Assessment of management systems and processes for ... · 2.6.2 Regional vegetation management...

Assessment of management systems andprocesses for achieving ecologically sustainable

forest management in New South WalesA report undertaken for the NSW CRA/RFA Steering Committee

April 1998

ASSESSMENT OFMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AND PROCESSES FORACHIEVING

ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT IN NEW

SOUTH WALES

INDEPENDENT EXPERT WORKING GROUPon behalf of the NSW ESFM Group

A report undertaken for the NSW CRA/RFA Steering Committeeproject number NA 18/ESFM

April 1998

Report Status

This report has been prepared as a working paper for the NSW CRA/RFA Steering Committee under thedirection of the ESFM Technical Committee. It is recognised that it may contain errors that require

correction but it is released to be consistent with the principle that information related to the comprehensiveregional assessment process in New South Wales will be made publicly available.

For more information and forinformation on access to data contactthe:

Resource and Conservation Division, Department ofUrban Affairs and Planning

GPO Box 3927SYDNEY NSW 2001

Phone: (02) 9228 3166Fax: (02) 9228 4967

Forests Taskforce, Department of Prime Minister andCabinet

3-5 National CircuitBARTON ACT 2600

Phone: 1800 650 983Fax: (02) 6271 5511

© Crown copyright April 1998

This project has been jointly funded by the New SouthWales and Commonwealth Governments. The workundertaken within this project has been managed by thejoint NSW / Commonwealth CRA/RFA SteeringCommittee which includes representatives from the NSWand Commonwealth Governments and stakeholdergroups.

The project has been overseen and the methodology hasbeen developed through the ESFM Technical Committeewhich includes representatives from the NSW andCommonwealth Governments and stakeholder groups.

This independent report is the work of members of theExpert Working Group assisted by members of the StateFocus Group and officers of NSW State Agencies andCommonwealth Government Departments.

Expert working group

Dr John Raison, CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products,Chair and Report Coordinator Professor David Farrier,Faculty of Law, University of WollongongDr Ross Florence, Department of Forestry, AustralianNational UniversityDr Bob McCormack, CSIRO Forestry and Forest ProductsDr Andrew Smith, SETSCANMr Stan Rodgers, AVTEQ Consulting

State focus group

Sue Atkinson, National Parks and Wildlife ServiceMichael Davis, Resources and Conservation Division,Department of Urban Affairs and PlanningNorm Hawkes, State Forests of NSWTeena Pennington, Department of Land and WaterConservationHoward Reed, Department of Mineral ResourcesCarl Solomon, Environmental Protection Agency

Commonwealth secretariat

Catherine Bright, Environment AustraliaJames Hoare, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Departmentof Primary Industries and EnergyNick Stephens, Bureau of Resource Sciences,Department of Primary Industries and EnergySally Kaufmann, Bureau of Resource Sciences,Department of Primary Industries and Energy

The assistance of the following people in providinginformation on departmental management arrangementsis also acknowledged:

Maryanne Carmichael, Rural Fire ServicesTerry Korn, Department of AgricultureHugh Lambert, Sydney Water Corporation

Additional editing by Arawang Communication Group,Braddon, ACT

DisclaimerWhile every reasonable effort has been made to ensurethat this document is correct at the time of printing, theState of New South Wales, its agents and employees, andthe Commonwealth of Australia, its agents andemployees, do not assume any responsibility and shallhave no liability, consequential or otherwise, of any kind,arising from the use of or reliance on any of theinformation contained in in this document.

CONTENTS

Foreword 9

Executive Summary 10

1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Ecologically sustainable forest management

1.2 ASSESSING ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT–CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSYSTEM COMPONENTS FOR ACHIEVINGESFM

1.4 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

1.4.1 Current forest management systems andprocesses

1.4.2 Assessment by expert working groupError! Bookmark not defined.

1.5 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

1.5.1 State forest management

1.5.2 Nature conservation

1.6 INTERPRETATION OF ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

1.6.1 Principle 1: Maintain or increase the fullsuite of forest values for present and futuregenerations across the New South Wales forestestate

1.6.2 Principle 2: Ensure public participation,access to information, accountability andtransparency in the achievement of ecologicallysustainable forest management

1.6.3 Principle 3: Ensure legislation, policies,institutional frameworks, codes, standards andpractices achieve ecologically sustainablemanagement of the native forest estate throughrequirements and/or by providing incentives

