Julie Constable and Kim Devenish January 1999
------------------------------------------------------------
We have written a great deal questioning the wisdom of vesting more than 20,000 ha. of public non-plantation forest land in a plantation corporation, and the subsequent sell-off of this forest. In this paper, we wish to focus of the Hardwood reforestation, the original intentions behind it, how the original scheme lost its way, and to question the wisdom of recent moves to re-label this as "plantation" and the reduction of its status to that of a tree-crop and no more.
The question of labelling is important in the case of the Strzelecki HW reforestation, because as well as affecting the 7000 ha. of state forest it occupies, it has a great bearing on the rest of the state forest that surrounds it.
The Strzelecki State Forest is around 60,000 or so hectares Around 40,000 hectares has been vested with the Victorian Plantations Corporation, 8,617 hectares was leased to Amcor in the 1960s for 60 years. 5,000 ha. is reserves managed by Parks Victoria and the remaining 7,000 ha. is presumably managed by DNRE, (2,000 ha. of which make up the proposed Mirboo Regional Park).
Since the 1930s, 400 titles amounting to around 28,000 ha. have been repurchased by the State and incorporated back into the State Forest. These farms amount to 28,000 hectares. Many of these farms were mere cleaings in the forest, with between 5 and 20 cows and a vegie patch. Patrick Morgan has written about these 'farms' in his historical book, 'The Settling of Gippsland'. A further 9,000 hectares was land briefly leased out to hopeful farmers in the 1890s. This land reverted back to the Crown after proving to be unsuitable for farming and abandoned, often before clearing took place.
With all the attention it has recieved, one would assume that the State HW reforestation is the major component of the Strzelecki State Forest. In fact, it amounts to little more than 7000 ha, scattered throughout a 25,000 ha. native forest area, through the core of a 60,000 ha - odd State Forest. It began around 1947, but very slowly. By 1960, it amounted to around 300 ha. In recent times, it has spread to varying extents across the Strzelecki forest blocks of:
Bodmans (eastern Strzeleckis)
Jack
Macks
Woorarra
Turtons
Albert
Livingston
Boolarra
Jeeralang
Callignee
Darlimurla
Mt Worth (western Strzeleckis)
Childers
Alberton West (South - Eastern foothills of Eastern Strzeleckis)
According to the State Plantation Impact study of 1993, at the time of the formation of the VPC in 1993, there was about 7150 ha. of HW reforestation in the Yarram FMA and 254 ha. in the Cent. Gipps FMA. Around 7400 in total. A further 600 ha. of State owned HW reforestation was located in other parts of Victoria, bringing the entire state total to around 8000.
All but 500 ha. of the Strzelecki State mountain ash reforestation was Mountain Ash. Around 670 ha of this was not vested in the VPC, and around 6730 ha. was vested. If the VPC, now HVP, has much more than this amount, it is either elsewhere or established post 1993.
The VPC began harvesting this and the surrounding forest in 1996 and this continues at a rate of around 250 - 300 ha. per year. Until that time, the HW reforestation had not been commercially logged, save for some of the earliest stands in Childers and Allambee. Intensive logging began with a contract between the VPC and Thomas P Clark pty ltd, to supply 100,000 m3 of Strzelecki sawlogs each year for 20 years to Clark's new giant sawmill in Morwell.
There is a history of referring to natural and assisted regeneration in the Strzeleckis as reforestation. It must be remembered that the bush where it had been cleared had been regenerating itself since the turn of the century and this process continued in parallel with the assisted reforestation process. Many areas did not require human interference, because they had always been forest or retained a reserve of seedstock.
The following quotes all refer specifically to the SSF
The need for reforestation in the Strzeleckis was recognized by the State Development Committee, which stated in the Royal Commission on the Outer Ports, 1927 that "this area, which once carried some of the finest white mountain ash forest of the State, presents a challenge to man to restore its beauty and productivity, which he so eagerly destroyed" - Quoted in LCC Final Recommendations South Gippsland Area District 2, 1982.
"The Commission's policy has been that the original vegetation on a particular site as a general rule governs the choice of species to be planted. Where mountain ash occurred naturally, the area should be planted with these trees. Pinus radiata, on the other hand, is regarded more suitable in those parts where mixed eucalypt species originally grew." -Noble, 1976. Clearly the idea of restoration was confined to Mountain Ash areas and areas carrying "mixed species" were viewed as fair game for conversion to pine plantation.
