Monthly Archives: December 2018

Australians don’t want native forests logged

A survey carried out by University of Canberra and commissioned by Forests and Wood Products Australia found a clear majority of Australians consider logging of native forests to be unacceptable.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Even in regional and rural areas, 65 per cent of people surveyed opposed native forest logging. The number was 70 per cent in urban areas.

The greatest opposition was in South East Queensland where 79 per cent opposed and only 8 per cent supported native forestry. That has potential political implications with support for the Greens growing in SEQ. In 1999, ARCS together with Queensland Conservation Council and The Wilderness Society reached an historic agreement with the timber industry and the Queensland Government, the SEQ Forests Agreement, to phase out native forest logging by 2024. Sadly, and irresponsibly, the Liberal National Party government under Campbell Newman scrapped the Agreement soon after they were elected in 2012. To date, the current Labor government has not restored the Agreement.

The following table provides the results by state.

State Unacceptable
%
Neither acceptable
nor unacceptable
%
Acceptable
%
Don’t know
%
NSW 65 11 18 7
VIC 64 11 17 8
QLD 68 10 15 7
SA 70 10 10 11
WA 64 10 18 8
TAS 61 10 21 8
NT 58 11 16 14

The findings indicated that timber production from native forests is seen as an extractive industry akin to mining. In our view, that is a correct impression and native forest logging should never be seen as sustainable. Logged eucalypt forests never recover their wildlife habitat values. It would take well over a hundred years and they are logged on a cycle of a few decades.

The survey included more than 11,500 rural and regional respondents. The report was leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald in November but will be formally released following peer review.

NSW has entrenched continued native forest logging

In November, the New South Wales and Federal governments renewed the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) for the Eden, North East and Soutern NSW regions extending them to 2039.

The Eden RFA was not due to expire until August 2019, North East in March 2020 and Southern in April 2021. Renewing them all in November 2018 is no doubt because of the upcoming NSW and Federal elections, both of which will occur before August 2019.

Renewal of the RFAs is a disaster for NSW forests. We covered the issues in a blog published in March 2018.

In addition to renewing the RFAs, the NSW government has approved the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals. These logging rules have been highly contentious and will further add to the impact of the RFA renewals. We covered the IFOA issues in a blog published in June 2018. Our submission to the NSW EPA can be found at https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/native-forestry/forestry-regulatory-reforms/coastal-ifoa-remake. The link will take you to the IFOA Remake site. Click on ‘List of submissions’ to see the full list. The ARCS submission is at the top of the list as ‘Aila Keto’. You may also be interested in the submission from the Community Advisory Committee for Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area.

Keith Scott

Leave a comment

Filed under Forests

ARCS dismayed at COP24 outcomes

VirginiaYoungThe Australian Rainforest Conservation Society (ARCS) has expressed its dismay over the outcomes of the UN climate conference COP24. Speaking during her return from Katowice in Poland, Director of ARCS Climate and Forests Programme, Virginia Young, expressed shock and disappointment at  the retreat from ambition represented in the COP24 outcomes.

The UN-commissioned IPCC Special Report released in October warned that keeping the Earth’s temperature rise to 1.5C would need “unprecedented changes” in every aspect of society. COP24 has failed dismally to respond to that call.

The most shocking examples of this retreat are the limiting of the scope of Nationally Determined Contributions to just mitigation, in clear violation of the requirements found in Articles 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Paris Agreement; the systematic purging of all references to human rights and ecosystem integrity in APA3 and APA5 texts; and a Paris Rulebook held hostage to the use of highly questionable Kyoto CDM carbon credits and weak accounting rules.

The decision fails absolutely to reflect the desire of the overwhelming majority of countries for comprehensive and balanced outcome reflecting all elements of the Paris Agreement.  They fail to address the mandate given in APA Article 3.  A comprehensive and balanced outcome should include cross-cutting principles on rights; a central place for equity, that acknowledges differing country capacity and responsibility, including with respect to the Global Stocktake; and a differentiated Transparency Framework.

It is also highly problematic that progress on developing market- and non-market-based responses to combatting climate change, as contained in Article 6, have been left hanging, for determination at another COP.  We are deeply concerned that Brazil is refusing to show ambition, and preventing the adoption of mechanisms in both 6.2 and 6.4 that would deal with problems of environmental integrity and double-counting.  Finally, while a grievance mechanism is established under article 6.4, the deletion of references to human rights under article 6.2 suggests that further environmental, social and governance safeguards still need to be addressed in any future work plan.

Civil society had hoped that in these respects pertaining to NDCs and Transparency, as well as in advancing ambition consistent with the findings of the IPCC Special Report on the 1.5 Degree goal, the development of a Paris Rulebook would strengthen, rather than weaken, the Paris Agreement.  Instead, we are dismayed by documents that are not only unbalanced with respect to outcomes, but that also downgrade the importance of Paris Agreement preambular elements, weaken the commitment to environmental integrity and the prevention of double-counting, and fail to safeguard ecosystem integrity, food security and respect for human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples.

After three years of negotiations, it is unconscionable that Parties are considering the adoption of such a weak, unbalanced, and loophole-riddled outcome.  We all can, and must, do better.

Virginia Young 0417 223 280

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Biodiversity, Climate change, Forests, Government Policy