Mark Burgman Report
In September 1995 a report titled Rainforest in Victoria: A Review of the Scientific Basis of Current and Proposed Protection Measures provided recommendations on rainforest sites of significance.
The following extracts are from chapter 10.
CNR Proposed Sites of Significance and other protection
measures
10 RAINFOREST PROTECTION
10.1 Proposed Sites of Significance
Government policy recommends the identification of proposed
Sites of Significance for rainforest and the preparation of specific management
procedures for their protection (CFL 1987). Guidelines and protocols for
the identification of proposed Sites Significance for rainforest were
developed during the 1980's by staff in CFL and DCE (Cameron 1982, 1987,
1990). The criteria for assessing biological significance of a site include:
· ecological integrity and viability;
· richness and diversity;
· rarity;
· representation of type; and
· scientific and educational value. '
Parkes (1990) provided detailed explanations of these criteria, and recommended protocols for assessing these values. The aim of the recommended assessment procedures was to recognise and protect important conservation values. The end product of the procedure was intended to be Sites delineated on maps, together with a description of the values that contribute to their status. It was recognised that the Sites would necessarily include a minimum or core area containing the attributes of highest conservation value, and a management area surrounding the core area, for which 'sympathetic' management was recommended (Parkes 1990). The approach recommended drawing boundaries based on current understanding of the ecological requirements of species or communities, so that the Sites enclosed 'rational environmental units' (Parkes 1990).
To manage proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest within the framework of general resource management in State Forests, it was necessary to assess and delineate Sites, to determine a general rating for each Site, and lastly to specify appropriate management prescriptions. Sites were assigned to one of four classes, namely Sites of National, State, Regional and Local significance. Parkes (1990) made the important point that the subjective nature of significance, the complexity of biological attributes, and the variable adequacy of relevant information are such that levels of significance could not be determined using explicit, quantitative procedures ('rigid rules and empirical formulae', p. 10). In the absence of any reasonable alternative, the scheme outlined by Parkes (1990) is the best available procedure to summarise conservation value, to identify areas of highest conservation value, and to provide a means by which resources devoted to conservation may be targeted.
The draft report by CFL (1993)
outlined prescriptions for timber harvesting and related activities within
proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest. It was intended that these
proposed prescriptions be applied to Sites of Significance for rainforest
within Forest Management Areas. The report argued that the best means
of ensuring adequate protection for proposed Sites of Significance for
rainforest was to exclude harvesting and related activities from the catchment
or sub(c)catchment units which comprise the Sites. An alternative approach
providing a system of classification of risks from different threats was
also discussed. The report suggested two main prescriptions for harvesting
within proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest. The first was that
priority for coupe approval within a Site be based on the likely impacts
related to the location of the coupe with respect to the core rainforest
area. The second was that consideration should be given to the location
of the coupe with respect to past disturbance, in an effort to consolidate
areas of disturbance, and consequently, to consolidate areas with old(c)growth
characteristics. Both these recommendations are reasonable, and make sensible
use of planning procedures without necessarily 'making substantial demands
on other values. The report went further to suggest that protection measures
should be allocated taking into account the conservation rating of the
Site and the site(c)specific risk posed by the disturbance, and that the
nature of prior disturbance should be taken into account in planning coupe
placement and priorities. The principle of the development of priorities
outlined in the draft report by CFL (1993) guided the development of the
concept of core areas within Sites of Significance for rainforest. Core
areas were the focus of rainforest conservation planning within each Site
in the East Gippsland Forest Management Area Plan (CNR, 1994).
10.3 Planning procedures for rainforest protection
The LCC, in its final recommendations for East Gippsland, indicated it would be carrying out an investigation of rainforests in Victoria with a view to making recommendations on the range of uses for rainforest and the way in which rainforest in Victoria could be protected through reservation (LCC, 1988, p. 59). This review 'has not been carried out. However, subsequent to the East Gippsland Review, a detailed floristic study was carried out as part of the National Rainforest Conservation Program. This study provided information about the extent of rainforest communities in the State, the distribution of rainforest species, and the significance of particular stands. This has provided important input to subsequent LCC studies, such as the recent Melbourne 2 study (LCC 1994).
If planning for rainforest protection, as exemplified by CNR (1994), is to be effective in all Forest Management Areas, then judgments concerning the relative value of rainforest conservation and timber resources will have to be made. If values for rainforest protection are deemed to be higher, resulting in the removal of an area from harvesting, then the sustainable yield for the Area must decline at the next revision of the Forest Management Area plan. The 'Department is required to review sustainable yield estimates every five years. However, in the interim, the Department should anticipate changes to sustainable yield contingent on areas being removed from harvesting, as soon as this information becomes available.
Recommendation
· Revise sustainable yield estimates at the next revision of the Forest Management Area plan. The Department should anticipate changes to sustainable yield contingent on areas being removed from harvesting, as soon as this information becomes available.
As noted above, interim measures for rainforest protection are required before Forest Management Area plans are complete. Interim measures including 40m buffers and the exclusion of operations from proposed Sites of National Significance are already in place, but additional measures including interim protection for core areas within Sites of Regional and State Significance are required. The Forest Management Area planning process should develop prescriptions for protection, scaled on the conservation significance of both ecological areas and individual rainforest stands. In the absence of more detailed information, it has not been possible to review critically the conservation status of proposed Sites of Significance. Assuming that Sites of National Significance for rainforest harbour nationally significant rainforest values that are sensitive to planned human disturbance, the only way to protect these rainforest values over long time periods (of the order of centuries) would be to exclude harvesting operations from the sub-catchments in which the rainforest stands occur. It may be that the topography and the proposed harvesting actions are such that operations within catchments supporting stands of sensitive and nationally significant rainforest values are acceptable, but the onus should be on the planner to demonstrate that sub-catchment protection is unnecessary. Protection levels may vary from site to site within a region, depending on local ecological conditions, intended management activities, and the sensitivity of rainforest values to these activities. All protection prescriptions should be rationalised in Forest Management Area plans.
Recommendation
· Develop plans for rainforest protection in each Forest Management Area such that the most important rainforest areas are afforded highest protection. Buffers should be either minimum of 40m complete exclusion of disturbance or 20m complete exclusion plus 40m modified harvesting (see below) for sites of least significance. Where Nothofagus makes up greater than 20% of the canopy, the minimum buffer for the least significant stands should be extended to either 60m or 40m complete exclusion plus 40m of modified harvesting. Sub-catchment protection should be afforded to stands that harbour nationally significant rainforest values that are sensitive to management operations.
d
Don't know the meaning of a word? Check the glossary.