The intent behind the reforestation program is reiterated in the statement: "The hardwood planting program is resulting in the restoration of a forest that will eventually have a similar structure to the original, and options for the future use of the land are being restored". (LCC Final Recommendations, South Gippsland Area District 2, 1982) This clearly indicates that the intention is restoration
State Plantations Impact Study 1993 (Melbourne Uni.) with its eye focussed on resources contains the passages: 'The identification of eucalypt plantations in Victoria is not as clear cut as is the situation with conifers. The earlier plantations, particularly of durable species, were established in traditional plantation format viz. there was a designated plantation area, clearly defined on maps often with a well fenced boundary, and a systematic pattern of planting within.....Later eucalypt plantations, particularly in the Strzelecki Ranges, were more in the nature of reforestation. Many of the plantations would now be difficult to distinguish from the naturally regenerated forest adjacent to them."
Because it was so difficult to distinguish from the adjacent bush, and because there was little need to differentiate it from any other state forest land, no one really bothered to try. It was mountain ash in a State Forest after all.
The Forests Commission applied the same "multiple-use" strategy to the reforestation as it did to the surrounding bush. It remained of equal status to public native forest, and remained subject to the Forests Act until this was overridden by the VPC Act.
The LCC, in its studies, made no attempt to differentiate between HW reforestation and native forest, preferring to map it all together as the "Hardwood Zone"
In 1995, the entire Strzelecki State Forest hardwood zone including the HW reforestation was made a Deferred Forest Area (DFA), a temporary reserve, pending the outcomes of the Gippsland RFA. The DFA made no distinction between native forest and hardwood reforestation.
When the plan to sell off the State's plantation estate hatched, it became apparent how sketchy and unreliable HW reforestation records actually were. It also brought about the need to distinguish between the reforestation and the rest of the native forest. This task has proved to be extremely difficult and has made the SSF more awkward to manage as a result. Differences between the Strzelecki SW and the HW reforestation schemes:
The very infrastructure of the HW reforestation differed from that of the SW program.
The softwood program had a much larger budget, used the services of 4 professional nurseries, and had a paid, professional workforce involved in the land preparation, planting and ongoing procedure. In the HW department, Nursery work and planting was largely carried out by an untrained, unpaid prison workforce. HW reforestation was carried out at half the rate of Strzelecki SW plantation establishment.
The HW program recieved no Commonwealth plantation funding as did the SW program. The Forests Commission's S.C. Butler wrote about the Strzelecki program: "Commonwealth government financial assistance, on the same lines as has been provided for the softwood planting program, is being sought, with the aim of increasing the annual ash reforestation program..." (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria no 84 volume 1, 1971)
HW planting tallies and mapping were more unreliable than SW tallies and maps. Unlike the pines, the HW was often not planted in rows. The RFA and the Federal govt specifies "regular spacing" (rows) as a key factor in its definition of "plantation". Accounts from foresters and workers make it clear that on many occasions, teams would misread maps and bulldoze and reforest the wrong areas, including roadside and streamside reserves, etc.
Fundamentally different from the SW program, the HW reforestation retained its multiple-use permanent forest status, the same as any other native state forest, until the VPC Act of 1993 sidestepped this. Until this time, "options for the future use of the land" (LCC) were deliberately kept open in order to address a multiplicity of possible future uses.
Also quite unlike the SW program, there was also a policy of using only local provenances in the HW program. Clearly, this policy indicates a commitment to the original "multiple-use" intentions of restoring beauty as well as productivity, and that the HW reforestation was seen as more than just a tree-crop. It also indicates that the state wished to grow sawlogs and were willing to wait a long while for them to mature. To the immediate north, APM were planting fast growing short rotation bluegum crops for paper. This example was not followed by the State, as it conflicted with its sawlog driven philosophy and was incompatible with Forest commission policies which dictated that ash-type forests be harvested no more than once every 80 - 120 years. For more than 40 years, this policy of using only local provenances in the HW program was adhered to, until the mid 90s, when the VPC began replanting logged mountain ash stands with bluegum and shining gum. This was impossible until the VPC Act effectively removed its native forest status and all associated protection which that label carried.
If intensive harvesting on the scale carried out at present was ever envisaged (100,000 M3 HW sawlogs/ year from Strzelecki land leased to Hancocks) , it was not reflected in the budget, or the level of professional attention expended on the HW reforestation program.
The idea that HW plantations were mostly established on cleared repurchased land is a myth.
