In an article recently published in PNAS by Meyfroidt et al, "Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use," asserts that local forest protection shifts forest-conversion pressure to native forests elsewhere in the world and there will be no net gain for nature at a global scale.

So while developed countries like Australia can "afford" to put productive forests into reserves and cease timber production, it can be clearly demonstrated that demand for wood products does not diminish. Australia is currently importing record levels of timber and if the local supply is stopped this will only rise.

When the WA government made the decision to reduce timber production from its native forests there was an immediate increase in the importation of tropical timbers, especially for outdoor furniture and decking.

So this hypocritical group will target Australian retailers for selling products from Australia's native forests and sit back while our immediate neighbours in the tropics have their forests trashed to substitute for the local timber which will disappear from the market. How sensible is that? Their energies focus on the wrong target, if they really want to make a difference to reducing deforestation, protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change.

By any measure Australian forestry can demonstrate the highest sustainability credentials. In fact ENGOs in Tasmania are advocating that previously logged and regenerated forest have High Conservation Values and should be added to the reserve system which already covers 47% of the State.

Meyfroidt et al, suggest that countries can work together to reduce deforestation abroad by:
1. Strengthening international cooperation on issues related to deforestation and land use.
2. Integrating trade data into international negotiations on environmental issues. These pacts should include provisions that countries do not decrease their rate of deforestation by exporting it overseas. (In fact, the only deforestation now occuring in Australia is conversion of plantations to farms or loss of native forest to urban development).
3. Promote certification systems that provide businesses and consumers with accurate information about sustainable forest products. (Both the Australian Forestry Standard and the FSC standard operate in Australia).

Oz unfortunately has a history of raping the environment for short-term or questionable gain, and in many instances reparation is a desperate long-term battle - against salinity, acid soils, erosion, habitat loss, etc. Pointing the finger at similar activities occurring in developing nations does not remove this stain.

Until there is a genuine worldwide environment plan which ensures a sustainable forest product industry, including reforestation of vulnerable habitats, there will continue to be public suspicion of the timber industry, and setting out a raft of broad unsubstantiated statistics will not change this view.

Since Oz hardwood forests take decades to regenerate, any assertion that exploitation of heritage forests is necessary to meet domestic demand because their is insufficient plantation timber, is directly stating that plantations can never catch up with old growth harvesting - and hence directly predicts escalating loss of forest habitat, for both timber harvesting and ecological regeneration. A no win for timber, a no win for the environment, and a gradual contraction of resource available to the timber industry. This self-destruction is illogical, obtuse, and untenable.

If the timber industry is serious in its environmental concerns, then it must embark seriously on the development of a truly sustainable industry plan, and not just go pointing the finger at a genuinely concerned environmental lobby.

Mark's highlight of the apparent exemption to the Competition and Consumer Act that allows this type of thuggery by environmental activists shows the need for the ACCC to immediately issue an interpretation on the law, as there is no genuine environmental reason for the boycott.
The references quoted in the report by the former wilderness society staffers such as the Australian State of the Forests report demonstrate that are forests are well managed and that timber production is both legal and sustainable.

It appears hypocritical that for a political movement that riles against exemption to the law for industry, that they use such an exemption for their cause. Also hypocritical that they fail to name their funders, for a group that calls for transparency. Most will remember the greens accepted one of the largest corporate donations of $1.6 million at the last Federal election without declaring it until after the election, despite campaigning for a ban on such donations.

Peter is right to be concerned that we will end up being sold furniture made overseas from the threatened tropical forests that the United Nations is trying to save. For those concerned with greenhouse gases, imagine the carbon dioxide emissions associated with importing timber and paper product.

Retailers and consumers can have confidence in Australian grown native timber products and that we already have sustainable forest management plans, as according to the Federal Government http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1872611/Final_regulation_impact_statement.pdf
"The national policy framework surrounding Australia’s forest and timber industry is provided by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), the Regional Forest Agreements Act (2002), and the National Forest Policy Statement (1992). This national policy framework is underpinned by relevant legislation in the States and Territories. Each State and Territory has responsibility for defining and regulating legal timber harvesting within their jurisdictions.

Compliance with these forestry laws would ensure that domestic timber products are derived from legally harvested sources.
Voluntary forest certification standards, such as those of the Forest Stewardship Council or Australian Forestry Certification Scheme, can be used to provide an assurance that domestic timber is legally (and sustainably) produced."

The main reason for the continued attacks on Australian forestry is that it generates income for the environmental movement. In other words, it is an easy product to sell. You will notice that "unsexy" environmental issues, such as salinity, rarely, if ever get a mention. Is this because they are less important? No, it's because they don't generate as much income! The latest proof of this argument is the millions of dollars in funding that have poured in for the campaign to move logging overseas - oh, sorry, I mean to stop Australian native forest logging!

Saltpetre

If you had read beyond the first paragraph, you would see that the article is not just "a raft of broad unsubstantiated statistics"

You seem unable to appreciate that Australian forestry differs from that of developing countries where there are real problems because of weak environmental regulations poorly enforced by easily corrupted officials. Largely this is due to political and social degradation which underpins endemic poverty.

We don't have these issues in Australia and so are able to set aside a small proportion of forest for renewable timber production and ensure that operations are well planned and highly regulated to minimise environmental problems.

