 13,000 hectares of mature/overmature productive forest and that an additional 5,955 hectares which was unavailable due to site factors (whether or not it is old growth is not stated).

Issue: Old Growth in the Strzeleckis

A letter detailing this issue was also sent to the RFA Steering Committees, both Commonwealth and State.

The 1991 resource assessment report "Hardwood timber resources in the Central Gippsland FMA DCE 1991" (HARIS data base) makes a tally of forest resources in Central Gippsland. When we look at the forest blocks which make up the Strzelecki State Forest, namely:
Bodmans
Jack
Macks
Woorarra
Turtons
Albert
Livingston
Boolarra
Jeeralang
Callignee
Alberton West
(in the former Yarram FMA)

Darlimurla
Mt Worth (formerly Allambee)
Childers
(in the Central Gippsland FMA)
we find that it only looks at 20,160 ha. worth of forest compartments in the SSF and finds:
13,004 ha of productive mature or over-mature forest,
5955 ha of forest "unavailable due to site factors" and
1437 ha of productive regrowth. (See Appendix 16)

-The only regrowth recognised in this report is regrowth from fires.
-No regeneration after logging or bulldozing is included
-No HW reforestation is included in this tally.
-The report ignores a great many compartments in the SSF which together contain a great deal more native forest land.
-Much of this "productive regrowth" is now more than 80 years old, moving it into the "mature and over mature" category.

The 'Deferred Forest Areas, Victoria', states that 'no old growth study has been conducted in the (Gippsland) region,' and that 'the HARIS information has been used to provide a surrogate measure of old growth." (p.30) The report goes on to say that only one forest type (Coastal mixed Species) meets the minimum 60% protection guideline.

During the RFA process, an Old Growth study was conducted in Gippsland.
The Gippsland CRA report states that private land, which (wrongly) included the leased parts of the Strzelecki State Forest, didn't warrant a study of OLD GROWTH.
However, the limited HARIS data shows that in the Strzeleckis, the amount of unproductive and productive mature and over mature forest is significant. Therefore this statement of old growth study being unwarranted is unjustified.

The CRA report continues, "Results of the old-growth analysis are reported only for public land. Most freehold land in Gippsland has been extensively disturbed through agricultural clearing, timber harvesting or fire. Accordingly, freehold land and lands leased or licensed for plantation purposes was not considered as part of the Gippsland region old-growth study."
(Question: Does this mean that the Strzelecki State Forest old growth was studied, but not reported or not studied at all?)

This paragraph does not explain why public leased land should be categorised with 'disturbed private land' and fails to acknowledge the significant old-growth present on public land leased to both APP and HVP. The RFA teams had been informed by us on many occasions that only half of Hancock's leasehold in the Strzelecki State Forest was for plantation purposes.

This issue is important in the Strzeleckis as there is evidence of old growth being knocked down and destroyed in timber harvesting operations. HVP and APP are claiming in some cases that the old growth is in the middle of plantations and it is their right to remove it. However, given that the old growth was there first, it is surely a matter of drawing the plantation boundaries more accurately. Plantations are within native forest, not the other way round.

Question: Has or will the RFA remedy the situation in regard to mapping old growth in the Strzeleckis?

Issue: Participating in the RFA Process

Throughout the RFA process we have written many letters and reports to assist the RFA teams to make decisions regarding the Gippsland RFA.
These have included:
A document of extracts from NRE historical data regarding the reforestation scheme, the extent of ex-farmland purchased by the state in the Strzeleckis
A document commenting on the CRA report.
'A Proposal for a 30,000 ha. National Park in the SSF'
and more.

However, we have found it difficult to access information needed for verifying aspects of our work.
On December 1 1997 Kim Devenish wrote to Gary Squires, Traralgon NRE requesting information to assist us with our work on the Strzelecki State Forest. These were factual questions regarding amount of hectares under DNRE management, VPC and Amcor and harvesting regimes. These questions were resent to Gary Squires 16/8/98 in a letter from Julie Constable. The reply did not assist as the statistics given did not apply to the Strzelecki State Forest .The questions were hand delivered to Ian Miles and Dougall Morrison on 16/10/98 and resent to Ian Miles, 6/1/00. Currently we still do not have answers to these questions. For the questions and the flow of letters, please see Appendix 17.