Strzelecki HW reforestation has taken place:
1. Mostly after eucalypt logging
2. Often on un-alienated land
3. Often on bulldozed "scrub"
4. In a minority of cases on cleared land
These four point are detailed further:
The 1980 LCC "South Gippsland Area District 2" report states that 9000 M3 of sawlogs and 30,000 M3 of pulplogs were sourced annually from state managed Mountain Forest. In this study area, all State managed Mountain Forest available for logging is within the SSF. Also, a further 5000 M3 of sawlogs and 12,000 M3 of pulplogs were taken from foothill forests. Not all foothill forest in the area is within the SSF, but it would be correct to assume that a certain proportion of Foothill forest logs were also from the SSF.
The 1991 resource assessment report "Hardwood timber resources in the Central Gippsland FMA DCE 1991" estimated the standing timber on various Strzelecki forest compartments as follows:
MA (mountain ash dominated forest)
Regrowth predicted to yield 200 M3 at 80 yrs. (MAI =2.5)
Mature and Over-mature standing volume per ha on highly productive areas:
lowest volume : 33 M3 sawlog + 66 M3 roundwood
highest volume: 200M3 sawlog + 400 M3 roundwood
MMS (mountain mixed species)
Regrowth predicted to yield 150 M3 at 80 yrs. (MAI = 1.8)
Mature and Over-mature standing volume per ha on highly productive areas:
lowest volume: 35M3 sawlog + 140 M3 roundwood
highest volume: 100M3 sawlog + 200 M3 roundwood.
FMS (foothill mixed species)
Regrowth predicted to yield 120 M3 at 100 years (MAI =1.2).
Mature and Over-mature standing volume per ha on highly productive areas:
lowest volume : 7.5 M3 sawlog + 18 M3 roundwood
highest volume: 40M3 sawlog + 80 M3 roundwood
From these figures, we would estimate that in the years prior to the LCC report, perhaps 200 ha of native Strzelecki State Forest was being clearfelled annually
The LCC 1982 Final Recommendations calculated that native forest logging in the South Gippsland 2 study area accounted for 2% of the State's HW sawlog output.
It must be noted that HW"plantations" were not harvested to any great extent until around 1996.
"Gippsland Warer Resources - Planning for the future. Issue Paper no. 1 South Gippsland basin 15 March 1988" deals with the southern fall of the Strzeleckis (south of Grand Ridge) The paper makes it clear that Strzelecki native forest logging was continuing through the late 80s with the statement: "considerable concern has been expressed about erosion and consequent sedimentation resulting from forestry operation and agricultural activities in the Strzeleckis."
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." The amount of pulplogs produced is not stated. This indicates that native forest logging in the Strzeleckis continued into the 90s, perhaps at a reduced rate compared to the figures from a decade earlier, or perhaps on areas which yeilded less sawlogs. It goes on to say "Forests are regenerated following harvesting"
A great deal of native forest was also removed to make way for pine plantations. The LCC in 1982, recommended that a further 3460 ha. (LCC code - F3) of SSF land carrying native forest of various types be converted to carry a nett area of 2130 ha. of Pine plantation. The practice of converting bush to plantation was so commonplace in the SSF that even the LCC recommended that it continue. Thankfully, part of this idea was abandoned.
The 1991 resource assessment report "Hardwood timber resources in the Cent Gippsland FMA" makes a partial tally of native forest in the district. Looking just at the Strzelecki blocks, it identifies about 21000 ha. worth of forest compartments inthe 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. No HW reforestation is included in this tally. The report overlooks a great many compartments in the SSF which together contain a great deal more native forest land. The only regrowth recognised in this report is regrowth from fires. Regrowth after logging has been completely omitted, showing that all regrowth after logging has been allowed to be classed as plantation, or failed plantation.
The Timber Industry Strategy, introduced in the mid 80s, was supposed to have stopped the practice of harvesting native forest on public land and establishing plantations in its place. However, the practice is so ingrained in the SSF that since that time around 1500 ha. of additional 'hardwood plantation' has been established, the majority of which is in areas that supported native forest immediately prior to conversion, including sites of botanical significance, sites recommended for reserve status by the LCC, and RFA Deferred Forest Areas. This has resulted in further fragmentation of forest. Native forest has also been replaced with pine in some parts of the SSF since the TIS.
Since the vesting of 40,000 ha. of the SSF in 1993, native forest clearing has continued.
