The NSW Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has delivered a flawed Preliminary Report into NSW red gum forests. It is now urgent that the community respond with submissions calling for Jointly Managed National Parks and an end to logging. Click the heading above to make a submission from our website today
The NSW Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has delivered a flawed
Preliminary Report into NSW red gum forests. The Commission will now
proceed with making final recommendations on the future of the forests
after receiving submissions from the public. It is critical they
receive submissions from the community in support of Jointly Managed
Red Gum National Parks.
What you can do:
1. Make a submission in two minutes - click here to a make a submission online
2. Ask a friend to make a submission -
click here to email a link or share this page on your favourite social networking site
2. Read our critique of the report below and write your own more detailed submission and email it to [email protected]
4. Read it yourself - click here to download the Preliminary Report from the NRC website
Our critique of the Riverina Bioregional Forest Assessment of River Red Gums and Woodland Forests Preliminary Report
1. Positive Findings
- The true number of jobs in the logging industry has finally been revealed as much smaller than previously claimed – only 157 full-time jobs reported after surveying the majority of timber businesses (including jobs on private land and in Victoria).
- The scale of the threat posed by river regulation and climate change has been reiterated – in areas such as Koondrook and Werai State Forests, close to 90% of trees are stressed or dying and vast areas of River Red Gum are predicted to die.
- A rigorous attempt has been made to quantify future water availability scenarios and the impacts of those on Red Gum health.
- The water-related decline in the timber industry has been exposed – even if no National Parks were created, the volume of timber available will be dramatically reduced as tree growth has plummetted due to water stress.
2. Key criticisms of the Report
- It does not apply or mention the precautionary principle and doesn’t canvas the outstanding and well-recognised conservation benefits of National Parks.
- The assessment is markedly inadequate as far as forest ecology and systematic conservation planning is concerned. In our view, it does not constitute a Forest Assessment.
- With regard to forestry matters it is an unbalanced report with an apparent pro-logging slant.
- It does not provide any scientific assessment of the impacts of logging and other activities on forest ecology and does not refer to relevant literature.
- It does not review the national reserve criteria and how they will be met or provide a basis for any form of systematic conservation planning.
- It does not properly address 99.9% of biodiversity in the forests, restricting itself to a handful of threatened species, without considering biodiversity surrogates or regionally significant species.
- It overlooks the relevant policies on Climate Change and Biodiversity Adaptation, and selectively quotes the CSIRO (2008) report so as to avoid the key finding – that large protected areas are vital to the survival of species in a warming world.
- It does not identify refugia, corridors and linking habitats in the region.
- It fails to address the Federal EPBC Act 1999 in any substantive manner, or to indicate how the legal requirements of that Act will be met.
- It does not provide an assessment of the adequacy of environmental prescriptions on logging and fails to make any comparison with prescriptions applied in other regions.
- It makes no attempt to quantify the economic benefits from National Parks.