Some of our correspondence was never acknowledged, for example, the National Park Proposal. The only reference to the public's support for a large reserve in the Strzeleckis, occurred in the Social Assessment chapter of the CRA as a result of the Yarram community case study.
"Major forest and agricultural issues for the region include improving water quality, the effect of downsizing NRE and the impact of transferring management responsibilities for plantation timber in the Strzelecki Ranges to the VPC (which was sold in Dec. 1998 to Hancock Victorian Plantations). One of the major visions for Yarram is the desire to see a major National Park in the Strzelecki Ranges." p. 147
No other mention was made of the Proposal in the CRA report or the Consultation Papers.

Our comments on the CRA report
Our submission in response to the CRA report appears to have been read and some issues addressed and remedied in the Consultation Papers, but many more are still unresolved. We were never contacted in regard to these comments for assistance, verification, or debate.
Please see the copy of the document with our written comments in the right hand margin. (Appendix 18)
It contains most of our concerns regarding the CRA report, many of which we have not duplicated in the body of this submission. We would like the unresolved issues to be addressed.

The timing of the release of the full Biodiversity and Social Reports is another important issue. These documents have not been sent to stakeholders yet and therefore cannot be accessed for the response to the CRA report or the Consultation Papers.

Stakeholders also attended workshops in the region to identify special places in the Gippsland forests. What happens to this information? Looking over the Gippsland workshop papers, it appears that places in the Strzelecki State Forest are frequently mentioned over a number of workshops as places of significance. In what way will these community responses be acted upon?

All these problems add to stakeholders' dissatisfaction with the RFA process and its outcomes.

The lies, evasions and misrepresentations given in regard to the Strzelecki State Forest should be a matter of inquiry.

Questions: How can these issues be resolved? Will stakeholders have the opportunity to assess the full reports which aren't published yet before the finalisation of the RFA? Can the Panel assist in gathering information for stakeholders where it has not been forthcoming?

Issue: EVC Mapping and Ecological Sustainable Forest Management in regard to Mixed Forest and Age Distribution

We would like to take issue with some aspects of the EVC mapping methodology.
The pre 1750 estimates of EVC distributions has not taken into account the age distributions of forest types. Given the fluidity of ecological vegetation to change given certain conditions, we feel this is an oversight.

Historical documentation suggests that Victoria had a higher distribution of old growth forest when white settlement began. Photographs and stories provide evidence of senescent eucalypts in the Otways and the Strzeleckis and lush rainforest understorey canopies. In 'Changes in mixed forest after fire and after clearfelling silviculture on the Errinundra Plateau', NRE Technical Report, 1996, Chesterfield quotes from Webb & Tracey (1981) who estimate, 'that in Victoria, approximately 200,000 ha. of wet sclerophyll forest would develop into mixed forest and eventually rainforest given sifficient fire protection...'.
Given the modification of our forests by clearfell silviculture especially in regard to the understorey, which Rod Anderson, NRE claims is a major determinant in defining EVC's, (Public Forum, February 7, 2000, Traralgon), the argument for allowing forests to mature and transform into rainforest, is a strong one given that the cool temperate rainforest community is on the threatened list of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee.

Mixed forest, (forest with rainforest understorey forming beneath a eucalypt overstorey) has not been mapped as a distinct EVC on the RFA EVC maps. Given, the importance of this forest type in the evolution of ecological vegetation classes, will this issue be addressed?

If ecological sustainable forest management is the goal for forest management, this issue of age distribution and successional stages in the evolution of wet forest to rainforest must be addressed.

