About one third of Victoria is publicly owned. Public land makes up much
of the State's natural resources, beauty and wealth, which all Victorians
share. The great majority of public land remains in a forested state,
while the great majority of private land in Victoria is cleared. The
Strzelecki State Forest is a highly significant piece of public land with a
complicated history. It covers about one half of the Eastern Strzelecki
Ranges in South Gippsland. The Eastern and Western Strzelecki Ranges are
separated from the Great Dividing Range by the Latrobe Valley. The bulk of
the Strzelecki State Forest stretches some 50 kilometres between Foster and
Gormandale in one continuous mass. There are also numerous disjointed
blocks, which also make up the State Forest. Altogether it covers an area
of roughly 53,000 hectares.
The Strzelecki State Forest has until recently been under the jurisdiction
of DNRE (Department of Natural Resources and Environment) with some areas
leased to AMCOR. There are 2 small National Parks within the area and a
few reserves, but the majority of it is classed as timber reserve. The
Strzelecki State Forest falls within the boundaries of 3 shires, South
Gippsland, Latrobe and Wellington, and forms the catchment for 5 major
rivers and numerous creeks.
The terrain of the Strzelecki State Forest has the perfect balance of
altitude, rainfall and climate to support the mighty mountain ash forests,
unique to select parts of Victoria and Tasmania. Co-existing with the wet
sclerophyll mountain ash forest and dominating the gullies are the cool
temperate rainforests dominated by myrtle beech and sassafras.
On the lower hills, drier forests dominated by blue gum or messmate
eucalypts overlap with the wetter forest. Much of this lower hill country
and the flat lands of South Gippsland was converted to European style
farmland. This remains productive farmland today, where numerous
communities thrive. The higher regions of the Eastern Strzeleckis proved
less easy to tame.
Last century the Victorian State Government resisted moves to open up this
mountainous, thickly forested region, but during the 1890's depression was
persuaded to allow selectors to lease some of this land in the highest,
most misty parts of the Strzeleckis.
Imagine you are in the deepest, darkest, wettest rainforest gully,
surrounded by tall mountain ash forest creating a continual mist as the
canopy intercepts the clouds. Now imagine this repeated for miles and miles
in every direction. This gives you an idea of what it's like to be in the
heart of the Strzeleckis. A fantastic place to visit, but not easy to live
there.
Selectors attempted to clear the forest by widespread ring barking and
burning off. The subsequent fires which swept through the Strzeleckis in
1898 made clearing easier and soon much of the landscape was radically
changed. Selectors had to suffer back breaking work, loss of livestock and
buildings and danger from the burn-offs which went out of control, flooding
and land slips and often financial ruin. For the forest it meant the
invasion of weeds and introduced animals, an altered rainfall, erosion and
lots more fires. The effects of this large scale clearing over the past
century are now evident. Within living memory, the shelly beaches of Toora
and Foster have become silted up as the soils from the cleared hills make
their way into Corner Inlet. The higher hills proved to be mediocre
grazing land, and from those early days of selection through to the 1930's
much of the higher ranges were abandoned and reverted back to the Crown.
>From the 30's onwards, the Government has bought back more of this country,
a piece at a time, and converted many areas into plantations, resulting in
the State Forest's ragged patchwork shape.
Today, much of what we call the Strzelecki State Forest has regenerated
after clearing and burning. However, many areas escaped fire, farming and
logging. Old growth remnants are scattered throughout the region. It is
very easy to spot old growth still surviving. Regrowth, now between 50 and
100 years old has formed fantastic forests again: the ridges are covered
with tall mountain ash and a diverse understorey and rainforest has
re-established in the gullies. The Grand Ridge Road is a spectacular
drive, which follows the main ridge of these ranges, winding through
mountain ash forest and around ferny gullies.
As the scars on the Strzeleckis are healing and trees grow tall once again,
the State has turned its attention to the region, with a view to increased
logging and the chance to earn export dollars from hardwood chips for
foreign and local markets. Properly managed, perhaps, this may not be too
worrying. After all, we have all sorts of new regulations that try to
protect the environment from over-exploitation. Yet, at the same time as
the Government is endorsing stricter environmental guidelines, it is also
actively seeking to replace the export dollar, once earned by Australia's
woolclip with export wood. In 1993, 40,000 hectares of the Strzeleckis
were removed from DNRE's management and vested in the Victorian Plantation
Corporation, and in 1996, the status of this land was altered, under the
Revised Forest Code of Practice, to be treated as private land. It is this
change of status accorded to the Strzelecki State Forest, which raises
questions about the Government's commitment to its environmental ideals and
poses concerns for the future management of one of Victoria's significant
and unique state forests. It seems that the State Government may be
attempting to re-write the rules. To explain this further, we must first
give a brief background of the natural and cultural history of the region.
The Strzelecki State Forest is largely a mosaic of wet sclerophyll forest
and cool temperate rainforest gullies. The altitude, rainfall and climate
make it, along with several other significant parts of Victoria, the
perfect environment for these types of forest. This native bush is home to
echidna, platypus, koalas, wombats, two species of antechinis, the black
wallaby, two species of bandicoot, a variety of gliders and possums,
several native rats and bats, potoroos and the rare and endangered tiger
quoll, (the largest carnivorous marsupial on the Australian mainland), and
the Southern rat kangaroo, common in Tasmania, but very rare on the
mainland. The dingo, once common, has disappeared from the region, ferals
such as rabbits, foxes, cats and deer have taken up residence. At least 80
species of birds inhabit the forests, the most famous being the Superb
lyrebird. There are 14 species of reptiles. Native fish have dwindled due
to increased competition from introduced trout and increased water
temperature.
The wet sclerophyll forest is dominated by the Mountain ash (eucalyptus
regnans). The mountain ash is the largest hardwood tree in the world. It
grows to heights upwards of 300 feet and can live up to 3 or 400 years.
Mountain ash forests occur 'principally at an elevation between 300 and
1000 metres and in a rainfall band of 1000 - 1750 millimetres a year. It
dominates what is called wet sclerophyll ('sclerophyll' means hard tough
leaves) and often occurs in pure even-aged stands'. (Griffiths, 1992, p6)
Mountain ash trees thrive on warmth and sunlight, but are sensitive to
frost, snow and drying winds. They draw moisture directly from clouds, (as
well as from the earth), and create an atmosphere of perpetual damp. The
micro-climate created beneath the high mountain ash canopy, softens the
extremes of heat and cold, and maintains an atmosphere conducive to
sensitive rainforest communities.
The mountain ash is sensitive to fire. If it burns, it usually dies and
unlike other eucalypts does not sprout foliage from its trunk after
burning. The next generation of seedlings must reach seed bearing age
(about 20 years), before another fire hits or the forest will diminish. As
an individual, a mountain ash tree is fire sensitive, as a forest it is
fire dependent. In a period directly after a fire, the mountain ash enter
into a baby-boom phase, where seedlings, thirsty and hungry, rush to form
the next generation of forest. The forest naturally thins itself from
thousands of seedlings per acre at 10 years of age to 20-25 per acre at 80
- 100 years. There are hazards in the early years of regeneration - the
higher chance of fire and damage from parasites, grazing animals and
insects. The mountain ash pursues the strategy of growing very fast at a
young age, taking advantage of the reduced competition (brought about by
fire) to outrun other species and quickly reserve their hold on sunlight
and other resources. A mountain ash, though still thin, reaches half its
final height in 30 years. As the mountain ash grow a diverse understorey
develops underneath.
The flora of the Strzelecki cool temperate rainforest is predominantly
comprised of blackwoods, sassafras, myrtle beech, hazel, musk, silver
wattle, pittosporum, dogwood, treeferns, climbers, mosses and fungi.
Rainforest characteristically follows gullies and co-exists with the wet
schlerophyll on the slopes. In areas such as the Strzeleckis, where
rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest overlap, 100 years without fire can
see the rainforest invade the wet sclerophyll understorey, and in the next
200 years gradually replace the mountain ash stands. In the past, wild
fires have often reached all but the most secluded rainforests, resulting
in cyclic swings between mountain ash dominated forest and a rainforest
dominated environment. Providing an area is safe from fire, rainforest
will grow and expand and act to reduce the intrusion of ground fire,
although a crown fire may occur resulting in a sclerophyll bounce-back.
South Gippsland's cool temperate rainforest is unique in that it combines
two dominant overstorey species - the myrtle beech, which is characteristic
to rainforests of the Otways and Central Highlands and the Sassafras which
is characteristic to rainforests of East Gippsland.
In 1985, the Minister for CF&L stated that, "All Rainforest areas are to be
preserved". This resulted in the 1987 CF&L Document, "Definition of
Rainforest in Victoria's Rainforests - An Overview", a document used to
identify rainforest areas in Victoria. The report puts stringent criteria
in place for defining rainforests. Rainforest is defined ecologically as
closed broadleaved forest vegetation with a more or less continuous
rainforest tree canopy of variable height, and with a characteristic
composition of species and life forms. Rainforest canopy species are
defined as shade tolerant tree species which are able to regenerate below
an undisturbed canopy, or in small canopy gaps resulting from locally
recurring minor disturbances. Such species are not dependent on fire for
their regeneration. (A patch as small as one quarter of a hectare can be
officially designated as rainforest, on account of their characteristic
shapes and scattered locations.) In 1988, the Flora and Fauna guarantee
was passed in Parliament. This sets up a legal process by which potential
threatening practices such as logging and agriculture can be managed to
promote the conservation of flora and fauna. Cool temperate rainforest
communities are listed on the threatened flora and fauna list. No action
statements have been made for the rainforest communities in this region as
yet.
In the making of the 'Definition of Rainforest' document, there was some
controversy over whether mountain ash be included as a rainforest species.
The botanists and scientists involved in the writing of the document,
decided that rainforest may have a 40% eucalypt cover, acknowledging the
co-existence and fluid boundaries between these two types of forest. At
present, the spread of the rainforest could be seen as a desirable result,
considering the threatened status of the cool temperate rainforest
community.
The report noted that the team found a shortage of knowledge regarding the
extent, distribution, size and classification of Victorian rainforest.
DNRE is presently surveying and remapping the Strzeleckis more thoroughly
to assist in identifying areas of rainforest and other vegetation to
improve this situation. The Strzeleckis are recognised as one of the four
major Victorian areas of cool temperate rainforest along with the Otways,
the Erinundra Plateau, and the Central Highlands.
In recognition of the unique cool temperate rainforest communities being so
rare and threatened, they are exempt from logging. The next major threat
to these communities are the activities carried out on adjoining land.