1.6.4 Principle 4: Apply the precautionaryprinciple for prevention of environmentaldegradation

1.6.5 Principle 5: Apply best available knowledgeand adaptive management processes

1.7 THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE ISSUESAND TRADE-OFFS AMONG FORESTVALUES

2. LEGISLATION, POLICY ANDCOMMITMENT

2.1 THE STRUCTURE OF LEGISLATIONRELATING TO NEW SOUTH WALESFORESTS: THE NEED FOR REFORM

2.2 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES,CONVENTIONS AND INITIATIVES

2.3 NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

2.4 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION

2.5 INTRODUCTION TO NSW LAW

2.5.1 Production forests on public land

2.5.2 Conservation areas

2.5.3 Off-reserve conservation

2.5.4 The threatened species overlay

2.5.5 Reforming institutional arrangements andlegislation

2.5.6 Using provisions of the EPA Act as anintegrative mechanism

2.6 NATIVE VEGETATION CLEARANCE

2.6.1 Bioregional planning and the CAR reservesystem

2.6.2 Regional vegetation management plans andthe CAR reserve system

2.6.3 The exemption for residential land

2.6.4 The two-hectare exemption

2.6.5 Relationship with threatened specieslegislation

2.7 FORESTRY ON LAND IN PRIVATEOWNERSHIP

2.7.1 Introduction

2.7.2 Forestry Provisions in local environmentalplans

2.7.3 Erosion and Pollution Control

2.7.4 Threatened Species

2.7.5 Plantations

2.7.6 Conclusion

2.8 CODES OF PRACTICE

2.9 INTERNAL POLICY STATEMENTS:STATE FORESTS OF NEW SOUTH WALESAND NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFESERVICE

2.10 STATE FORESTS OF NEW SOUTHWALES POLICY STATEMENTS

2.11 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POLICIES,STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANSAND OTHER DOCUMENTS

2.12 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFESERVICE POLICY STATEMENTS

2.13 THE BALANCE BETWEEN WOODPRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION INLAND USE PLANNING

3. PLANNING

3.1 ESFM INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

3.2 MANAGEMENT PLANNING

3.2.1 State Forests of New South Wales: Forestplanning procedures

3.2.2 National Parks and Wildlife Service:Planning procedures

3.2.3 Department of Land and WaterConservation: Planning procedures

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING AGAINSTTHE NSW ESFM PRINCIPLES

3.3.1 Principle 1A: Biodiversity

3.3.2 Codes of practice

3.3.3 Assessment of Requirements for EffectiveCodes of Practice systems

3.3.4 Principles 1B and 1C: Ecologicalsustainability of forest ecosystems

3.3.5 Principle 1D: Conservation of soil and waterresources

3.3.6 Principle 1E: Positive contribution of foreststo global geochemical cycles

3.3.7 Principle 1F: Long term social andeconomic benefits

3.3.8 Principle 1G: Heritage

3.4 MANAGEMENT PLANNING FORECOLOGIALLY SUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT: A SYNTHESIS

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCENTIVES/REQUIREMENTS AND THEPRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

4.1.1 Introduction

4.2 REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES

4.2.1 Getting the Right Balance

4.2.2 Regulatory Failure?

4.2.3 The Need for Incentives

4.2.4 Types of Incentives

4.2.5 Removing Disincentives

4.3 THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

5. IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.2 DEPARTMENTAL SITUATION

5.2.1 State Forests of New South Wales

5.2.2 National Parks and Wildlife Service

5.2.3 Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

5.2.4 Department of Land and WaterConservation

5.2.5 Environmental Protection Authority

5.3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

5.3.1 Legislative requirements

5.3.2 Definition and understanding of ESFM

5.3.3 Commitment to ESFM

5.3.4 ESFM Framework

5.3.5 Resource Identification

5.4 CONCLUSION

6. MONITORING

6.1 MONITORING IMPACTS OF ACTIVITIES

6.1.1 Broad Considerations

6.1.2 Proposed Eden RFA

6.1.3 Provision of Forest Research andDevelopment in New South Wales

7. REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT

7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS

7.2 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

7.3 RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

7.4 FOREST PRACTICES CODES

7.5 ADAPTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

7.6 STRENGTHENING SCIENTIFIC INPUT

7.7 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

8. APPENDICES

9. REFERENCES

Tables1 - Nationally agreed criteria for assessment ofecologically sustainable forest management 2 - NSW ESFM Group’s principles for assessment offorest management systems and processes in NewSouth Wales 3 - Management arrangements of NSW agencies, asclassified to assess their ability to sustain forestsecologically 4 - Terms of reference for the NSW ESFM ExpertWorking Group