In a submission to the Public Hearing re AMCOR plantations permit application no 96/0003/pv, June 1996, I. Cornthwaite states that "the logging of eucalyptus plantation at Childers, along the Watkins Creek, on land claimed by Victorian Plantations Corporation, reveals how easy it can be, in my opinion, to flout the Code of Forest Practices (or interpret it at will), to take old-growth non-plantation timber".
In a report, 'Plantation Logging in the Strzeleckis' by Dr. Tim Ealey it is reported that the Victorian Plantations Corporation cleared ecologically sensitive bushland in the Strzelecki State Forest in 1997 and 1998 to increase plantation areas.
Friends of Gippsland Bush (FOGB) have reported widespread incidents of clearing of native vegetation on public land in Livingston block and other blocks.
We have first hand knowledge of clearance of native forest in the Woorara, Albert and Bodman blocks in the last few years and have also received messages from concerned residents over the clearing of native vegetation under HVP leasehold in Callignee block. As usual, none of the reforested logging coupes has been called "regrowth", but instead it has been labelled "plantation". We estimate that the rate of clearfelling has continued throughout the 90s at the rate of about 100 ha. per year
The overwhelming support for the National Park proposal demonstrates that the community have learnt that all the recommendations, policies, reports and directives have largely been ignored and have done little to curb the heavy handed treatment the SSF has recieved, and believe that the only way to protect and conserve the best part of the Strzelecki State Forest in perpetuity is to place it in a large formal reserve .
Much of the 30,000 ha. Hardwood Zone of the SSF (see LCC final recommendations map 1982) , where most of the HW reforestation is to be found, is land which has remained crown land. The bulk of the repurchased land is in the outlying Softwood zones. Even without detailed records of land tenure history, it is obvious that a great many areas claimed as plantations are situated within old forest reserves and other public land which never ever saw farming activity, and had seen no major human disturbance apart from the logging it recieved immediately prior to reforestation.
In the Strzeleckis, the term "scrub" often refers to forest dominated by Blackwoods and Wattles and certain local rainforest species, Blackwood and Wattle in this district can grow to enormous size and at an impressive rate. It bears many similarities to cool temperate rainforest. On frequently burnt or otherwise nutrient-poor or degraded land, this type of forest is a most welcome step in its gradual transition to rainforest. Early accounts of the forest of South Gippsland reprinted in the book "the land of the lyre-bird" make it clear that Wattle and Blackwood dominated stands, etc. were part of the natural forest mosaic, not merely a consequence of human disturbance, as is often portrayed. The reality of much of the reforestation scheme was simply replacing one type of forest with another type preferred by the timber industry.
S.C. Butler, divisional forester of the Traralgon Forests Commission, describes the Commission' great effort to wage war on the native forest and wildlife in order to establish more Mountain Ash and Pines. ".. wattle stands present a special problem, because in general these trees have no merchantable value." ...." ..on steeper country the scrub must be hand-felled and burned." .... "The Forests Commission's present procedure is to clear planting strips through them and to ringbark the wattles in between these strips." ...."Experimental work is being carried out on aerial spraying of the dense wattle stands with herbicides, mainly 245T..." .... " control of animals which attack the young trees is essential, and this is achieved by the use of aerial poisoning with carrots treated with the poison 1080." ... "Fertilisers are being used to stimulate early growth of the plants" (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria no 84 volume 1, 1971, prepared for the Royal Society symposium on West Gippsland)
Surely the reforestation scheme was never meant to be this destructive.
This was originally one of the main aims of the whole reforestation program. In reality, most of the planting that took place on on previously cleared land was pine.
In some cases, bare land was returned to Mountain Ash forest, mostly in the early days before clearings had the chance to regenerate naturally. As reiterated in the State Plantations Impact Study 1993: 'Later eucalypt plantations, particularly in the Strzelecki Ranges, were more in the nature of reforestation.'