The Rainforest report cites "edge effect problems" as the greatest threat
to this type of rainforest. Usually caused by nearby logging or clearing
these can include * uneven forest canopy creating turbulence *greater light
penetration changing microclimate *increased risk of fire entering
rainforest. (once burnt , sclerophyll species such as eucalypt regenerate
in place of rainforest) *weed, fungus, feral invasion * trampling. The
long narrow shape of most of these rainforest areas render them especially
vulnerable to these edge effect problems. To help counter these problems,
recently formed forestry codes of practice require a surrounding buffer of
bush to be left around rainforest patches. The width of these buffers vary.
In the Strzeleckis, logging is basically clearfelling. Regeneration of
clearfelled coups is sometimes carried out by burning the logged area. This
technique can often lead to fires spreading to buffer strips and through
into rainforest areas. This has recently occurred near the Gunyah Gunyah
Rainforest Reserve. This spectacular reserve, dating back to the 1890's,
was deemed of national significance by the Flora and Fauna Survey and
Management Group Rainforest Project Team in March 1990. It is presently
about 657 hectares in size and surrounded on all sides by forest vested in
the Victorian Plantations Corporation. This area, hit by fires in the
1890's and early 1900's, actually escaped many of the later fires of the
20's and 30's making it one of the areas of oldest regrowth, at least 20
-30 years older than other parts. The reserve deserves to be greatly
enlarged and its status raised to that of a State or National Park.
It is interesting that the Rainforest document also recommended that
rainforest on private land in Victoria (perhaps 3% of all rainforest)
should be protected through statutory planning processes, and also
suggested that perhaps areas be purchased and set aside by the government
for greater protection. Contrary to this recommendation, the State
Government has vested publicly owned rainforest areas, once managed by DNRE
in a timber corporation . This is surely inappropriate. The threatened
nature of cool temperate rainforest communities, the uncertainty
surrounding edge effects of logging and clearing, and this change of
management on public land, make the Strzeleckis an area of particular
concern.
When the early settlers moved into Victoria, the State was wealthy with
timber. Gippsland was covered by vast mountain ash or blue gum forests.
As settlers moved into South Gippsland, mountain ash was extensively milled
and split providing Melbourne with fence palings and road paving
blocks. Timber was shipped out from Toora sea port (before it silted up)
to far off destinations.
In the 1890's, much of the higher reaches of the Eastern Strzelecki ranges
were surveyed, divided up and made available for selection. Old growth
forests, much of it mountain ash, more than 200 foot high, were ring barked
and left standing. This practice opened the canopy to allow sunlight
through to encourage grasses on which cattle could feed.
This period has inspired an extraordinary amount of books. It becomes
clear when reading these accounts that life for those who settled the upper
reaches of the Strzeleckis was fraught with difficulty. Yet many first
hand accounts are also filled with fond memories of close happy communities
with their own schools, halls, and sporting clubs. Their attempts to tame
the hills were not altogether unsuccessful. Many areas remain farms today
and many of the original settlers, who moved from the hills re-established
themselves on more suitable land less than 10 miles away. While some of
the communities in the high ranges only lasted a decade and others 20 or 30
years, communities in the Western Strzelecki ranges and the Eastern
Strzelecki foothills have remained.
What the first settlers found when arriving in these parts, 100 years ago,
were old-growth forests hundreds of years old. In terms of a mountain ash
forest this is quite elderly. Fires had not been frequent. As mountain
ash depends largely on fire to bring on the next generation, the lack of
fires meant that the great eucalypts were soon destined to lose their
dominance and the already abundant rainforest set to take over in its
place. Beneath the high canopy, the landscape was perpetually dark and
local accounts talk about having to use lanterns in order to travel during
the day time. The understorey resembled a jungle. For several decades
these upper regions of the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges had also become a
refuge for a great deal of South Gippsland's wildlife as their habitat in
the Western Strzeleckis was lost to grazing. This had served to
concentrate a great diversity of wildlife into the one area.
From the 1860's there were calls for the establishment of state forests in
Victoria - areas set aside for trees and timber and not for agriculture or
grazing. In the 1862 Land Act, the first reserves for 'the growth and
preservation of timber' were created. Similar to the way wildlife was
termed 'game', forests were termed 'timber'. Classifying these areas as
timber reserves effectively served to exclude grazing and thereby ensured
the forest's survival. However, the State always saw these forests as a
timber resource, protecting only tiny fractions from logging. From the
1870's a series of reports criticized the huge waste involved in the timber
industry and the ineffective management of the forest resource. Forestry
was not a priority of the Victorian government and did not have its own
department. It came under the control of various departments for some
years including Lands, Mines and Agriculture. By 1907 however, a Forests
Act was passed and a School of Forestry was established in 1910. In 1918
after more criticism, especially in regard to the fact that in 1912 the
government had received £55,000 in revenue from our forests, but only spent
£3000 on reafforestation and forestry staff, a Forests Commission was
established and a Forests Fund.
Foresters discovered that mountain ash forests behaved in peculiar ways.
Some logged or burnt areas would regenerate, but in other areas would
disappear and a different kind of forest would replace it. Foresters soon
realised that they needed a deeper understanding of the eucalyptus
regnans(mountain ash), and some fascinating studies resulted. Today,
foresters have more success in regenerating mountain ash forests after
logging. The techniques used mimic a natural disaster like fire which
triggers the next generation and provides it with suitable conditions.
Some 6,500 hectares of mountain ash plantations have been developed in the
Strzelecki State Forest. They are now one of Australia's most valuable
plantation timber resources. However, this is still a young science.
Techniques are far from perfect and continued research and dedication is
necessary. During the war years, silviculture was neglected and the
forests of Victoria were over-exploited in the war effort. More Victorian
forest was destroyed by fire in 1939 and new areas were found to exploit.
The sawmilling industry became centralised and new technology increased its
destructive capacity.
The DNRE (Department of Natural Resources & Energy) is the latest name for
the government department which started out as the Forests Commission.
Some of its previous names have been the C,F&L and the D,C&E. Known by
some as the Department of Continual Name Changes, insiders seem to refer
to it simply as "the department". A glance at a Victorian map showing DNRE
land reveals what a huge department it is, controlling one third of
Victoria's land. It spans three state ministries and is split into
countless sub-departments. In this report, when we refer to this
department, we will just use the new name 'DNRE' or 'the Department'.
The Department has been responsible for conservation and forestry in the
Strzelecki State Forest until very recently. The Department has been
supplying wood from the Strzelecki State Forest to numerous sawmills and
APM's (AMCOR) pulp mills since the 30's.
For as long as there has been a Department, their policy has always been to
maintain multiple use of State Forests. That is, the Department, must
balance community needs, the sustainability of the forest, recreational
needs and more recently biodiversity and the integrity of natural
environments with the use of the forest as a timber resource. The key to
multiple use lies in the intensity of harvesting or the harvest rate. This
is the time a forest is left to regenerate between logging ventures. For
example, if an area of 100 hectares was managed with a sustained harvest
rate set at 100 years, then 1% (1 hectare) would be taken annually. At
that rate it would take 100 years to log the entire area, by which time,
the first area would be 100 years old and ready to log again. After
logging, therefore, each area would have 100 years to regenerate and the
ecology would hopefully cope with this arrangement. This formula is fairly
close (in theory) to the formula adopted by the Department in its
management of native bush in the Strzeleckis. Multiple use is best
achieved through long harvest rates.
As governments and communities have become concerned about environmental
degradation and the loss of native flora and fauna species, the State
Government has passed the Retention of Native Vegetation Act and the Flora
and Fauna Guarantee to aid in the conservation of our natural heritage.
These environmental concerns are echoed in the Departments 1989 Forest
Code of Practice, which says, 'Native forest must not be cleared to provide
land for State softwood plantations'. In the 1996 revised Code, this was
further modified to read, 'Native forest must not be cleared to provide
land for plantations'.
The Government sometimes organises the cutting and transportation of state
timber itself, but more often, this is carried out by private operators.
For the right to remove state timber, private operators pay a royalty
payment to the Government for each cubic metre of wood taken. This
royalty can vary widely depending on the type of tree, the quality or age
of the timber and the eventual use. For large, rare, species of high
quality, the royalty rate is as high as $400. For common hardwood destined
for the woodchip mills, the royalty payment can be less than $1. Timber
trees are usually sorted into different grades before harvesting - A,B,C,
or D. Royalty prices are worked out according to the quality of the trees
and timber cutters receive subsidies, in the form of royalty discounts,
depending on how far away the timber is from a mill. The further away, the
greater the subsidy. Prices worked out between the government and the mill
are kept fairly quiet. The mountain ash plantations in the Strzelecki
State Forest are being sold ungraded. This and the remote locations of
mountain ash forests mean that royalty payments, are sure to be way down
at the low end of the scale. These plantations represent an enormous
investment that the Victorian public have been funding for more than forty
years. It would be interesting to know if our capital investment is being
recouped.
Private operators either take the form of loggers who sell their timber at
the mill door or else mill operators who process the logs into sawn timber
or woodchips (or both) and then sell it. APM (AMCOR) is the oldest and
most privileged private operator in the field with access to much of
Gippsland's forests.
The cost of processing mountain ash timber is fairly high. The timber
requires to be kiln dried in order to remove stress and warping. As the
trees are usually found in remote locations, the royalty price is often
low. The low royalty price allows millers to make a profit from the
wholesale woodchipping of mountain ash. As there are growing overseas
markets for woodchips, governments have encouraged this product as an
export commodity. Great controversy has surrounded this practice, as it
increases logging, there is little or no value-adding and encourages the
harvesting of very young trees.
This low royalty price has meant that, apart from AMCOR, private operators
have not felt the need to establish their own plantations. Instead they
have turned to the readily available state owned wood. This has set back
Australia's private plantation industry. To remedy this situation, recent
governments have embarked on a campaign to boost the plantation industry.
In the 1990s the CSIRO was commissioned to look at ways young trees could
be utilised. After all, it is the long time span required to grow a forest
that is the main discouragement to private industry. If a plantation could
be harvested in 25-30 years, it can be grown and used in the space of a
life time. The CSIRO looked at ways this could be achieved. Their
findings may eventually bring on an increase in private plantations.
Farmers may be encouraged to convert some of their farms to plantations.
Yet, it is doubtful whether this CSIRO advice should be applied to our
state forests. A 25-30 year harvest rate is intensive tree farming and
aimed at the woodchip and paper pulp market and for firewood and farm use.
This does not allow for multiple usage of forest and threatens the other
values a state forest possesses. Recommendations aimed to encourage
farmers to set aside more grazing land to grow trees should not be used as
an excuse to triple or quadruple the harvest rate in state forest.
The Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production (the Code) was put in
place in 1989 to set out goals and guidelines for the conduct of all
commercial timber production activities in Victoria. It is the rule book,
which loggers must obey. It lays out the minimum standards which loggers
must maintain, and allows for the addition of added guidelines
(prescriptions), developed in collaboration with local authorities,
according to specific local needs and concerns.
The Code sets out a different set of guidelines for public land and for
private land. Generally, public land has more restrictions placed on it
than private land.
The guidelines for public land contain more environmental considerations
than those for private land. Many requirements that need to be met on
public land become mere recommendations on private land. Basically it is a
fairly brief and generalised document.
In 1996 the Code of Practice was amended. It reiterates Government
concerns with conservation, water quality, habitat, landscape values and
catchments as well as economic outcomes of timber production. There is
recognition of tree planting by landowners and departments and 'the
positive improvements that flow from restoring trees to catchments'.
The DNRE publication entitled, 'The Forests Service' partially explains how
the code was revised due to new CSIRO data. It claims that, most
alterations to the Code were 'of a minor nature' but goes on to explain a
few of the more significant alterations, where certain rules have been
relaxed and others have been tightened.
One alteration, not mentioned lies hidden at the very back of the Code
handbook in the last few pages of 'definitions'. In the definition of
'Public land', the handbook defines public land and then at the very end in
brackets adds, 'but not including land occupied under a lease or land
vested or leased by the Victorian Plantations Corporation or its successor
in law'. The only other reference to the VPC is in the definition of
'Private land', where it states, private land comprises, among other
things, 'land vested or leased by the Victorian Plantations Corporation or
its successor in law'. There is no other reference to the VPC or any
attempt to explain this turn of events in the Code.
These two sentences have far reaching repercussions for the Strzeleckis.
Basically, it means that public land vested in the VPC is to be treated as
private land. The native forest which has been included in the VPC's
package of land is subject to less stringent environmental considerations
than it would under the management of the DNRE.
While guidelines for both public and private land have minimum
requirements regarding bush buffer zones and water ways, the private code
does not protect native flora and fauna as stringently as in the public
land code.
*For public land, (and it is public land), then 'regional planning is used
to determine the allocation of public land native forest to various uses,
and to determine the priority given to wood production (i.e.. intensity of
management) on any given area' (1.2).
There is no related guideline for private land.
*Under the public code timber extraction must provide protection for all
flora and fauna listed as threatened under Victoria's Flora and Fauna
Guarantee Act 1988 and meet the requirement for sustainable yield under the
Forests Act 1958.(2.1) Guidelines to protect forest values and habitat are
set to achieve this, including: leaving wildlife corridors to enhance
conservation values and biodiversity, retaining habitat trees and old -age
understorey elements 'in appropriate numbers and configurations',
protection and recruitment of old trees, the protection of old-growth
forest and reserving strategic areas from harvesting (2.3.6)
Under the private code, there are no guidelines, just a recommendation that
'protection of sites known to contain significant populations of threatened
species and other areas of conservation significance, should be
encouraged'. (3.1.2)
*Under the public code there is provision for public participation in the
process of forest planning (2.1).
This is not required in the private code.
*Under the public code it is stated that 'Native forest must not be cleared
to provide land for plantations (2.2.1)'.
Under the private section of the code, native vegetation can be cleared to
establish a plantation with a permit from the responsible authority, (i.e.
the local Shire).
*Under the public code after logging 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).
Under the private code, native forest may be replaced by plantations of
native or exotic species, with nothing more than a permit from the local
Shire.
In essence, the same Code of Practice, which has tightened regulations to
protect our native flora and fauna, has withdrawn this protection from
40,000 hectares of public land in the Strzeleckis, with a couple of
sentences. This is worrying, seeing as it is most definitely public land.
More worrying still is the fact that much of the land vested in the
Victorian Plantations Corporation is not plantation at all. Areas of old
growth, native forest, regrowth and rainforest gullies have been included
in their package. One can't help but feel cynical. On the one hand we
have the Code of Practice in place to protect native vegetation, water
quality and habitat and on the other hand re-classifying significant public
land, which should have the highest protection, as private. What happened?
In 1993 the VPC was formed. Was this all for their benefit? And who chose
this slab of Victorian public land to be handed over?
The DNRE'S tendency to set low royalty prices made little or no profit for
the government. The formation of the VPC may have been the Government's
attempt to bring a profit mentality into State Forestry and raise the value
of wood to a more realistic level, thereby boosting the viability of
plantation forestry to a level which is attractive to private operators.
The State Government created the VPC in 1993 to manage state owned
plantations. It was formed from an off-shoot of the DNRE and corporatised.
The State Government vested 50,000 hectares of Gippsland public forests in
the VPC.
Approximately, 40,000 hectares of this VPC land lies in the Strzelecki
State Forest. Of this 40,000 hectares, 13,000 hectares is pine plantation;
and the remainder is a mixture of native bush and hardwood plantation.
Included in the package is a host of road reserves, rainforest gullies,
old growth and re-growth forest.
As a Department, the DNRE has always seemed to possess a split personality
as it attempts to resolve conservation with forestry. Under these
conditions splitting the VPC from the DNRE may seem logical. The VPC tries
to make a profit out of plantation timber, while the DNRE concentrates on
conservation and land management. Yet further examination shows that the
DNRE still runs its own forestry operations as always, in State Forests it
has retained. while the VPC ended up with a substantial amount of
non-plantation land.
As a corporation, the VPC is under less public scrutiny than a regular
government department. The VPC makes its own harvest plans with no local
input. The VPC's Gippsland Manager is Ian Hemphill and their Gippsland
offices are located in Mirboo North and Yarram.
This drastic handover, carried out so swiftly, was put into place before
the new Victorian tourist authorities, catchment authorities and newly
amalgamated shires could find their feet and begin to voice their interests
in the region. Now, any plans for tourism in the Strzeleckis, any concern
over watershed management, any local planning concerns require that all
enquires be directed to the VPC.
Is the Government really set to privatise our forests? Who knows what the
plan is? We can only state what we know. The Government does plan to
privatise the VPC. The one and only asset the VPC has is its control over
this 50,000 hectares of forests. Without this forest there would be
nothing to privatise. It is the VPC land, that will attract investors not
the organisation itself. Whether this privatisation agreement involves
leases, outright ownership, or some other arrangement, control will be
given over to private industry. In its rush to privatise as much as
possible, as quickly as possible, the present State Government may have
gone just a bit too far with this one. It is not a decision which is
going to gain great popular support, especially as the area vested contains
200 square kilometres of native forests. If privatised it would become the
property of organisations whose primary directive is to log it for profit.
Many watchful eyes are turning their attention to the VPC. Any chance that
the State Government had to complete the privatisation process in relative
secrecy has vanished. Should the Victorian Plantations Corporation be
privatised, it may set a precedent, which could have serious repercussions
for all of Victoria's state forests.
The key points so far in this privatisation process have been:
- 1993 formation of VPC and the vesting of 50,000 hectares of Gippsland
forest in VPC
- The altered 1996 Forest Code of Practice redefining VPC land as 'private'
- Moves have been made to change the status of VPC land from 'vested' to
'freehold' This has not been achieved yet, but we fear that this may be the
next step, followed by a sell off of the VPC along with its land holdings.
Do we want public land to become private land?
Do we want water catchments and tourist attractions to belong to a company,
whose primary interest is logging ?
The problem with the Strzelecki State Forest becoming 'private land' is
that under the Forest Code of Practice, there are less stringent
environmental guidelines for private land than for public land. Another
major concern for Victorians must be the loss of custody of an important
State Forest.
It is permissible to clear native bush on private land in order to
establish plantations by obtaining a permit from the local Shire, whereas,
on public land this is not permissible. As VPC land is deemed 'private'
this means that areas of native bush under the management of the VPC may be
cleared for the establishment of plantations with little more than a local
permit.
On public land, the cleared forest would have to be regenerated with the
species already existing there. This stipulation is also side-stepped by
deeming VPC land 'private'. The VPC has already regenerated areas of the
Strzelecki mountain ash forests with blue gum and shining gum, which are
non-local species. The risk of hybridization between these shining gum and
mountain ash is high, and there are concerns about the threat to the
integrity of the mountain ash forests.
Conservation, experimentation and greater flexibility is more possible on
public land. Longer rotation rates for harvesting can be implemented to
cater for 'multiple use' of the forests. Water production is greatest when
the forest is old and animals require older hollowed trees for habitat(
mountain ash hollow after 120 years). In recent times the DNRE logged the
Strzeleckis at a harvest rate of 80 - 120 years. The VPC now wants to
operate this land at a harvest rate of 25 - 30 years (the profit motive
takes a high priority). This represents a dramatic increase in logging
activity.
There is concern, that regrowth, rainforest, remnant old growth and
sensitive environmental areas have been vested inappropriately in the VPC.
This is a mistake that will continue to cause problems until it is
rectified. Rather than allowing the VPC to clearfell the Strzeleckis at a
rate triple that which the DNRE harvested, this land should be returned to
the DNRE and logged at a minimum 100 year rotation rate or else put in the
care of the Catchment Authority.
One of the most thorough studies of public land in South Gippsland to date
is to be found in the Land Conservation Council publication of 1980. The
LCC was formed to provide the most detailed overview of all public land in
Victoria. It was a large undertaking carried out in a relatively short
time. The Council divided Victoria into areas, and for each area produced
a detailed book, complete with numerous folding maps. This effort
completed in 1979 still holds great weight in government decision making.
The book and maps produced for the Eastern Strzeleckis is entitled 'South
Gippsland Area District 2', providing a wealth of local information,
touching on history, geology, biology, geography, climate, hydrology etc.
with 10 separate large maps, each showing different information ranging
from fault lines to mineral deposits. It is an excellent reference as it
brought together all the fragments of existing information into one book.
However, due to the complexity of the job, many finer details became
generalised.
This becomes apparent when looking at maps which try to define the types of
forest cover. Enormous swathes of native forest along with streams and
rainforest gullies are coloured in with one vague caption, 'Mountain ash
planted'. Other large areas are also rather loosely written off as,
'Formerly cleared land which has since reverted to closed scrub -
blackwood, wattle etc'. It is mysterious why this report down played the
significance of this major forest so much. In defining most of the
Strzelecki State Forest as either replanted, scrub or plantation, the LCC
allowed the Department great leeway in its management of the area. It
reflected an attitude, that if it isn't virgin land its somehow spoiled.
Small scattered patches earned the caption, 'Mountain ash mature' or
'Mountain ash regrowth following various wildfires'. These patches were
given a '1A' score - an award for having dodged the worst calamities of the
past century. While it is useful to pin-point these areas, it also serves
to down play the value and significance of the rest. Visitors to the
Strzeleckis can plainly see 200 year old eucalypts in areas mapped as
'planted' and lush rainforests in areas marked as 'scrub'. Indeed, parts
of what are now the world renowned Tarra-Bulga National Park were marked in
1980 as either 'scrub', 'mountain ash planted' and 'private land'.