Issue: ESFM and Sustainable Yield
There is 100,000 m3 of Mountain Ash sawlogs presently being sourced from the Strzelecki State Forest annually, which is not showing up as part of the Region's Sustainable Yield figures or ESFM strategies. Issue: Other Legislation

The Consultation Papers acknowledge that the RFAs are based on a reserve system and support from other legislation, such as LCC recommendations, the Code of Forest Practice, Flora & Fauna Guarantee etc. It is claimed that this other legislation provides assistance to help achieve ecologically sustainable forest management and other aims.

Question: Given that there was a native title claim on Crown land in South Gippsland which included the Strzelecki State Forest, were the changes made to the status of the Strzelecki State Forest (i.e.. vesting in VPC; sale of VPC to a private company) constitutional?

Question: On page 5 -6 of the Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement Consultation Paper, mention is made about the RFA's obligations under Environment Impact Assessment Legislation. Given the radical changes in land management associated with the removal of the Strzelecki State Forest from the Forests Act, the 'multiple use' State Forest regime shouldn't an environmental impact statement or a public environment report be necessary to satisfy the obligations under this Act? - (Radical changes include: exclusion of public participation in FMA's for the SSF; the changing of definitions so that reforestation is defined as plantation and for the first time ever allowing exotic species to be introduced into the native forest area of the Strzelecki State Forest; change in rotation rates from 80-100 years to 20 years;)

Question: Many of the species and communities listed on the Flora and Fauna Guarantee threatened list are awaiting action statements, e.g., cool temperate rainforest community. Doesn't this make the Flora & Fauna Guarantee a rather weak support in some respects for the Regional Forests Agreements?

Question: The Code of Forest Practices is proving to be somewhat wanting in the implementation of environmental principles and minimum prescriptions. Tim Ealey's report 'Plantation Logging in the Strzeleckis' (August 1999) highlights many of the problems associated with the monitoring of this Code, including damage to rainforest; lack of buffers; and harvesting of old growth Mountain Ash Local communities in the Strzeleckis have been witness to breaches of the Code, the harvesting of non-plantation trees and native vegetation, with little success in having mistakes rectified/compensated. Nationally significant rainforest in the Gunyah forest in the Strzeleckis has not been given sub-catchment protection as the Code prescribes.
There could be a argument for higher penalties for breaches of the Code in order for it to be successful. Does the RFA process have any remarks, recommendations in regard to the Code of Forest Practices?

Question: The RFA uses the LCC recommendations as a support for its decisions and also in achieving Ecological Sustainable Forest Management. In the case of the Strzeleckis it is difficult for the RFA to argue that the LCC recommendations are being upheld. In Final Recommendations for the South Gippsland Area, District 2, 1982 the LCC recommended that the 'hardwood zone' (equivalent to the Strzelecki DFA) 'remain or become reserved forest under the provisions of the Forests Act 1958 and be managed by the Forests Commission'. The VPC legislation removed the Strzelecki forest from the Forests Act and allowed a radical change in management. Under the LCC recommendations, there would be no question as to its public status in the RFA process etc. The LCC also recommended that 'the following should be protected by section 50 reserve: the attractive wet gully plant communities (including mountain ash, myrtle beech, blackwoods and treeferns) in the headwaters of the West Morwell, Dingo, Franklin and Agnes Rivers'. Only a small section (650ha.) of these headwaters was protected in reserve in the Franklin and Agnes headwaters. Areas of botanical significance under VPC management have now been logged and converted to non-indigeneous plantation. Given the RFA process uses LCC recommendations to praise the system of forest management in Victoria, we would appreciate a comment on this issue.

Issue: Water and the Strzelecki State Forest

Water is another important forest value not discussed adequately in terms of the changes to the Strzelecki State Forest.
The proposed National Park area in the Strzeleckis includes the headwaters of the Tarwin River East Branch, Agnes, Franklin, Albert, Jack, Tarra, Morwell Rivers and Middle, Merrimans, Dingo and Turtons Creek. The Agnes provides water for the townships of Toora, Welshpool and Port Welshpool and the Tarra River is a proclaimed water supply river.