Your comment - "any assertion that exploitation of heritage forests is necessary to meet domestic demand because their is insufficient plantation timber, is directly stating that plantations can never catch up with old growth harvesting - and hence directly predicts escalating loss of forest habitat, for both timber harvesting and ecological regeneration" - is very confused.

You seem to be denying that forests are renewable, and that timber production is limited to a finite proportion of public land, and limited on private land for a whole host of reasons not least of which is that most are unsuitable or remote from the industry. Escalating loss of forest? - I don't think so.

Your comment - "If the timber industry is serious in its environmental concerns, then it must embark seriously on the development of a truly sustainable industry plan, and not just go pointing the finger at a genuinely concerned environmental lobby"

Do you remember the National Forests Policy in 1992, from which sprang the Regional Forests Agreement? Did this placate the environmental lobby? Sadly, their concern about forestry is ideological rather than real largely because of pre-concieved ideas that today's forestry is akin to the exploitation of the pioneering days, and refusal to accept that official statistics may well tell the truth.

MWPOYNTER,

I have no wish to see the death of the timber industry in Oz, but would hope to see it move to long term sustainability based primarily, if not solely, on plantation assets. The provision of land mass statistics does nothing, however, to refute the unnecessary destructive loss of some forest assets of extraordinarily greater habitat value than any amount of timber contained therein - as in segments of Tasmanian forest which are the sole remaining refuges for sustainability of the bee industry, which is now the sole supply of bees for fertilising U.S. and other worldwide crops and orchards. To risk such assets is not only reckless it is unforgivable. If and when the timber industry can demonstrate that it is totally trustworthy, then there may be a change of attitude. Until then, a healthy scepticism will prevail.

Yes, the world has a problem with unchecked illegal logging in many other countries, and yes, there should be a review of the use of timber on a worldwide basis and a movement to alternatives. One such alternative is to put the majority of communications into digital, internet accessible format, rather than books, magazines, reports etc - with a commensurate reduction in demand for wood pulp. So it should be, and one day will be. In the meantime the reduced absorption of atmospheric CO2 attributable to the progressive destruction and non-replacement of world forests provides us with another problem. Oz's timber industry is certainly only a small part of a growing global problem, but this is no excuse for relaxation.

The Oz timber industry is a noble one, with a history of which it can be justifiably proud. Ok, there have been some blemishes from time to time, but this does not deny the contribution the industry has made overall. However, times are changing and we have to change with them, and there has to be movement toward the establishment of mass plantation forests in overseas countries which are currently contributing enormously to habitat loss, and contributing indirectly to greenhouse. We will accordingly have to roll with the punches.

Saltpetre

A thoughtful post - but a couple of points need to be made.

Your suggestion that the timber industry needs to demonstrate that it is trustworthy suggests you have been seduced by the decades of forest activism that has gone before. The industry's activities on public lands (which is where it mostly operates) are controlled and regulated by State Government forestry agencies. So, your lack of trust relates to them and their staff who are trained in forestry and environmental management and do not go to work each day to make a profit out of producing timber.

Your comment about Tasmania's bees is interesting, but I would contend that harvesting forests and then regenerating them to regrow as new forests would have little overall effect, particularly when it is recognised that 75% of Tassie's public forests are in land tenures or are of types that will not be logged.

You are also still inclined to include Australia as a 'minor part of a growing global problem' of deforestation, yet with regard to forestry, it plays no part because of the requirement to regenerate on both public and private lands. I think you will find there is already massive plantation expansion going on in places like Indonesia and China.

The other point I nwould make is that timber production has always played a substantial role in forest fire management by generating revenue to build and maintaining access into the forest, and fund protective activities such as fuel reduction burning, and assisting in bushfire control. The loss of these functions by needlessly closing a small natural resource industry, will ultimately have by far the most devasting effects on Australia's forest ecosystems.

MWPOYNTER, Thank you for your informative response.

I think you may well be right in that my dissatisfaction might well be more accurately directed at the various State Government forestry agencies, rather than at our timber industry. Hopefully foresight will prevail and this worthwhile industry may thrive productively and sustainably long into the future. There appears to be a common understanding that environment and habitat are important to all concerned, and as long as there is genuine cooperation it is fully feasible that all interests may be well served.

As a member of the NSW RFS, as a volunteer, I and my fellows appreciate the contribution of the timber industry to the provision of access fire trails to facilitate hazard reduction and fire control activities, and the contribution this then makes to the preservation of vulnerable forest habitats. I wish we had a little more cooperation in this regard from National Parks, who seem to have an unrealistic reluctance to pursue timely asset protection hazard reduction. We will just have to keep working on this.

The preservation of the bees is of particular concern because of the vital role they play in food production, and the key interest in their preservation is that only certain forests, and certain portions of those forests, are essential to survival of the bee industry. Hence, the interests of the bee-keepers have to be given the highest priority in the allocation of logging permits - because the bee industry is under threat worldwide from infection, viral attack and from the wide use of agricultural pesticides. It appears that this concern has not always been given the necessary priority by these various government agencies. Hence, the need for vigilance while there is still time to save this vital industry - potentially more vital than we may yet fully appreciate.