The LCC write off virtually the whole Strzelecki State Forest as 'land
exclusively for the intensive production of timber'.
At the time of the report, reserves, set aside not for timber harvesting,
amounted to a small fraction of the total area. These scattered reserves
have grown and now amount to approximately 50 square kilometres (about one
tenth of the total area): the largest being the Tarra-Bulga National Park,
the Morwell National Park and the Gunyah Reserve. Pine plantations occur
largely around the fringes of the State Forest. The LCC would only go so
far as to describe parts of the Strzelecki State Forest as 'near natural',
though 'not entirely natural'. This is truly down playing the significance
of the region.
White settlers were overawed by the old mountain ash forests and the
rainforest of the Strzeleckis. Many first-hand accounts in local history
books express sadness at the loss of the giant mountain ash. The
Government realising that valuable timber had been destroyed, and that soil
erosion, and the steepness of the hills in the Strzeleckis were not
suitable for farming, decided to buy back land. Large areas had earlier
reverted back to the Crown as selectors gave up. Of the 53,000 hectares in
the Strzelecki State Forest, about 28,000 has been bought back. Much was
left to regenerate naturally, but a lot was converted to plantation.
Since the 1930's, the State has been acquiring farmland (sold off in the
1890's) and reincorporating them into the Strzelecki State Forest. Many
people are under the impression that the entire State Forest was once
farmed. This is not the case. 16,000 hectares of the Strzelecki State
Forest has always been publicly owned Crown Land. 9,000 hectares, selected
in the 1890's, reverted back to the Crown without ever becoming freehold,
very early this century. This was usually because clearing had not been
completed or farms had been abandoned. 28,000 hectares (about 400
properties) has been bought back by the State. In essence, about one third
was never farmed and two thirds was.
The Strzelecki State Forest has become a baffling hodge podge of land
titles. Due to the fact that it is a mixture of bush, plantation and
ex-farmland 'reverted to scrub' and that a chunk of it is leased to AMCOR,
the actual amount of publicly controlled native bush is any one's guess.
The ex-farmland it seems, has rarely if ever, been classed as native
forest, regardless of its real condition. On account of this land's former
tenure, the Department excluded this land from the 'multiple use'
strategy, that traditionally dictates how a State Forest is to be
maintained.
In much of the Strzelecki State Forest, land may have been exploited for
timber, suffered numerous fires and been invaded by ferals and weeds, yet
the bush has always maintained great bio-diversity and vigour.
Regeneration has naturally occurred after bushfires and although relatively
youthful, it is still natural bush. Even on abandoned farms beneath the
European grasses, the seeds of the original bush remained, and once stock
was removed, grew back unassisted. Some of these farms were hardly clean
paddocks. Much of the wet, steep terrain was in a natural state. In fact,
parts of the Tarra-Bulga National Park, were at one time, private land.
It seems that the tenure of this land determines the way it can be treated.
While few would disagree that the Eastern Strzelecki Ranges is better
suited to growing trees than cows, the Department has merely sought to
replace one kind of farming for another. Conservation of the bush was not
a major motive when repurchasing land. But a great deal of native bush
prevails even on this purchased land. Much of it is steep and inaccessible
and the tree farmers face the same difficulties as the settlers. A great
deal, however, has undergone an intense transformation.
Pine and eucalypt plantations have been established in the Strzelecki State
Forest since the late 1940s. The fact that about half of this State Forest
was once freehold land seemed to give the State greater leeway in its plans
to establish immense tree farms. By 1979, about 4000 hectares of the
Strzelecki State Forest were State owned hardwood plantations. State owned
pine plantations amounted to 6,117 hectares. Other forested land amounted
to 38,588 hectares.
To date, the Department's zealous efforts to cover about 13,000 hectares in
Pines is possibly the most dramatic blow the native bush has suffered since
grazing. As well as using cleared land, the Department cleared native
bush to establish pine plantations. To many people, this was a bitter
disappointment. This practice of clearing native bush for the
establishment of pine plantations stopped in the mid 1980s, although the
practice of clearing native bush to establish hardwood plantations
continued until recently. Eucalypt plantations received less attention
and although significant in size cover much less area than the pines.
This intense transformation turned the Strzeleckis into a biological war
zone where native flora and fauna were seen as the enemy. The Department
used an arsenal of poisons, insecticides and herbicides which they used to
fend off all local resistance. Despite this onslaught, the Strzeleckis
have still proven a difficult place to tame. Foresters still cite major
problems of sapling damage caused by 'pests' (native animals, birds and
insects) and the encroachment of 'weeds' (the bush).
The information we have found the most difficult to access has been finding
the extent of hardwood plantations in 1997. In our enquiries we have
across alarmingly varied answers. It may be that no one really knows, or
at least wants to tell. There needs to be a re-assessment of size and
locations of genuine hardwood plantations. We estimate that there are
about 6,500 hectares. The Victorian Plantations Corporation claim about
10,000 hectares. We fear that the VPC is including thousands of hectares
of regenerated native bush. As native bush, is either not logged or is
allowed a longer harvest rate, it is important that recently logged and
regenerated areas be left alone to recuperate and not be given the 25-30
year cyclical flogging.
As to the location of hardwood plantations, most maps support the
contention that most of the plantation work occurred closer to the Morwell
Prison Farm and Won Wron Prison where the Department had access to cheap
labour. There are vast tracts of land throughout the Strzelecki State
Forest which are simply native bush.
The DNRE are currently in the process of making a new map of vegetation in
the Strzeleckis, using aerial photography as well as field trips. Once
complete this map will greatly add to our knowledge of the extent and
location of rainforest patches, old growth forest remnants and will
hopefully help sort out the plantation- regrowth argument.
Plantation hardwood is highly sought after as an environmentally friendly
product. This resource must be carefully managed to optimise profit for
the State. In order for the local community to share the benefit, small
local sawmills need to be given access to this timber. It seems, however,
that the Victorian Plantations Corporation are mainly concerned with
supplying hardwood cheaply to a select group of big businesses such as,
AMCOR and Thomas P Clarke's of Morwell.
There is a government directive from 1995, designed to be fair to private
enterprise, whereby Government agencies are required to be competitively
neutral. This means that Government agencies are not supposed to use their
governmental advantage in order to undercut what private enterprise
considers fair market price for goods or services. Government agencies are
expected to follow market prices set by the private sector and not set
prices.
The Government may not be keeping to the terms of this directive. By
setting low royalty rates they may have
1. discouraged private enterprise from entering the plantation industry,
2. flooded the market with sawn timber, thereby keeping prices low, and
3. increased the rate of logging by selling wood at a price which makes
woodchipping viable and attractive.
This practice has annoyed sawmillers and conservationists alike.
As a government corporation the VPC is in an extremely privileged position.
They have received 50,000 hectares of Gippsland on a plate, all of it
covered in trees. All they are expected to pay are the usual royalty
payments, (paid to the government for each cubic metre of timber removed
from State Crown Land). Their private competitors, on the other hand, are
expected to buy their land and establish their own plantations. Quite
understandably, the private sector wants their investment and effort to pay
off. To be fair, maybe the VPC should be buying their own land and growing
their own plantations. If this relationship is uneven, the VPC will
conflict with the private sector.
According to a Department brochure entitled, 'Strzelecki Forest Drive',
the Department until recently logged native forest in the Strzelecki State
Forest at a rate of 100 hectares per year at a harvest rate between 80 and
120 years.
It also specifies that the total available area of native forest designated
for harvesting was 9,000 hectares. This allowed a 90 year rotation rate.
That is, at a rate of 100 hectares per year, it would take 90 years to
clear all 9,000 hectares. At this rate it would never be necessary to
harvest native forest younger than 90 years old.
As for the pine and hardwood plantations, we are unsure of DNRE's planned
harvest rates.
Victorian Plantations Corporation management estimate that they control
approximately 40,000 hectares in the Strzelecki State Forest.
13.000 hectares, they calculate is pine plantation and approximately
10,000, they say, is hardwood plantation which they plan to log on a 25 -
30 year rotation rate. This means that the Victorian Plantations
Corporation have control of 17,000 hectares of land (possibly more) that is
not plantation. Should they wish to apply this high rotation rate to these
areas, they would in effect be tripling or quadrupling the rotation rate
set out by the DNRE. This would have adverse effects on the forest's
capacity for habitat and water production. Increased logging places extra
strain on local roads and culverts. Harvests are significantly devalued
due to the relatively young age of the timber.
South Gippsland stands to lose much from increased clearfelling in the
Strzeleckis. Scenic values are diminished and water quality, water
retention, soil quality, run-off, climate and wildlife habitat are
compromised. In turn, this impacts on local farming, tourism and fishing.
In 1993 the CSIRO tested some mountain ash plantations in the Strzeleckis.
Tests were conducted on some of the earliest eucalypt plantations in the
region near Morwell River. Basing their studies on conventional sawing
methods and adopting extremely high quality standards, their findings led
to a distorted image. They calculated the recovery rate for these logs to
be very low.
The recovery rate is the percentage of the saw log that finally becomes
usable timber. Needless to say that cutting straight rectangular planks
from a roughly cylindrical tree trunk results in a lot of left over wood.
The shape and quality of the tree and the milling technique used determine
the recovery rate. An average recovery rate for conventional sawmilling
for eucalypt is roughly around 40%. CSIRO calculated the recovery rate
from these timber plantations at well below this. Recent reports suggest
that Thomas P Clarke's sawmill is achieving a recovery rate above 50% from
this timber.
Nevertheless, the CSIRO report concluded that outcomes had been poor; and
that in effect the plantations had failed. The CSIRO's overall assessment
was perhaps rather too critical. Other people have described this same
timber as 'absolutely beautiful'. As a result, of the report, all ash
planting in the Strzeleckis suddenly stopped. It was decided that all
mountain ash plantations be cut down and all logged areas regenerated with
either blue gum or shining gum. This was a total over-reaction. Perhaps
mountain ash was denigrated in order to push for the establishment of blue
gum and shining gum plantations. These species mature quicker and allow
for an accelerated harvest rate. 25 years is all that is needed for one of
these trees to be ready for pulping. Now, after a few years, mountain ash
are once again being planted, along with blue gum and shining gum. There
is evidence that the VPC are regenerating areas of logged regrowth mountain
ash with blue gum and shining gum also. They need to be reminded of the
1996 directive in the Forest Code of Practice which says that after logging
in public native forest, the area must be regenerated with the original
species.