Figures1 - Proposed institutional framework for forestmanagement in NSW 2 - Proposed forest planning linkages in relation toexisting tenure 3 - Relationship between strategic and operationalplans for different tenures in NSW

FOREWORD

This report has been prepared by an expert working group for the NSW ESFM Group and jointCommonwealth–NSW Steering Committee for the Eden Regional Forest Agreement. The reportexamines the management arrangements underpinning the delivery of ecologically sustainableforest management on a statewide basis.

The report is only part of the overall assessment of ecologically sustainable forest management asoutlined in the New South Wales Options Report. Together with stakeholder input, it will provide astarting point for Commonwealth and State consideration and development of ecologicallysustainable forest management leading up to the Regional Forest Agreement for the Eden regionand other RFA Regions.

The expert working group addressed fundamental issues relating to the principles of ecologicallysustainable forest management defined by the NSW ESFM Group and conducted its assessment at atime of substantial environmental legislative reform and departmental restructuring.

The report adopts a ‘systems’ approach to the assessment rather than seeking to catalogue andassess specific on-ground practices. The group was asked to focus its assessment on identifyingareas of improvement within existing management arrangements that will lead to ecologicallysustainable forest management.

The report has not been assessed in detail by the Steering Committee and does not necessarilyreflect the views of either the committee or the Commonwealth and New South WalesGovernments.

The NSW ESFM Group would like to thank the expert working group for this report which willgreatly assist the Commonwealth and NSW Governments to progress the regional forest agreementprocess.

Stuart Davey David BrandCommonwealth Co-Chair NSW Co-ChairNSW ESFM Group NSW ESFM Group

26 March 2001 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is the result of an independentassessment of the systems and processes currentlybeing used to manage forests in New SouthWales. The assessment, undertaken by an expertworking group, was to evaluate the ability of thesesystems and processes to manage forests in anecologically sustainable manner. The report willbe considered by the NSW ESFM (ecologicallysustainable forest management) Group and thejoint Commonwealth/State Steering Committeethat oversees the comprehensive regionalassessments (CRAs) of forests in New SouthWales.

Each assessment forms the basis for thedevelopment of a bilateral regional forestagreement between the New South Wales andCommonwealth Governments. These agreementswill cover the major forests of the State and willstrive to provide a balance between conservationand ecologically sustainable use of forestresources.

The expert working group assessed the capacityfor ecologically sustainable forest management inNew South Wales against a set of five principleswithin a framework of five management systemcomponents. Those components are consistentwith an environmental management system andthe five principles encompass importantenvironmental, social and economic values. Theassessment focused on the ability of managementsystems and processes to ensure ecologicallysustainable forests, and not on evaluating theoutcomes of forest management.

The expert working group made no assessment ofthe ecological sustainability of management ofcultural heritage values, including Aboriginalcultural heritage values contained within Principle1G. Cultural heritage values are currently beingassessed by the NSW Cultural Heritage WorkingGroup through the project, ‘Protecting CulturalHeritage Values and Places in NSW Forests’.When completed, this project will need to bereviewed in terms of ecologically sustainablemanagement and recommendations for managing

cultural heritage values in an ecologicallysustainable manner will need to be implemented.Appropriate action in relation to these issues willneed to be addressed in the regional forestagreement.

There is no simple or precise definition ofecologically sustainable forest managementbecause the scientific basis for determining thelevel of forest values required for ecologicallysustainable forest management is at an early stageof development. In the absence of such levels ofsustainability, it is difficult to determine thatmanagement processes and systems areecologically sustainable. Additionally, communityperceptions of what constitutes ecologicallysustainable forest management will vary overtime.

