This article relates to the ongoing debate on Australian Rural & Regional News: Open for Debate – Bushfires, Logging, Burns & Forest Management

Gavin Butcher

When the WA Premier announced it was changing direction in the management of native forests to one guided by improving forest health and climate resilience he was on a potential winner. The government had followed the lead of former WA Greens leader Chrissy Sharp who had become a champion of thinning the forest in the face of a drying climate (much to the disgust of diehard puritans in the environmental movement).

Here was a unique opportunity to end the forest wars and set up a sustainable future for all. Alas the government has fluffed it. Not only are many environmentalists opposing 8,000 hectares of forest thinning every year as foreshadowed in the draft new Forest Management Plan (FMP), but the chance of reshaping the timber industry around regrowth timber is rapidly slipping away. In a perverse twist the benefits of ecological thinning will only be achieved if the felled trees are used.

Ecological thinning is a rebadging of a standard forestry concept that has a good news story for everyone. Unfortunately, the government has kicked an own goal when it insisted on grandstanding with slogans like “ending forest logging” and “the future FMP will work on areas and not volume”. These catch phrases are clearly untrue, damaging the development of the final plan, and display a lack of interest in addressing the commercial needs for industry to succeed.

For the environmentalists, ecological thinning is just logging in another guise. For industry, having no indication about future wood supply blocks investment. For the government to achieve its signature transformation of forestry the wood cut down in thinning the forests must be used; without markets, its claimed benefits cannot be achieved.

Where are we now, 18 months after the government’s announcement and more than two years after ecological thinning trials started? Where are the reports to demonstrate how these trials are progressing on achieving the desired outcomes? To date no information has been published by the government. The draft FMP contained no detail. We have a “fact sheet” from the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) which contains no facts just a list of principles and ambitious statements, and the Forest Products Commission (FPC) has produced nothing. A recent information session for industry was cancelled. To date no one knows what prescriptions will apply, the cost, the quality and quantity of timber to be produced. When Minister Jarvis addressed parliament, she delivered the same platitudes.

Ecological thinning isn’t cheap. If the government wants to proceed, many millions of dollars are needed to make it happen. Some of this cost is defrayed if the wood is used. The government’s credibility will only be clear when it delivers the next budget.

The easiest options for using this thinning wood are to burn it as firewood or charcoal or export it as biomass. These require little effort and doing only this will be a sign the government is not serious. Perhaps 10 to 20 per cent of the wood could be used for much higher value. If the government wants to see a transformation in the WA hardwood timber industry, it must promote and celebrate the value of our native timbers, which in turn will attract investment.

Regrowth timbers are ideal for new engineered timber products. Wesbeam has been using karri regrowth logs for nearly 10 years to make engineered laminated veneer lumber. However, continued investment by firms like Wesbeam requires certainty in wood supply. Imagine BHP being permitted to mine but not being told how much it remove and for how long? Do you think it would invest?

The government is willing to commit to thinning up to 8,000 hectares of forest every year, but not willing to say there will be up to 600,000 tonnes of wood produced by that thinning.

So, despite the Premier proclaiming an “end to logging”, if the government’s new approach to forestry is to be successful it will need to use the wood from ecological thinning … just so long as we don’t call it “logging”!

What is the government proposing?

The draft FMP indicates that up to 8,000 hectares of western regrowth forest are to be thinned each year to promote the health of the forest and its resilience to climate change. Once thinned the areas are to be transferred into the parks and reserves system.

Even-aged regrowth and mine site rehabilitation are to be targeted for thinning. Wood from the thinned areas can be made available to the timber industry.

Do the claims stack up?

Is the forest at risk from climate change?

The southwest region has experienced a significant fall in rainfall over the past 50 years. This has had surprisingly little effect on much of the forest ecosystem to date. The Conservation and Parks Commission’s 2021 forest audit indicates major impacts are being experienced in the driest and hottest forests to the north and east; elsewhere they reported no detectable change. The areas targeted for ecological thinning are not where the damage is being seen.

Will the thinning improve forest and ecosystem health and water availability?

Thinning is a standard forestry practice that has been rebadged for this FMP. Reducing the number of trees reduces the competition for water increasing the rate of growth and improving the remaining trees’ vigour. If the thinning removes enough trees (60 per cent) the effect will last for up to 30 years before needing to be repeated to maintain the benefit. Putting these areas into parks after just one thinning will see benefits quickly lost.

Will it produce more water for public supply?

Thinning small areas of forest has no benefit, large areas of forest must be thinned at a sufficient (and rethinned every 20 or so years) intensity to have any long-term benefit for water supply. This also helps the ecosystems in and around the forest streams which have dried significantly.

Will it reduce fire hazards and improve protection?

Thinning the forest alone will not reduce the fire risk. Thinning dumps 100 tonnes or so of wood and litter on the ground. Unless this is removed fire risk will increase.

Will it result in an improved carbon storage?

Emissions under this proposal will increase unless the wood is used for timber products.  If wood is used in timber products or substitutes for non-renewal products in generating energy, forest growth plus the storage as wood and displacement will make a positive contribution. If left on the ground decades will pass before the forest recovers that carbon.

Will it improve habitat?

Yes the remaining trees will grow faster, reach maturity more quickly and eventually grow nesting hollows.  Unfortunately these benefit lies in the very distant future and don’t help conservation today.

Gavin Butcher is a former director of the WA Forest Products Commission.

Related stories: Science debunks McGowan’s forestry populism: Gavin Butcher; Determining the WA timber yield: Jack Bradshaw.