Public land is a State responsibility.
The Strzelecki State Forest, being public Crown land has been the
responsibility of the State Government until very recently.
Private land is the responsibility of Local Government.
In changing the status of VPC land from public to private, the Shires of
South Gippsland, Wellington and La Latrobe have been made responsible for
an extra 500 square kilometres of land, which they must endeavour to
regulate. Do the Shires have the resources, (money and qualified staff) to
carry this extra burden? Are local ratepayers required to fund this huge
task?
While, DNRE advises people to direct queries about the VPC's logging
activities to the relevant Shire Councils, the Department does have a role
as an overseer and referral body.
The Shire Council Planning Department is considered the responsible
planning body for the administration of permits on private land as well as
the regulation and policing of logging activities. The VPC is required to
lodge logging plans with the Shire Council annually. If this situation
continues, i.e. that land vested in the VPC is to be treated as 'private',
it will be necessary for the Shire Council and staff to formulate
prescriptions to maintain old growth stands, catchment values, ecological
values, habitat values and landscape values when it considers allocating
permits to timber harvesters in the Strzeleckis. This would complement the
efforts of many other bodies, such as Landcare and Water Watch Groups,
the West Gippsland Water Catchment Authority, the Regional Water Authority
and the Coastal Management Board, who are actively working to restore
environmental quality.
The VPC was introduced to the South Gippsland public when it opened up
logging coupes along the Toora-Gunyah Road. The corporation chose the
oldest stand of regrowth in the ranges, a section that had been classified
as being of state botanical significance. During the process of their
logging operations, the Victorian Plantations Corporation clearfelled on
steep slopes, logged and bulldozed rainforest and carried out clearing in
old growth and regrowth areas, removing 83 year old mountain ash in their
hundreds, conducted burns which had burnt rainforest. The VPC encroached
upon buffer strips and reserves. Some of the clearing is visible even
from the road. In doing all these things the VPC had clearly breached the
Code of Practice. Photos of these deeply troubling blunders are still
circulating around Gippsland and Melbourne. With such a start to public
relations, the fledgling VPC will now have to struggle to gain any
reputation as a competent and responsible organisation. The VPC's
occupation of native forest is bound to be its major PR problem for many
years to come.
Ian Hemphill, VPC Gippsland Manager claimed that the VPC were only logging
hardwood 'plantations', which had been planted in the 1960s (30 year old
eucalypts are approximately 18" in diameter). He claimed that the
operation required no special permit provided the VPC stick to the Code of
Practice and their own logging plans, that is, they remove plantation
timber only; that they leave slopes steeper than 30° alone; that they
maintain the integrity of the roads and the water ways and did not fell
restricted species. Recent photographs show all these regulations have been
breached. The Shire does not as yet have any strategy or budget
allocations in place to settle such contentious issues.
It would seem that presently, the VPC answer to the State Government only
and the State Government is allowing the VPC to regulate itself. After
viewing their self-management practices in the Gunyah region, one would
have to concede that it is highly inappropriate for the Government to
proceed with any plans for privatisation. The widespread nature of the
breaches cannot be blamed on contractors. Management has to take
responsibility for the running of the logging operations and be clear and
precise about areas to be cleared and the species which are to be harvested.
There is disagreement over what areas are regrowth and what areas are
hardwood plantation. Regenerated native bush and plantations are two
separate things. There is a pressing need to sort this issue out once and
for all.
Assisting regeneration after clearing native bush is a basic obligation the
forester has to fulfil. This is done in several ways. In a similar way to
the fisherman, who throws back the small fish, the forester when logging in
a native forest may leave a few trees standing as seed trees. These seed
trees carry the seeds of the next generation of forest. However, clear
felling is the logging technique favoured these days. This technique
removes virtually everything and scrapes the ground bare. Debris is heaped
into mounds and often burnt. It is a very lucky seed tree that can survive
all this. Yet this blitzkrieg technique actually assists regeneration also,
as it clears out competition and prepares the ground for the next
generation. Regeneration is also assisted by spreading seed or even by hand
planting of seedlings.
A plantation is a tree farm which requires a great deal more human
involvement. Plantations are sown in rows, trees are regularly thinned to
remove misshapen or weak specimens, access tracks need to be maintained,
pests controlled etc. A viable plantation requires a great investment of
time, money and effort. Plantations strive to be mono-cultures by the
systematic elimination of as many competing plants and animals as possible.
This is achieved through the use of herbicides, insecticides and poisons.
In this way the single remaining species has exclusive use of the available
water, soil and sunlight, and grows unencumbered by parasites and
predators. Multiple use is then reduced to one single use - timber. The
fastest growing species are selected to produce the biggest yields in the
shortest space of time possible. A successful plantation will yield far
more timber per hectare than regrowth.
The planting of the pines in the Strzeleckis was a determined effort to
remove native forests altogether and replace it with a single tree
species. In doing so, native flora and fauna became the enemy.
Regrowth on the other hand, allows for a whole range of plant and animal
species to co-exist, each species reserving its own share of nutrient and
sunlight and finding its own sustainable population level. This
bio-diversity means that trees share their environment with other life
forms, which is why regrowth areas yield less timber than plantations.
Assisting the native forest to regenerate is merely a moral and
professional obligation. It should not be construed, that, having fulfilled
his obligation, a forester can claim the area as his plantation. It is
relatively easy to achieve regeneration compared to the intense warfare
that needs to be waged on the land in order to establish plantations.
At first glance, regrowth and older plantation can look similar but there
are several clues to look out for. For example, A stand of plantation trees
will all be of the same age and form rows. Native bush usually grows more
randomly and trees of different ages are evident, although mountain ash can
also naturally grow in even-aged stands. The great majority of plantations
in the Strzeleckis are less than 40 years old. A 40 year old tree is about
2 foot thick. Trees thicker than 2 foot are too old to be plantation. If an
area contains trees thicker than 2 foot , it suggests that the area was not
completely cleared. As clearing is a vital part of the establishment of
plantations,it can be deduced that the area is probably regrowth - logged
maybe, burnt maybe, but not cleared. The presence of younger trees
indicates a lack of human involvement. The presence of weaker, and
misshapen trees indicates that no thinning or pruning has occurred.
A 1927 Royal Commission looking into the Strzelecki Ranges, reported that
abandoned hill country had returned to 'heavy forest growth...' ( Collett
p. 225) This is long before the silvicultural techniques had been perfected
for assisting mountain ash forest regeneration. It seems the country was
quite capable of regenerating itself, if clearing and fire and other
calamities did not strike too frequently.
In all sorts of ways we use wood and will continue to do so. Presently
about two thirds of the wood Australia uses is locally grown. Of that,
only half is plantation timber. The other half is from native bush,
usually on public land. It is generally agreed that in order to meet our
needs and ease pressure on the native bush, we must have more plantations.
But where should they go? Bush should not be cleared to make way for
plantations, but the establishment of plantations on cleared farmland needs
to be done respectfully.
It is a common perception that trees grow better in the mountains. After
all, the hills are covered in trees and the flatter land isn't. This is
not necessarily the case. All it means is that farmers prefer flatter
land. To the South Gippsland farmer, moving to lower land meant coming up
in the world. The apparent vigour of recent hardwood plantations
established in cleared paddocks in the Toora foothills reminds us that the
whole region was once forest and shows that open cleared land at lower
altitudes can be successfully converted to plantation. After all, the
'world's tallest tree' was found in the Western Strzeleckis.
The steepness of the terrain in the Eastern Strzeleckis does not make
plantation work easy and further compounds the detrimental effects of
logging.
When the department established pine plantations in the Strzeleckis, they
had to contend with a host of plants and animals that resided in
neighbouring bush. For these reasons, it is easier, cheaper and less
damaging to the environment to establish plantations on open, cleared,
fenced land, away from hungry bush creatures. The VPC are already
experiencing problems with wallabies. If the VPC wish to establish
hardwood plantations which, as they claim, could be harvested after only 30
years, then perhaps they should be establishing them on cleared land, away
from areas of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. And, to be
competitively neutral, perhaps it should expect to buy land for this
purpose, rather than be given it.
The Western Strzelecki Ranges has great potential for mixing agriculture
with tree farming, provided plantations remain scattered. If too large an
area is taken up by plantation, local communities fade away. Even the
fastest growing trees take 20 years to produce a return. To make tree
growing an attractive proposition to a farmer, the State needs to pay the
farmers an annual fee to grow trees. This would be the only way a farmer
could justify replacing valuable pasture with timber. Rather than
converting more of the Strzelecki State Forest into plantation, perhaps we
should be seeking a different approach. A scheme like this would be a
worthy undertaking for the Victorian Plantations Corporation to tackle.
There is a rather unhealthy attitude that puts forward the argument, that,
if land has been interfered with, i.e., it has been logged or farmed or
burnt , then it has somehow no longer worth protecting. The Eastern
Strzeleckis are often portrayed as having been spoiled - a conception that
downplays the land's resilience and vitality.
We have imposed myths on natural processes. Myths about unsullied,
timeless forests. The idea of a pristine forest is a European concept
transplanted to Australia which does not fit the harsh realities of the
Australian bush. This myth does not consider the catastrophic events which
shape the mountain ash forest. This is an environment adapted to the
ravages of fire. Damage and destruction is an integral part of the
life-cycle of the forest. Although human involvement in these ranges over
the last 100 years has been dramatic, the bush constantly shows its
marvellous ability to bounce back and in many cases, use catastrophic
upheaval to its advantage
The bush is a dynamic process. It shows great resilience and almost
miraculous ability to re-establish itself. Introduced ferals and weeds
change the balance of the bush, but ultimately, in order to survive, they
too must adapt and become part of the bush.
Blackberries, for example were introduced and quickly took over many South
Gippsland rainforest gullies. They survived well because land clearing had
opened gullies to sunlight, and blackberries thrive on sunlight. In areas
where cleared land has since returned to bush, blackberries have lost much
of their vigour due to the fact that the gullies are now back in perpetual
shade. Rainforest species are adapted perfectly to shade and are gradually
taking back their gullies.
It is obvious that presently the native bush of the Strzelecki State
Forest is in a recuperative phase. Some areas are in glorious condition,
others are "on the mend", much of it under a variety of stresses .
The balance of the bush can be severely thrown out by a quick succession of
disasters such as feral invasion, fires, grazing, logging and the
introduction of weeds and diseases. This has been a recurring scenario in
Australia since white settlement.
Human activity isn't intrinsically unnatural. There has been human
involvement in the Strzelecki region for a long time, but its safe to say
that more intense human involvement is confined to the last 100 odd years.