In the CRA report, there is discussion about timber harvesting operations on the quality and quantity of water. Reference is made to the drastic reductions to water yield evident from the clearfelling of ash type forests. This was backed up by Pat O'Shaughnessy at the public forum in Traralgon, 7/2/2000, when he stated that rotation rates would have to be at least 150 years in ash-type forests for water yield to recover.

The Strzelecki forest includes ash type forests.

The CRA report argues that: "On public state forest the NRE has the ability to decrease the area harvested or volume taken to protect arboreal mammals habitats, rainforest, sites of high recreation and landscape value. The Ferguson Inquiry promoted this. (p.34) Similarly NRE can use volume, distribution and temporal harvesting controls to protect water yield and prevent soil erosion and stream sedimentation (p.114). NRE has lost this flexibility of management in the Strzelecki State Forest.

Water yield is an important concern in the Strzelecki ash type forests (Dr. John Dargavel, personal correspondence) - and quality is significant given the proposed shorter rotation periods for the claimed plantation areas.
Yet again, the RFA's claims that 'other legislation, regulations etc' will protect forest values alongside the forest agreement is negated when the Strzelecki State Forest is considered.

Issue: Biodiversity

The public have been insulted by the RFA's acceptance of Hancock Victorian Plantations mapping of their claimed hardwood plantations. The reasons why the public do not accept this mapping are detailed in The Strzelecki Hardwood Reforestation Scheme (Appendix 15), which in brief argues that many of these claimed areas are regenerated logging coupes and regrowth, and that it is highly dubious that the Company that bought the timber rights are allowed to map the area themselves after the sale.
In terms of biodiversity, the acceptance of these claimed hardwood plantations is tragic. Now these areas may be harvested on short rotation rates, are not subject to sustainable yield, and for the first time, in the heart of the Strzelecki native forest, non-indigenous species are being planted after harvesting.

The following is an extract from A Proposal for a 30,000 ha. National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest submitted to the RFA in June 1998.
"All Strzelecki animals and plants whether threatened, rare or common require a healthy and flourishing forest environment in which to thrive.
In 'The Lyrebird', Pauline Reilly says that lyrebirds need on average 3 ha. each for foraging and nesting. Clearfelling removes protection for their nests and trees in which to roost and removes leaf litter with a 'consequent disappearance of the food species necessary for lyrebirds..'   The lyrebird once widespread throughout the Strzelecki Range is now largely confined to the Eastern Strzeleckis. The lyrebird is not endemic to Wilsons Promontory National Park in the south.
The NRE publication Victoria's Biodiversity, Directions in Management states that 'timber harvesting, particularly clearfelling silvicultural systems, can result in changes from forest dominated by old trees with a diverse structure and species mix to even aged stands with simplified structure and few old trees'.   Regardless of how common or rare a plant or animal is, clearfelling is undoubtedly an added strain on the native fauna and flora. Plantation forestry with its shorter rotation rates multiplies this effect. Clearing exposes the forest's edges to excessive winds and sun, resulting in further damage.   Clearfelling kills and displaces fauna. Displacement often spells death. The mountain ash and other eucalypts do not bear flowers and seeds until they are 20 years old. Short rotation plantation forestry (20 -30 years) removes trees soon after they reach seed bearing age. This means that for most of the time a short rotation hardwood plantation will not be able to support animals and birds such as honeyeaters, lorikeets and the sugar glider which depend partly on seeds and nectar as a food source. In turn, the area cannot support animals like owls and quolls that prey on these smaller animals.
Even planned rotation rates of 80 years and more will not provide 'mature or senescent growth stages before being harvested. The result is the reduction or loss of some characteristics of mature or senescent forests upon which a significant part of biota depend'. Hollowing begins in trees after 100 years and the hollows provide nesting sites. If some hollow bearing trees are left for nesting, they are weakened and often die from exposure after clearfelling. The damage to the understorey, the feeding trees and the forest floor results in insufficient habitat to support feeding and breeding requirements. "The threatened Powerful Owl is vulnerable in this respect as a breeding pair require approximately 800-1,000 ha. of forest which is dominated by old trees and has high populations of possums and gliders".
A 1996 Panel hearing into biodiversity in plantations concluded that eucalypt plantations do not support the same diversity of species and number of individuals as do native forests and that clearfelling and plantation forestry do have a detrimental effect on ecological processes and genetic diversity.    Further, there is evidence to suggest that the understorey of harvested areas changes. This results in a decline in species that usually 'regenerate vegetatively after physical disturbance'.   Understorey species which may survive one round of plantation are less likely to come back after the second round of plantation and so on, because regular clearfelling depletes the built-up stock of dormant seeds on the forest floor.
Native fish are also in danger from changes to the forest. The natural processes of soil movement are exacerbated by clearfelling, which can increase soil run-off into creeks and rivers. Even when 'good' logging practices are employed, the vagaries of the weather can result in most of the total value of sediment flow during relatively brief periods of heavy rain. The siltation of creeks and rivers affects native fish breeding cycles, food sources and alters the clarity and temperature of the water. Water becomes muddied by 'suspended solids', leading to a range of problems. Perhaps more serious is the unseen siltation of stream beds, where the entire ecosystem at the bottom of rivers and creeks are covered over with mud and killed. Unlike suspended solids, stream bed sediment does not wash away as readily.