Since the 30s, the state has repurchased some 28,000 ha of alienated land in the Strzeleckis and reincorporated it into the state forest system. This land has wrongly been given the label "previously cleared". This is a gross overstatement. Much of this repurchased land retained mature, over-mature and regrowth native forest which the Forests Commission either left or logged or removed in the manner described by Mr Butler in the previous paragraph. The land which was cleared for agriculture, when abandoned, quickly reverted to heavy forest cover. The Strzelecki forests show a remarkable ability to quickly bounce back and regrow at an impressive rate. This ability was one of the many reasons why farming in these hills was unviable - given half a chance, paddocks revert to forest in no time at all with a vigour that is rare for Australia. Keeping cleared areas clear proved hard work. Abandonment of land sold off for farms in the 1890s began very soon after it was sold. Even by the time of the 1927 commission, farm clearings were reported to have already returned to "heavy forest cover". By 1960, the SSF had no more than 300 ha. of HW reforestation. Most was established during the 60s, 70s and 80s and 90s. By the time the forests commission got around to reforesting it, much of the previously cleared land carried various kinds of regrowth up to 80 years old, which had to be removed in order to be reforested. This exercise is all to do with productivity and nothing to do with beauty.
If regrowth and mountain ash reforestation is to be called plantation, then our native forest remnant is further decreased, demoted and fragmented
Reforestation = Regeneration = Regrowth
All this Mountain Ash reforestation (which is now claimed as plantation, and denied native forest status) fits the State Government's own definition of native forest or regeneration as used in the Forest Code of Practice, etc, better than it fits the definition of plantation:
The Victorian State Government uses the term "Regeneration", and defines it as:
"The renewal of forest by natural or artificial means"
The National Forest Policy Statement defines native forest as 'any local indigenous community...and containing throughout its growth the complement of native species and habitats...or having the potential to develop these characteristics. It includes forests with these characteristics that have been regenerated with human assistance following disturbance."
The Victorian State Government, in several of its publications, including the Forest Code of Practice, uses this sentence to define plantations:- "a forest stand established by the planting or sowing of trees of either native or exotic species selected for their wood-producing properties and managed intensively for timber production".
The lack of intensive management in the Strz HW reforestation is striking. The pruning, thinning, fertilising and spraying that intensive management entails is not apparent and indeed, inappropriate on reserved forest.
The National Forest Policy Statement agreed to by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, used by the Regional Forest Agreements, defines plantation as "intensively managed stands of trees of either native or exotic species, created by the regular placement of seeds or seedlings."
The definition suggests that plantations must form rows. This is not apparent in the SSF Areas which have been reforested in a random fashion such as areas sprinkle seeded, aerial seeded, seeded by hot burns or by seed trees, etc also seem to be excluded from the definition. At present, even logging coups which have regenerated without human assistance have been labelled "plantation". Reforestation bringing about a large reduction in the Native Forest official tally.
One would assume that more than 40 years of reforestation, as the name implies, would result in an increase in the area of forest. In reality it may have done so, but official records would have you believe that the opposite is the case. Please study the following:
In 1977, Strzelecki - A New Look for the Heartbreak Hills, 1979, Forest Comm.
stated the tally for the Strzelecki State Forest (excluding the 8,617 ha. leased to Amcor), was:
6,117 ha. pine plantation,
3,995 ha. hardwood plantation, and
38,588 ha. of 'other forest land'
In 1986, Strzelecki - A New Look for the Heartbreak Hills, 1986 edition, the tally for the Strzelecki State Forest (excluding the 8,617 ha. leased to Amcor), was:
11,500 ha. pine plantation,
6,300 ha. hardwood plantation, and
34,000 ha. of other forest land'
In that ten year period, the Strzelecki State Forest grew by 3,100 ha. yet the total of 'other forest land' in the Strzelecki State Forest dropped by 4,588 ha, an average of 458 ha. per year. Forestry/ plantation establishment is the only factor affecting this dramatic decrease in native forest cover.
The Forest Industries publication 'Timber and the Environment' says that of the State's native forests, 'Only a tiny proportion (about 1%) of this is logged in any one year, and because its actively regenerated after harvesting these forests will always endure'.(p.6)
This notion is enshrined in the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production, November 1996, which states that after logging public native forest, the Department is required to allow the area to regenerate with 'species and provenances native to the area.. with the objective of maintaining the local genetic pools and species mixes' (2.2.3).
For these reasons, Strzelecki HW reforestation after logging cannot be denied the label "native forest", unless the industry and the forests service wishes to disprove its own boasts that harvesting native forest does not bring about a nett reduction in forest area.
While reforestation, even plantation establishment can be seen as a worthy exercise on degraded and denuded land, the objective was never to fragment and compromise the existing forest.
The public in the past has protested about the conversion of native forest into pine plantation and the clearfelling of native forest. In recent times, they have witnessed the Strzelecki State Forest being removed from the Forests Act, corporatised and privatised.