Unlike the lighter, regular burning, by which the aborigines managed the
drier forests, it seems that in the Eastern Strzeleckis burning was
confined to tracks and fringes. The Kurnai regularly used the ranges to
collect resources, such as, animals, wood, bark, lyrebird feathers,
treefern trunks for food etc. (Griffiths p. 12).
The Gunyah area is a large, cohesive section of the Strzelecki State Forest
located to the south west. It is the area we are most familiar with as it
is located near to where we live. It retains a great deal of its natural
integrity as in many ways it has suffered less harm than many other parts
of the State Forest.
The area endured more than a dozen fires, largely due to human
interference, between 1898 and the 1920s (particularly in 1906), but
escaped the worst fires of the 1930s and 1940s. As a result, the regrowth
of the Gunyah area is older and bigger than in much of the Strzeleckis and
rainforest species have had more time to establish themselves in the
understorey. Significant pockets scattered throughout the area escaped
fires completely. These can be clearly seen on LCC maps as well as on the
ground.
The area is covered with prime mountain ash forest and contains abundant
rainforest gullies. It is cool, wet and steep and much of it slopes away
to the south. It is the source of the Franklin and forms part of the
headwaters of the Agnes River, both relatively short rivers, which flow
south into the Corner Inlet Coastal Park. The Agnes supplies water to the
towns of Toora, Welshpool, and Port Welshpool.
A few villages came and went around this vicinity, in the early part of the
century, including Boolarong, Gunyah Gunyah and Ryton. Today these places
are little more than road junctions surrounded by forest. The whole area
is virtually uninhabited.
Deep in the heart of this lies the Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve which
has been a reserve since the first surveyors mapped the area. Today,
according to DNRE maps, it is 657 hectares (6.57 sq.km.). This reserve is
a place of awesome beauty, as is the whole area. In 1990 the Flora and
Fauna Survey and Management Group Rainforest Project Team deemed the Gunyah
rainforest of national significance. Only two rainforest areas in South
Gippsland are seen as being of this quality - Paradise Valley in Wilsons
Promontory National Park and Gunyah.
It's old growth relics and abundant rainforest suggests that in 'normal'
conditions, the area is not highly prone to bushfire. The fires which it
suffered in the 1890's and early part of this century, can usually be
traced back to human interference - largely the practice of 'burning off'
in high summer.
The tiny reserve offers protection to just a tiny fraction of this
significant forest. The reserve deserves to be made considerably larger
again - perhaps joined with the Agnes Catchment and Rytons to form some
5,000 to 6,000 hectares of reserve. This would serve to protect an area of
great national significance, protect the water catchment for several South
Gippsland towns and enrich this section of the Strzeleckis, most accessible
to tourists and closest to Melbourne.
Due to the fact that this part of the Strzeleckis is furthest away from the
APM mill in Maryvale and the Morwell Prison Farm (where plantation
seedlings are grown), this area has less plantations and as a result the
wildlife has been less disturbed. Lyrebirds, in particular, are plentiful.
They can be heard calling from all directions and are easily spotted. We
should not be complacent about their numbers though. When the Western
Strzeleckis were cleared and became agricultural land, settlers missed the
lyrebird which used to roam through the forests of Korumburra, Leongatha
and Dumbalk. The species retreated to the higher ranges, the last refuge
for the Strzelecki lyrebirds.
What the Victorian Plantations Corporation did to this area in 1997 needs
to be told. Acts of extreme injustice triggers something in us, moving us
out of our usual complacency and into action. When we first went to see
the logging coupes in June this year, something triggered us. All we could
see were huge stumps, smouldering piles of debris, mud, bulldozed ferns and
complete devastation. From the surrounding bush, lyrebirds called from
every direction. Our knowledge of botany and forestry was very limited.
We guessed that these huge tree stumps must have been hundreds of years old
We were mistaken. However, even to our untrained eyes, this was no
ordinary logging coupe. We turned our attention to learning more abut the
subject, studied hard, borrowed piles of books and visited the area once
more in July. After more research we returned to Gunyah in September to
view it in the light of everything we had learned. This is our report:-
September 7, 1997. A third look at the logging coupes along the
Toora-Gunyah Road.
What we found confirmed the 1984 CF&L botanical assessment of Gunyah which
dated the mountain ash regrowth to be from 1914, that is, 83 years old. We
counted rings on many of the stumps and consistently found this many rings.
These stumps were between 4 and 6 feet in diameter and showed wide spacing
of rings, attesting to their rapid growth. These trees had been removed in
their hundreds along with hundreds of blackwood of a similar age - between
2 and 3 feet in diameter. A great deal of large blackwood logs had been
piled up in several stacks and left. Many had been bulldozed into gullies.
Freshly cut myrtle beech and blackwood stumps were apparent down in
rainforest gullies. Some piles of blackwood logs had been burnt. Areas of
rainforest were burnt by fire.
Fresh seedlings of shining gum and blue gum had been planted throughout
with some mountain ash. Some had been planted in areas that were obviously
previously myrtle beech and blackwood rainforest - blackwood and myrtle
beech debris lay all around, along with flattened treeferns. Several
logged slopes were over 30°.
Along with the 83 year old regrowth, there were also hundreds of old growth
trees - some living, some dead. These had mostly been left standing, but
often left completely exposed. The extent of old growth giants still
living was a surprise. Many had formed large hollows. Some showed signs
of fire, others looked like they had escaped fire altogether.
The widespread logging coupes which had stretched far too close to gullies
made access very easy. Every gully we saw was rainforest without doubt -
rich with mosses, blackwood, myrtle beech, treeferns and a host of vines
and epiphytes and ferns - beautiful.
On the perimeter of these coupes it is often easy to see the clearfelled
slopes on the other side of the gullies. Only the thinnest strip of
rainforest has been left. Slopes heading down gullies, whether they be
rainforest or eucalypt, had been clearfelled. Some bulldozed piles of
debris showed no eucalypts whatever, only blackwood, wattle and myrtle
beech. Some slopes which had been clearfelled, but not as yet scraped
bare, showed that the whole section of hill had been rainforest - now
carrying freshly planted shining gum seedlings.
Some dead giants had been bulldozed to make way for more planting space.
One logging coupe is clearly visible from the road, possibly extending into
the roadside reserve.
On all the coupes there was evidence that older trees had been harvested.
Some stumps had reached a diameter of 6-7 feet and had hollowed, suggesting
an age in excess of 100 years (conservatively).
We are not entirely sure as yet, but to our reckoning, a section of the
Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve had been clearfelled at the first section
of Stronach Road. Further along Stronach a track had been freshly made,
veering off to the left downhill through a gully and up the next slope
(vaguely heading SW) to access giant eucalypt from inaccessible places.
This track had also been planted with non-endemic seedlings right down in
the rainforest gullies.
On several ridges, in amongst the 1914 stumps we saw many stumps of
mountain ash about 24 years old, evidence that in the mid '1970s the ridges
had been partially logged and regenerated. These stumps approximately 15
-18" in diameter, were confined to ridges and were not apparent on the
lower slopes. The recently sown seedlings have spread across possibly
twice as much area as the older regeneration.
Not only has the Victorian Plantations Corporation harvested these younger
eucalypts too early and wasted a future valuable resource, they have taken
1914 mountain ash regrowth, blackwood and myrtle beech and bulldozed areas
of rainforest and enlarged eucalypt planting sites as far as they liked.
It is interesting that the Victorian Plantations Corporation did not feel
it necessary to apply for a permit to remove this native vegetation.
Despite VPC's claims that they were harvesting plantation timber only it is
obvious that the 83 year old mountain ash, the 24 year old regenerated
native forest, the blackwood and the myrtle beech are not plantation
timber.
This 1997 logging foray has removed everything from ridges and slopes and
has bulldozed rainforest, extended hardwood planting areas down every slope
and deep into gullies. After reaping this double bonanza, the Victorian
Plantations Corporation pay the area the ultimate injustice by replanting
the area largely in non-endemic eucalypts - namely shining gum and blue
gum.
The planting of these non-local species in this significant mountain ash
forest threatens the ecology of the area. Because shining gum and mountain
are closely related, there is a real risk that they will combine and form a
hybrid species, which could replace the mountain ash entirely. This has
serious repercussions for the habitat role the mountain ash plays in the
region and its unique properties as a timber resource.
This area has now received 3 loggings in 83 years. As the preferred
rotation rate for this bush is between 80 -120 years, it must surely now,
be exempt from logging for the next 200 years.
Australia is in the process of making Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs).
Regional Forest Agreements must be drawn up with the agreement of both
Commonwealth and State Governments, following Comprehensive Regional
Assessments (CRAs), which involve community consultation. Part of this
process includes 'providing interim protection to forest areas which may be
required for a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) forest
reserve system.
In Victoria, about 14% of public land is available for timber production.
The Strzelecki State Forest is already over-utilised. AMCOR lease about
16% of the Strzelecki State Forest for timber production. State owned pine
plantations (13,000 hectares) and state owned hardwood plantations (6,500
hectares) make another 37% of the Strzelecki State Forest available for
timber production. A further 9,000 hectares of native forest was available
as a timber resource. This means that approximately 70% of the Strzelecki
State Forest has been available for timber production - a figure way above
the State average.
The Victorian Plantations Corporation have stated that approximately 24,000
hectares of land under their management is available for timber production.
Considering that the VPC intends to harvest at a rate of 25-30 years and
that they have already in some places logged native mountain ash forests
and replaced them with shining gum seedlings, there is cause for concern.
It would seem that an already over-utilised State forest is under more
stress under the management of the Victorian Plantations Corporation and
all this before the region has undergone a Comprehensive Regional
Assessment in preparation for a Regional Forest Agreement.
A Native Title Claim was lodged on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai community on
April 4 1997. The claim is for title on all the unalienated Crown Land in
an area bordered by the Tarwin River in the west to the Snowy River in the
east. Parts of the Strzelecki State Forest are sure to form part of this
claim. Until the claim is resolved, the Crown Land is supposed to remain
intact and not be dramatically altered. Vesting the bulk of the Strzelecki
State Forest in a corporation and re-defining it as 'private' land is
indeed a dramatic alteration. So too is, the clear felling of mountain ash
forest and replacement by non-native species.
The question of water quality will prove to be one of the most important
and costly problems facing the world in the next century. It will be a
vital key to the living standards and economic viability of every region.
Good quality water needs well forested catchments. It is common knowledge
that forest floors work like a giant sponge, slowing the flow of water at
times of high rainfall and thus avoiding the damage caused by floods.