Uninterrupted wildlife corridors are vital. Badly located coupes and plantations can be harmful. The CAR document says that there is a risk to the long term survival of forest communities and individual species if an area is inadequately reserved.

All the detrimental effects that clearfelling silviculture can have are exacerbated by plantation forestry. When an area is labelled 'plantation', the other trees, shrubs and floral species lose their rights in the forest. The area may be clearfelled many times per century.
Short rotation plantations were developed in order to encourage agro-forestry on private land. A 20-30 year wait for a return on an investment is more attractive to a farmer than a 50-100 year wait. However, this intensive production is an unsuitable practice in the Strzelecki State Forest, where foresters must combat the native wildlife and vegetation, such as swamp wallabies, bush rats, wattle trees and ants and where soil and water conservation, tourism, recreation and habitat are high priorities.
It is interesting to note the conclusions of the Independent Panel, which rejected Amcor's applications to convert 2,000 ha. of native vegetation in the Strzelecki Ranges into eucalypt plantation. They stated that the removal of native vegetation would be contrary to the policy on the retention and re-establishment of native vegetation set out in Clause 3-8.1 of the State Planning Scheme. The plan to convert native vegetation into plantation was found to be not in accordance with the policy for timber production (Clause 3-10.1) as the proposed plantations were not on predominantly cleared land. The panel found that 'native vegetation has an inherent value fundamentally different to a plantation in terms of habitat and biodiversity' and that 'any reduction in size of vegetation reduces its value in terms of critical mass and increased edge effect.' The Panel also acknowledged that there was other cleared land available for plantation purposes even if it had to be purchased. "

Locals are witnessing a huge increase in the area of Mountain Ash clearfelled in the Strzelecki State Forest. The DCE brochure "welcome to the Strzelecki Forest Drive" (undated, but circa 1990) states: "In any one year wood is harvested from about 100 ha (0.9%) of the native Strzelecki forests. This developing forest presently produces around 2100 M3 of sawlogs." It goes on to say "Forests are regenerated following harvesting"
HVP are logging about 350 ha. Most of this is being replanted with non-indigeneous blue gum and shining gum, which will be logged again in 20 years time. Habitat trees are being removed. This is an environmental tragedy, to which the RFA is party.

Question: Where are the areas of regenerated forest on current maps of the Strzeleckis?