Under the regional forest assessment process inNew South Wales, the setting of targets forenvironmental, social (including cultural heritage)and economic values designed to achieveecologically sustainable forest management isbased on stakeholder consensus and compromiseusing information obtained from comprehensiveassessments of forests on a regional basis. Toachieve ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, the scientific basis for themaintenance of forest values and outputs (forexample, viability of species populations, asustainable wood supply) will be required. Therelative weighting given to forest values will alsoneed to vary locally and with time.

The expert working group has assessed theadequacy of current forest management systemsand processes and has identified areas where costeffective improvement is necessary. It should benoted that by nature such an analysis tends tofocus on deficiencies, with achievements taken forgranted.

Overall, the group concludes that the systems andprocesses currently being used to manage forestsin New South Wales need significantimprovement to achieve the recently defined

26 March 200111

requirements for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. The large number of agenciesinvolved in forest management and its regulation,combined with some outdated and unwieldylegislation relating to forests on public land, hasresulted in overlapping and poorly definedresponsibility, and poorly coordinated, inefficientforest management. An emphasis on regulationhas adversely affected strategic planning but hasresulted in comprehensive but potentially overly-precautionary protocols for protection ofbiodiversity, soil and water values in forests usedfor wood production. A code of practice is used toguide harvesting in State forests, but the systemsfor effectively implementing codes need furtherdevelopment, and their coverage must beextended to include all forested tenures.

Mechanisms for the effective management of theproposed comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative (CAR) reserve system or forcomplementary management of adjoining forestareas are not well developed. The informationbase and consultative mechanisms for establishingthe balance between environmental, economic andsocial values on public land need significantimprovement.

Current processes for ensuring ecologicallysustainable management of private forests arepoorly developed. The recently enacted NativeVegetation Conservation Act 1997 represents aneffective tool for making improvements in thisarea. There are concerns, however, about theadequacy of resources and information availablefor the regional planning that is required toachieve forest management that is ecologicallysustainable.

The expert working group’s suggestions forimproving current management practices are inthe form of a series of recommendationsdistributed throughout the body of the report.These recommendations have been synthesisedinto 13 key recommendations that appear below.They are cross-referenced to the relevant sectionsof the report and other recommendationscontained therein. A complete list ofrecommendations is contained in Appendix B.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Legislation

Key Recommendation 1:A whole of government process to develop naturalresources legislation should be put in place. Parts

3 and 4 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1995 should be considered as apotential vehicle for integrating natural resourcemanagement in view of the followingcharacteristics of that legislation:

■ broad plan-making powers;

■ a well-developed assessment procedures andapprovals process;

■ a well-understood system of communityparticipation including review by the courts;

■ potential to move beyond constraints on landuse to active management;

■ potential applicability to both public andprivate land.

In the short term, to reduce complexity at the levelof operational regulation and as a move towards a‘one-stop shop’:

■ there should be a review of separaterequirements for approvals under existinglegislation with a view to replacing them withconcurrence procedures.

[See Chapter 2, recommendation 2.5].

Information management

Key Recommendation 2:Information collation, analysis, communicationand dissemination for delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management in New SouthWales should be improved by:

■ storing, analysing and disseminating State-wide information required for deliveringecologically sustainable forest management,including all existing digital, biophysical,socio-economic and cultural heritage data;

■ developing protocols for data collection;

■ maintaining standards of data quality, storageand transfer;

■ identifying gaps in current knowledge;

■ guidance on data ‘capture’ (collection) andinventory activities;

■ better training and advice to staff by agencies

■ facilitating the free exchange of data betweengovernment agencies and making dataavailable to stakeholders, local councils, andthe public; and

26 March 2001 12

■ provision of existing information to interestedparties for the cost of data retrieval andhandling.

A single forest resource information unit shouldbe created within the New South WalesGovernment to take responsibility for informationmanagement.

[See Chapter 3, recommendations 3.1–3.4].

Public participation in forest usedecisions

Key Recommendation 3:The expert working group acknowledges thebenefits of direct stakeholder participation innegotiated outcomes. The opportunity for publiccomment in decision-making processes should befocused at the strategic planning level, forexample:

■ environmental planning instruments (includingregional vegetation management plans);

■ strategic management area plans (includingboth forest and park management plans); and

■ cross-tenure threat abatement and speciesrecovery plans.

Greater attention should be given to ensuring thatthose nominated to membership of consultationcommittees adequately represent stakeholderinterest.