Likewise the dark spongy floor stays wet throughout the hottest Summer and
continues to feed streams and rivers even through times of extended
drought. This steady flow avoids creeks becoming stagnant. The dark
canopy of the forest and spongy ground also serve as an extremely effective
water filter and purifier. The high canopy traps clouds.. In the shady
gullies underneath, water is not lost to evaporation and the drying action
of the wind is minimised. Some of the water is released back into the air
as vapour serving to keep the bush cool and attract cloud cover. The dark
canopy of the forest blocks out the sunlight which would cause bacteria to
bloom and taint the water, especially in Summer.
When a forest is removed by clear felling, huge amounts of loose mud and
soil is freed. Heavy rain carries it downstream along with the build up of
nutrients on the forest floor. This washes into estuaries where fish
breed, silting over the plants on which the young fish feed, altering the
clarity and temperature of the water and making the environment less
suitable for rearing young fish. The faster runoff also causes rivers to
gouge deeper into the ground and wash away banks, disrupt river life and
cause flooding.
The cheapest filtration system is the bush. Man made filtration and water
plants are costly to build and run. Furthermore, they are an admission of
environmental failure. Before we are forced either by necessity or
legislation to improve our water, we must preserve and enhance the bush
filter system we already have in place. The 1996 Forest Code of Practice
speaks of 'the positive improvements that flow from restoring trees to
catchments'.
The Strzelecki State Forest forms the catchment for 5 major rivers.The
Morwell River flows roughly north, passing Boolarra, Yinnar, Morwell and
meeting the Latrobe River near Yallourn. The Tarwin flows south west
winding past Mirboo, Dumbalk, Meeniyan, Tarwin Lower and flows into
Andersons Inlet. The Franklin and Agnes flow in a southerly direction
into Corner Inlet. The Albert flows south east through to Port Albert.
Then there is the Tarra River, Traralgon Creek, Jack River etc.
The Agnes River, for example, provides water for the townships of Toora,
Welshpool and Port Welshpool and along with the Franklin flows into the
Corner Inlet Coastal Reserve. As bush is by far the most effective water
purifier and regulator of stream flow, it is in the interests of the water
care bodies of South Gippsland to maintain the integrity of the bush at the
head of these rivers. Water authorities are concerned about the chronic
soil loss in the South Gippsland area for a number of reasons including
town water quality and the quality of the water flowing into the Coastal
Reserve (with its international agreements for the protection of migratory
birds). The extremely steep terrain of the upper Agnes catchment makes
run-off of particular concern.
'The Regional Catchment Strategy', from October '96 recognises the
interrelationship of trees and catchments to the economic sustainability of
fishing and farming in the South Gippsland region. The report recognises
that Corner Inlet is subject to the Ramsar Convention and two migratory
bird agreements. The report emphasises that soil erosion in South
Gippsland is a problem and states that this is 'exacerbated by land
clearing', resulting in ' loss of habitat value in wetlands and deposition
to coastal systems'. The Regional Catchment strategy has placed habitat
reduction as an issue of regional priority, along with water quality, land
degradation, pest plants and animals and salinity. South Gippsland's water
quality rated badly, scoring 'poor' on turbidity and surface salinity
indicators. Many towns' water supplies become tainted every Summer with
algal blooms far in excess of recommended safe limits.
The Melbourne Water Board as far back as 1879 moved to prohibit grazing and
logging in its water supply catchments. Logging was prohibited because
older forest are less thirsty than younger forest and will produce greater
streamflow. The Forestry Commission and the Water Board clashed over this
issue. Forestry wanted access to timber; the Water Board followed the
policy of leaving things alone. When the Maroondah, Silvan, and the Upper
Yarra catchments burnt on Black Friday, the subsequent regrowth period led
to a 25% decline in stream flow , regardless of rainfall. Ashton's study
estimated that it would take 150 years of tree growth to return stream flow
to their original pre-fire conditions. Ashton's study on the mountain ash
also led to the discovery that in a mature mountain ash forest, trees can
intercept fog and low cloud and produce water. "On the Ash Range fog drip
adds significantly (15-20%) to the total precipitation". (Griffiths p. 74)
Today, the closed catchment policy of the Melbourne Water Board has
resulted in some of the best tracts of wilderness, habitat and natural
beauty in Victoria.
The Strzelecki State Forest spreads across 3 shires. We are most familiar
with the South Gippsland Shire. About 6,000 hectares of the Strzelecki
State Forest lies in this Shire. This area is at the south-western end of
the State Forest and makes up the upper reaches of the Franklin and Agnes
catchments, to the north of Foster and Toora.
South Gippsland's economy is based on agriculture (beef and dairy
industries), fishing and tourism. As a region, South Gippsland's
contribution toward export income is already great. South Gippsland is not
in the same dilemma as East Gippsland and Tasmania. Our livelihoods do
not depend on the timber industry. It is not an issue which divides the
community. It would be distressing to see such divisions form here. To
bring the timber industry back to this region may cost the community more
than its worth through practices which may cause:
Catchment degradation
Road and culvert damage
Loss of scenic values, which is detrimental to the community and tourism
Historical remnants lost
Damage to habitat
Plunder of remnant bush in a region already heavily cleared
A worsening of the detrimental effects of both flood and drought
Problems of road usage (tourists dodging logging trucks on windy roads).
Tourism has been a growing industry in the South Gippsland area. Wilsons
Promontory National Park has always been a draw card, and in recent times
farm stays and B&Bs have burgeoned. Tourist routes lead visitors into the
Strzelecki forests behind the coastal towns of Foster and Toora, offering
the visitor a truly exhilarating experience. The lyrebird and its
incredible voice is a great tourist asset. Nearly impossible to keep in
captivity, rare and beautiful, yet in the Strzeleckis they are plentiful.
One can imagine that listening to the Strzelecki lyrebirds will one day be
as desirable to tourists as seeing the penguins, climbing the rock, hooking
a barramundi or paddling with the dolphins.
This region does more than its fair share to earn Australia export dollars
by way of beef and dairy products. On a local level also, we greatly
depend on these industries.
The most popular leisure activity, fishing, is a huge (but often forgotten)
drawcard for the region. Every weekend of the year, the population swells
largely due to amateur fishermen from around Gippsland and Melbourne,
attracted to these waters. There is also a professional fleet which fishes
Bass Strait and Corner Inlet. Fish stocks depend on the quality of the
estuaries. Estuary quality depends on the quality of the catchments.
Water quality has become a big and expensive issue in South Gippsland. This
issue is taken very seriously by South Gippslanders from all walks of life
and it is generally acknowledged that our catchments and streams need to be
improved.
After decades of neglect, the Government is now coming to the party and a
great deal of money is being spent to install new filtration and
purification systems for many South Gippsland towns. This is an expensive
business. It has recently been reported that about $25 million will soon
be spent on water treatment plants and waste water treatment in the region.
This type of expenditure indicates the extent of environmental failure
throughout the region.
An interesting recent phenomena has been the spiralling interest in
Landcare and Watercare. Unlike many conservation movements, these
movements have served to unite the community rather than divide it. Their
practical schemes to revegetate streams and fence waterways and plant trees
makes great sense to everyone and Landcare and Watercare working bees
attract locals in their hundreds. Landcare groups are sprouting up
everywhere and membership has exceeded the National Party's total
membership for the area (and this is a prime National Party stronghold).
This goes to indicate the level of concern locals have for their
environment and a recognition of the need to improve it. The drought of
the past year has also worried farmers. A hundred years of government
neglect and conflicting advice has left locals with a fair degree of
scepticism towards politics. The apparent success of the Landcare movement
is surely due to the fact that it cuts across political barriers and
provides practical environmental improvements. The strength and clout of
the Landcare and Watercare movements will continue to grow.
The 1987 Planning and Environment Act requires that environmental concerns
be linked with planning schemes on a state and local level. Recent local
input into a South Gippsland Shire planning strategy draft meeting,
resulted in a general consensus that the natural environment be protected
as a priority over and above any economic considerations.(Mirror, 15/7/97)
This year the Shire Council expressed interest in upgrading the Gunyah
Gunyah Rainforest Reserve and the Turtons Creek reserve into a State Park.
Like many rural areas, the South Gippsland Shire has suffered severe cuts
and is still coming to grips with its new shire boundaries and return to
elected local government. In South Gippsland, 4 shires were amalgamated.
The new South Gippsland shire stretches for 100 kilometres along the South
Gippsland highway. The proportion of shire staff per head of population is
greatly reduced; parts of the shire are up to 2 hours drive from the main
Office. We are presently faced with a huge superannuation bill. due to
massive retrenchment. It is fair to say that the Shire may be strapped
for cash for quite a while.
Farmer's pleas concerning the drought this year, for a while was met
with disbelief. South Gippsland farms run a large number of livestock per
hectare, far in excess of most of Australia. This can only be done when
the weather co-operates. This year, a lack of rain has meant that the
pastures although green have only managed to grow very slowly. It took
four months of pressure before the Government agreed that they indeed were
in a state of crisis.
South Gippsland's landscape and climate has already been drastically
altered by extensive clearing and agriculture, fires and logging. The
chunk of State Forest we have left is our best insurance against further
loss of rainfall and water quality. The impact of this dry Summer and
Autumn has proved that even green South Gippsland has cause to worry about
rainfall. The water from the Strzelecki State Forest is vital to us. By
taking this asset out of public custody and trusting it to a plantation
corporation (which intends to harvest trees at a 25 - 30 year rate ) the
State Government has thrown our water source into jeopardy. Water
authorities, Landcare groups and the community have been working together
on fencing and revegetation projects downstream. If the upper catchment
areas are compromised, the hard work being done downstream will be undone.
While the Shire has a role in granting permits for and policing practices
of plantation harvesting and regeneration on private land, it may like to
consider the value of these bushland areas within its boundaries on another
level. These cool temperate rainforest and mountain ash forests, alive
with potoroos, possums, wallabies and lyrebirds are only two or three hours
from Melbourne. Clear felling near the Gunyah Gunyah Rainforest Reserve
may compromise its health and its beauty. Perhaps it would be more
desirable, to allow this area to become old growth forest again, and work
to maintain water quality, habitat, and scenic values.
Despite all the traumas the Strzelecki State Forest has suffered, the fact
that it has escaped serious fire since the 20's has meant that it has some
of the oldest regrowth mountain ash in the State. Mature mountain ash
forests, at this point in time, are a rarity. In 10 or 20 years or so, the
great ash forests of the Dividing Range will once again be mature. In the
meantime, the timber industry is eying-off the Strzeleckis. This little
island in a sea of agriculture has been stressed way beyond its limits for
100 years now. It deserves a lighter touch.
However, the Victorian Plantations Corporation plan to go in hard: treble
the harvest rate and establish Port Welshpool as a woodchip export base.
Some may see this as job opportunities, but to others this is an extremely
worrying turn of events.