1. The Strzelecki Working party has hired Biosis to survey the Hancock Strz leasehold. In the lead up to the appointment, many elements within the working party ( WGCMA, South Gippsland Shire, HVP) strongly lobbied that the HW reforestation areas should be excluded from the survey.
2. The DNRE upper echelon has overturned the assessment of the Central Gippsland DNRE botanist who drafted Gippsland's EVC map, by removing his "wet forest" label from all HW reforestation, and lumping it into the same EVC class as pine plantation.
3. The DNRE and the RFA allowed Hancocks to produce its own Strzelecki plantation map, accepted it verbatim and incorporated it into the RFA EVC maps. Anomalies in the mapping, pointed out by ourselves and FOGB, were ignored. As a result, the EVC maps have become obviously innacurate and tainted.
4.In the 97-98 year, HVP planned to cut 1939 regrowth in the Livingston block, claiming it as plantation. The Strzeleckis had no HW plantation of any sort until 1949 or so, and only 156 ha by 1960, and HVP management know it.
5. In 1996, the entire 25000 or so ha. RFA Deferred Forest Area in the SSF was withdrawn and relabelled "plantation" because it contained some 7000 ha. of HW reforestation.
6. The general rule is that mountain ash reached maturity at age 80. Only about 300 ha. of the Strz HW reforestation is pre 1960, ie. greater than 40 years old. Since 1996, has been cut at a rate of 250 - 300 ha. per year. The reforestation being cut is less than half its age of maturity. The reforestation scheme had the potential to be a thing of pride. This is no longer possible as it was opened up for logging far too soon and is now disappearing at a rate which is faster than its rate of establishment. If the concept of sustainability still applied to the SSF, the rate of logging underway would no doubt be deemed unsustainable.
At a State level, every effort was made by the Kennett govt. to exempt the VPC holdings from all kinds of environmental protection and public scrutiny. HW "plantation mapping was left up to Hancocks and carried out after the sell-off.. The NRE and the RFA has accepted these maps verbatim and incorporated Hancocks- produced mapping into its own EVC database and GIS system.. In effect, every area Hancocks coloured brown has lost its native forest status.
Mapping methodology used to by Hancocks to map their hardwood plantation also has some flaws. Young stands of mountain ash are viewed from the air and matched against areas which have been cleared felled by forestry in the past. This method picks up native forest logging coupes, and areas which regenerated of their own accord, as well as human asssisted reforestation.
The forestry maps, which indicate clearfelled areas are lodged in the Central Plan Office and were used as the basis for the sale of the timber rights. As in all state forest maps used for timber harvesting these areas are delineated by a dotted line with a date, i.e., logging history maps.
Since the early 90s, the HW reforestation has been excluded from the State forest resource tally.
the HW reforestation has been excluded from the Sustainable Yield figures
The SSF HW logging operations failed to be included in the Gippsland CRA annual sawlog harvest estimates, even though it provides a large chunk of it
Mountain ash reforestation was always part of the multiple use(water and soil conservation, wildlife habitat, scenic values, public recreation) considerations for state forests, subject to the Forests Act and classified as reserved forest (this meant subject to sustainable yield etc). These protections are now removed through the vesting of the land under the VPC Act and by allowing the VPC, now HVP to manage their forestry operations as if the land is private under the Code of Forest Practices.
This means that for the first time, non-indigenous species can be planted throughout the hardwood area of the Strzelecki State Forest and short rotation harvests can occur. The Forests Commission always supported the idea of growing indigenous species in these areas. H.R.McKay, Victorias first Commissioner of the Forest Commission, wrote in 1914: "To remove native forest growth, native to the soil, and plant inferior exotics in in its place is simply folly, and a very expensive folly in the long run." Since the VPC, non-indigeneous shining gum and blue gum are appearing in the native forest area for the first time ever in history.
-is totally at odds with Victorian forestry publications which state that logged native State forest is regenerated with native forest., not replaced with a tree-crop.
-contradicts the definition of plantation due to the lack of intensive management
- contradicts the original intention of the reafforestation scheme to restore the beauty and productivity of the area.
-blocks future options
- allowed this privatisation of this significant native forest remnant to occur
- defeats Native Vegetation Retention goals by gradually lowering the official tally of native forest in this state forest
- defies State Planning Scheme Guidelines that plantations should be established on predominantly cleared land.
Under pressure from Planning Scheme strategists the zoning of public land in the Strzeleckis has been reclassified as Rural Zone, giving it the same status as cleared farmland.