Regional managers should negotiate withAboriginal groups on the most appropriate waysfor them to contribute to the formulation ofstrategic plans.

Opportunities for public participation at otherlevels should be confined to situations where thereis likely to be a significant effect on theenvironment and where decision-makingprocesses have not been properly implemented.

In order to facilitate the regional forest agreementprocess and forest management after agreementsare negotiated, ongoing formal processes (such asregional forest forums) need to be strengthened toraise awareness and understanding of ecologicallysustainable forest management and how it can beachieved in New South Wales forests.


Costing of ESFM

Key Recommendation 4:Improved mechanisms are needed for collectingand using information to enable cost-effectivedecision making. Accounting practices that allowfull costing of all inputs to forest managementshould be developed. Without efficient costing ofmanagement efforts, the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management components(environmental, social and economic) is at risk,and opportunities to develop more cost-effectiveprocedures could be lost. Systematic trials toassess the cost-effectiveness of alternativeoperational prescriptions should be undertaken. Inparticular, ‘impact costing’ should be used toensure stakeholders fully appreciate the costimplications of their expectations.


Strategic planning for public forests

Key Recommendation 5A:Strategic planning in public forests must bestrengthened. While the format of plans preparedby the National Parks and Wildlife Servicegenerally meets requirements for ecologicallysustainable forest management, there is a need tocomplete plan preparation for all parks. For StateForests, a new strategic management areaplanning model able to deliver ecologicallysustainable forest management needs to bedeveloped. Such management area plans:

■ must be developed by the responsiblemanagement agency;

■ should initially draw on and be consistent withregional forest agreements;

■ must be approved by the forest regulator (seelater);

■ should require an annual report to the regulatoron achievements in relation to the plan;

■ must be subject to periodic review (forexample, at 5–7 year intervals) or as requiredby exceptional circumstances, and

■ after review, should be resubmitted to theforest regulator for approval.

The strategic management area planning processmust:

■ assess environmental impacts in sufficientdetail to allow management plans to replacethe environmental impact statement process;

26 March 20014

■ set targets (for example, sustainable yields,size of animal populations, degree of sitedisturbance);

■ provide opportunities for public exhibition andcomment;

■ allow determination by the forest regulator;and

■ provide opportunity for review by the courts.

This process would be ongoing, providing a basisfor adaptive management and continuousimprovement, and represent the primary publicforum for discussion and involvement in forestmanagement.

[ Chapter 3, recommendation 3.46].

Key Recommendation 5B:Given the distribution of forest across several landtenures, National Parks and Wildlife and StateForests should coordinate their approach to themanagement of the comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative reserve system, often referred to asthe CAR reserve system (which is based oncriteria defined by JANIS, the committeeestablished to ensure the implementation of theNational Forest Policy Statement), (see also KeyRecommendation 13B).


Private land planning and management

Key Recommendation 6A:The current system of project-based assessmentand approval for private forests should bereplaced by one based on:

■ regional (cross-tenure) land use planning (forexample, regional vegetation managementplans);

■ preparation of a private forest managementplan;

■ use of codes of practice for all significantactivities within each planning zone;

■ preparing private forestry management plans,where forestry is proposed on specific sites;

■ enhanced monitoring by the forest manager;and

■ periodic review of the private forestmanagement plan and its outcomes in terms ofecological sustainability, undertaken by theforest regulator.


Key Recommendation 6B:The development of a regional approach to privateforest management based on regional vegetationmanagement plans and private forest managementplans should be expedited. Improved vegetationmanagement plans should use information derivedfrom comprehensive regional environmentalsurveys that take into account the conservationstatus of forest ecosystems across all tenures andconsider such elements as biodiversity, soil, waterand cultural heritage. The vegetation plans mustalso acknowledge the fundamental distinctionbetween clearing for agricultural and residentialpurposes and sustainable native forestmanagement.

Committees preparing regional vegetationmanagement plans must possess adequatetechnical expertise in relation to thescience/practices involved in ecologicallysustainable forest management. Processes toeffectively capture relevant information need to bedeveloped.