A 25 - 30 year harvest rate may be the only way a farmer can benefit from
establishing his or her own farm plantation in their own life time. But
State Crown Land need not work on such short term economic plans. The
upkeep of these forests have been funded by generations of Victorians for
our benefit. The life of a mountain ash is up to 400 years, A State
Forest is a long term public asset. The only way to ensure that the
Strzelecki State Forest is not being unduly stressed for short term gain is
to raise its harvest rate back to at least 100 years for native bush and a
more sensible harvest rate for plantation hardwood. There are several
advantages to this. A 100 year old mountain ash is valuable prime timber
suitable for more than just a few planks and a lot of woodchips. An older
forest uses less water and allows for greater stream flow. Longer periods
of non-disturbance is better for water quality, discourages weeds, and
pests and trampling and is a more stable environment for the host of plant
and animal life which establish themselves under the eucalypt canopy.
Perhaps we will be able to balance our timber needs with habitat
considerations. This may require allowing longer rotation rates and
protecting more areas from logging activities. All these needs are better
met when the land remains in the public realm.
The World Wildlife Fund changed Victoria's rating on environmental
performance from a C in 1995 to a D in 1996. Dr David Butcher said that in
1993 all governments agreed to protect a comprehensive range of reserves,
representing a wide diversity of ecosystems." In 1993 Victoria was poised
to easily achieve the target, but in the past four years very little has
been achieved and things are actually going backwards". He also said that
'Victoria had failed Aboriginal people in management, had created no new
parks in 1996, had failed to develop management plans for many areas, and
still allowed mining and logging to destroy valuable fragments of
habitat....'
* Changing the status of the Strzelecki State Forest to 'private' land
removes the State's obligation to fully protect native vegetation,
rainforest and fauna.
* It is unlikely that Victorians are in favour of having a great deal of
publicly owned native forest removed from public custody and handed over to
a profit driven plantation corporation.
* The Victorian Plantations Corporation cannot be relied upon to regulate
themselves in a responsible manner.
* The original bush of the Strzelecki Ranges has been severely diminished.
There is an obligation to preserve the bit we have left.
* The local communities of South Gippsland see their economic well being in
terms of agriculture, fishing and tourism. The Strzelecki State Forest
makes an essential contribution to all these industries. If its integrity
is compromised it will be to the detriment of these industries.
* The State Government has changed the status of the Strzelecki State
Forest before the region has undergone a Comprehensive Regional Assessment
in preparation for a Regional Forest Agreement and before Native Title
claims have been settled.
* The State Government has vested this land in the Victorian Plantations
Corporation before the new local Councils could formulate a Planning
Scheme, which will seek to balance tourism, industry, and agriculture with
ecological concerns. The Shire Council's moves to upgrade the Gunyah
Gunyah Rainforest Reserve to a state or national park may have implications
for the Victorian Plantations Corporation's activities. Tourists and
logging trucks don't mix well on narrow, windy roads.
* Perhaps the Government has made a error when colouring in the map?
The Pines, maybe, the hardwood plantations perhaps, but why the native
forest in the Strzeleckis? Perhaps the State Government, the VPC and the
DNRE have begun to ask themselves this same question. When the State
Government first envisaged the VPC, it surely must have imagined nice, big
areas of plantation timber, which could be easily accessed and transported
with distinct and uncomplicated boundaries, located as far as possible
from tourist areas, reserves, rainforest, national parks, water catchments
and any other areas of possible conflict. Instead, the VPC got the
'Heartbreak Hills' - rugged terrain, bleak weather, bad roads, a jig-saw
puzzle of tiny reserves and no-go areas, the Tarra-Bulga National Park and
the Gunyah Rainforest Reserve next door, roadside reserves, recreation
reserves, a myriad of other smaller rainforest gullies, patches of old
growth, re-growth, patches, which have rarely even been seen, let alone
studied by botanists, water catchment areas for nearby towns, which are
already suffering from sub-standard water quality, places of rich wildlife
habitat, and what's more, 150,000 tourists per year to contend with.
Bad decisions result from misunderstanding, lack of information and undue
haste. Bad decisions cause conflict. Conflicts waste time and tend to
worsen with time. We believe that in this instance, bad decisions have
indeed been made and conflict is sure to follow. We feel that less haste,
greater understanding and more information would be more beneficial for
everyone concerned at this point in time. It would no doubt result in
better decisions being made and a great many problems and conflicts
avoided.
The Strzeleckis and the people who have lived in this area have suffered
the consequences of one hundred years of bad decisions. One of the first
bad decisions being to sell the Eastern Strzeleckis off as farms. Another
of the bad decisions, was the 'department's' push to plant 130 square
kilometres of the Strzelecki State Forest out to pine trees, reducing the
region's scenic values and habitat capacity yet again. This new move to
privatise the State Forest is destined to be the next very bad decision.
The Victorian Plantations Corporation's mismanagement of native forest in
the Strzeleckis does not inspire confidence in their stewardship of our
forests.
Therefore,
* Public land should remain public land
* VPC activities in the Strzelecki State Forest and further plans to
privatise the Victorian Plantations Corporation should be frozen until all
areas in question are inspected and assessed in order to separate the
regrowth and old growth areas, reserves, areas of historical and tourist
value from the areas zoned as 'plantation'
* The Government remove all non-plantation land from the VPC's jurisdiction
and return them to the management of DNRE. In areas of native forest
designated for logging, the rotation rates should be at least 100 years to
allow the department to fulfil its commitment to preserving habitat for
flora and fauna.
* All non-local species, such as blue gum and shining gum planted by the
Victorian Plantations Corporation should be removed and replaced by
mountain ash.
* more areas should be reserved and given the appropriate degree of
protection so that significant areas will not fall prey to greedy people.
* If the VPC and DNRE have difficulty leaving forests alone long enough to
mature, the Government may consider the advantages of vesting high priority
Strzelecki water catchment areas under the auspices of the West Gippsland
Water Catchment Authority and the relevant regional water authorities, in
order to allow mountain ash forests to age sufficiently. Water catchment
authorities could then pursue a no logging policy and eventually allow the
forest to become old again.
And if worse comes to worse and the State Government does not remove the
controversial and environmentally sensitive areas from the VPC's
management, and the status of the land is to be 'private'...
* then the State Government must at least, prescribe more stringent rules
to protect the native forest on what 'was' public land. This was land that
has been perceived by the community as fulfilling multiple use functions
under the DNRE, including landscape values, habitat, water production and
recreation. These prescriptions must include a blanket ban on the
logging of rainforest; enlarging buffer areas around waterways and the
gullies; restricting the times logging trucks may enter the area (roads are
very narrow and are popular tourist routes); setting aside no-go areas;
prohibiting the clearing of native vegetation for the establishment of
plantations; strictly limiting the intensity of timber harvesting in town
water supply catchments to ensure that water quality and yield are
maintained. All these regulations must be in place before the State
Government changes the status of the land further.
* the Shire must be prepared to become the custodian of our native
vegetation which will be under the auspices of the VPC and treated as
'private'. The Shire must have controls in place to protect the important
mountain ash forests and cool temperate rainforests and not allow them to
be degraded or compromised. It must understand the importance of older
forest for water catchment values, demand long rotation rates and ensure
that public access is maintained.
Bowler, Jim (1993) From Sand Dunes to Tall Timber
South Gippsland Conservtion Society, Vic.
CF&L (1984) Sites of Botanical Significance in Central Victoria
CF&L (1987) Definition of Rainforest in Victorian Rainforest - An Overview
CF&L Tarra-Bulga National Park
DC&E Welcome to the Strzelecki Forest Drive
DC&E (1995) Native Forests & Woodchipping A Victorian Perspective
DC&E See How they Grow
DCNR (1989) Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production
DCNR East Gippsland Forest Management Plan
DCNR Rainforest Definition and Protection in the East Gippsland Forest Management Area
DNRE (1996) Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production
DNRE (1996) The Forests Service (brochure)
DNRE Central Highlands Comprehensive Regional Assessment
Flora & Fauna Survey & Management Group Sites of Botanical Significance for Rainforest
in South Gippsland, March 1990
Forests Commission of Victoria (1979) WS Noble. The Strzeleckis: A New Future for the Heartbreak Hills
Griffiths, Tom (1972) Secrets of the Forest: Discovering History in Melbourne's Ash Range. Allen & Unwin, NSW
Land Conservation Council South Gippsland Area District 2 1980
Land Conservation Council Proposed Recommendations SG Area District 2 June 1982
Morcombe (1974) Mammals of Australia Golden Press, NSW
Race, Digby (1993) Agroforestry Agmedia, Vic.
Reichl, Phyllis Mountain Forests of Gippsland Thomas Nelson, Vic.
Victorian Government Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corp. Mag. Yarmbler May 1997
Regional Catchment Strategy Oct. 1996
SG Shire Council 1997 SG Municipal Strategic Statement Draft
Local History
Ashenden, Arthur (1985) A History of Dollar 1885-1985 SG Publishing Co.
Collett, Barry (1994) Wednesdays Closest to the Full Moon. Melbourne University Press, Vic.
Cox, George Notes on Gippsland History, Vol1,2 Shire of Alberton & Yarram District Historical Society
Fitzgerald, Bryan (1982) A Tale from Tipperary to Gunyah Gunyah
Fletcher, M (1986) Gippsland Heritage Journal Vol. 1 No. 1 E-Gee Printers
Johnston, Chris (1991) Latrobe Valley Heritage Study LV Printers, Vic.
Kennedy, Trevor (1992) Water from the Billy- Binginwarri 1882-1988
Kerr, Phyllis (1981) Agnes Who? SG Shire Historical Society
Littlejohn, EJ (1978) Seventy Years Around Ryton in the Strzelecki Ranges. Enterprise Press
Lonsdale, Alf (1982) Mount 'A" (Mount Best 1892-1982) James Yeates Printing
Malone, HJ (1984) Buffalo 1894-1983
Vale, J & Everitt, N (1979) With Mud on their Boots SG Publishing Co.
Wells, John (1986) Gippsland: People, Place & Their Past Landmark Press,Vic.
York, AA (1985) Journey to the 80's in Gippsland Drouin Commercial Printers
Land of the Lyre Bird Shire of Korumburra, Vic.
Articles:
State Park for Turtons Creek - Gunyah? Foster Mirror, July 30 1997
Native Title only for undeveloped Crown Land Foster Mirror Aug 20 1997
The Future's in Timber, but we need a port Leongatha Star, Aug 26 1997
Victoria Rated last for saving Wildlife Age July 18 1997
Chipping away at our profits (Letter) Age June 26 1997
Logging Action Unpopoular Foster Mirror July 23 1997
$200,000 works on the Franklin Star July 15 1997
Residents have their say on planning report Star July 15 1997