Question: How can the Gippsland RFA be taken seriously given this mistreatment of the Strzelecki State Forest ? Issue: Projected 'Reductions' in Sawlog Availability under proposed CAR reserve System

Claims from industry spokespeople, politicians and councillors that the proposed CAR system will reduce log availability by 5% in the Central Gippsland FMA and by 20% in the Tambo FMA are hard to credit due to the fact that baseline figures are set too high.
We have both studied the CRA report and Consultation Paper and made numerous enquiries to RFA personel and compared the RFA's figures with the actuals (actual log volumes sold - data provided by Loris Duclos) for the FMAs in question and can see no actual decrease in annual log volumes brought about by the proposed CAR reserve system.
For example, the actuals of D+ logs cut from the entire Central Gippsland FMA throughout the 90s have all been between 83,000 and 169,000 m3 per year. This is well below the RFA's stated baseline of 181,000 m3 and well below the RFA's projected availability of 173,000 m3 under the proposed CAR reserve system. (see Consultation Paper, Table 4.5 p. 42)
Tambo actuals throughout the 90s ranged between 40,000 and 78,000 m3, far below the RFA's baseline figure of 90,000m3 and in all years except 94-95 and 97-98 was far below the 72,000 m3 projected to be available under the draft CAR reserve system. (However, the RFA table includes 11 blocks of the Wodonga FMA into the Tambo figures.)
From our own limited understanding we can only conclude that the RFA's baseline figures were too high and any reduction brought out by the CAR reserve system is largely imaginary.

What's more, the exclusion of the 100,000 m3 of Mountain Ash sawlogs sourced from the Strzelecki State Forest from any of the data, (i.e: sustainable yield figures, RFA baseline figures, actuals, etc.) hides the fact that from 1996 onward, Central Gippsland sawlog harvest volumes have been at unprecedented high levels.

In relation to HW sawn timber production, the base-lines set in table 4.6a on p. 44 of the Consultation Paper, bear no resemblance to table 4.3 on p. 38, which calculates actual sawn timber production in the region. Table 4.6a and b of the Consultation Paper both appear to be seriously flawed in many respects, based on guess work and as such fail to form an adequate picture from which to predict the future prospects of the timber industry over the next two decades.

Issue: Projected 'Reductions' in Firewood Availability under proposed CAR reserve System
The proposed CAR reserve system's impact on firewood collection is perhaps real to some extent. If so, it should be accompanied by positive incentives for the establishment of farm woodlots. Gippslanders need to be encouraged to grow their own firewood.
Issue: Basic Log Information lacking in the RFA literature

In order for the Gippsland RFA to be of value to people, an unambiguous table showing the following data is essential. At present only a few of these categories have been quantified, by the RFA, sometimes with two conflicting estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARDWOOD LOGS CUT FROM WITHIN GIPPSLAND RFA ANNUALLY**

State Forest Net Sawlogs
State Forest Gross Sawlogs (Net plus Defect Allowance)
State Forest, Poles, Stakes, Hewn, etc.
State Forest other Residual* Logs for sawing
State Forest Firewood
State Forest Residual Logs for pulping
State Forest Residual Logs felled but not used

Freehold Native forest Sawlogs
Freehold Native Forest Residual logs
Freehold HW Plantation Sawlogs
Freehold HW Plantation Residual Logs
Amcor leased Strzelecki State Forest Native Forest Sawlogs
Amcor leased Strzelecki State Forest Native Forest Residual Logs
Amcor leased Strzelecki State Forest HW Plantation Sawlogs
Amcor leased Strzelecki State Forest HW Plantation Residual Logs

HVP leased Strzelecki State Forest Native Forest Sawlogs
HVP leased Strzelecki State Forest Native Forest Residual Logs
HVP leased Strzelecki State Forest HW Plantation Sawlogs
HVP leased Strzelecki State Forest HW Plantation Residual Logs

SOFTWOOD LOGS CUT FROM WITHIN GIPPSLAND RFA ANNUALLY
Total amount of SW sawlogs and residuals from all sources

*As with RFA report, residuals means all logs below D grade whether they have a market or not.
**As the 1997- 98 year is mostly used in RFA report, figures from that year would be most appropriate.