In terms of the forest resource, regional vegetationmanagement plans must:

■ assess effects of management practices onindividual forest values at an appropriate scale,which may be larger or smaller than the areacovered by the plan, when setting zoneboundaries;

■ include minimum targets consistent withregional determination of the comprehensive,adequate and representative (CAR) reservesystem for retention of forest cover;

■ indicate specific zones and proceduresessential to meet CAR reservation targets forforest communities that are inadequatelyprotected on public land;

■ maintain or increase the values realted toecologically sustainable forest managementabove regional targets;

■ identify areas of forest suitable for restoration;

■ contain a requirement for monitoringcompliance with plans;

■ include coordinated cross-tenure plans forhabitat corridors and links in and betweenforests across all tenures; and

■ involve landholders at an early stage in theplanning process.

26 March 2001 14

Private forest management plans should beprepared according to strict guidelines that:

■ include systematic vegetation, habitat andfauna surveys as a foundation for planning;

■ implement standardised ‘clearing codes’ tomaintain forest connectivity across tenures;

■ maximise opportunities for development trade-offs in urban areas as an incentive forconservation.


Key Recommendation 6C:Private forest management plans and threatabatement plans should be prepared to anapproved standard and approved by the forestregulator.

[See recommendation 8A and 8B].


Key Recommendation 6D:Compulsory codes of practice designed to achievesustainable management of private native forestsmust be put in place. An appropriate vehiclewould be a State environmental planning policy.


Key Recommendation 6E:Development proposals for forests should beexempt from requirements to undertake 8-pointtests and environmental impact statements where:

■ they are within specified zones identified onproposed regional vegetation managementplans and are incorporated into localenvironmental plans and regionalenvironmental plans;

■ comprehensive regional environmental surveyshave been undertaken;

■ impacts of activities are known with a highlevel of scientific certainty;

■ approved codes of practice have been adoptedfor the proposed activities; and

■ effective monitoring and enforcementprocedures are in place.


Management of forests to protectconservation values

Key Recommendation 7:Consistent with the intent of the National ForestPolicy Statement and the nationally agreed JANISconservation criteria for forests, conservationtargets should be met through a combination ofdedicated forest reserves, areas protected withinState forests, and areas zoned for management byspecial prescription. Increased consideration shouldbe given to the capacity of forest areas outsidenational parks and reserves, often referred to as‘non-dedicated’ or ‘off-reserve’ forest, tocontribute to meeting conservation targets, becausein some circumstances this ‘off-reserve’ componentcan result in enhanced and more balancedecologically sustainable forest managementoutcomes. Resources should be committed toquantifying the potential of carefully managedprivate native forests to contribute to conservationobjectives.

While establishment of a comprehensive, adequateand representative system of forest reservesrepresents a significant step in achieving protectionof conservation values, active on-goingmanagement of the reserve system is also crucial.Increased emphasis must be given to managing thebiological resource for specified objectives, takinginto account the contribution of all tenures.


Management of threatening processes

Key Recommendation 8A:Threat abatement plans must be prepared for allrecognised major threatening processes (includingfox and cat predation, clearing on private land,loss of tree hollows, grazing, frequent burning,weed invasion and disturbance by exotic animals)as a matter of urgency (within three years). Theseplans should be prepared prior to or concurrentlywith recovery plans prepared for individualthreatened species significantly affected by theseprocesses. Recovery plans should be prepared forgroups of threatened species affected by commonthreatening processes and prioritised according toextinction risk. Consideration should be given toextending completion dates for individualrecovery plans for threatened species at low risk.


26 March 200115

Key Recommendation 8B:A threat abatement unit should be created todevelop regional cross-tenure threat abatementplans (to counter significant threateningprocesses) and to implement recovery plans forthreatened species.


Codes of practice

Key Recommendation 9:Application of effective codes of practice to guideplanning and operations is critical to achievingecologically sustainable forest management, butcurrently codes are only applied in a significant wayin public wood production forests.

The role of codes of practice in supporting theimplementation of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in New South Wales should beexpanded by:

■ developing and approving legally bindingcodes to address all important activities acrossall land tenures in New South Wales forests,including wood production, conservationreserve management, grazing, pestmanagement and clearing.

■ ensuring that such codes contain sufficientdetail to guide protection of environmentalvalues at appropriate scales;

■ providing adequate resources to expedite thedevelopment of such codes and their effectiveimplementation in forested areas;

■ implementing codes within the framework ofan environmental management system inpublic forests to facilitate:

− agencies and organisations implementingcodes to demonstrate compliance withcodes through independent means;

− regular public review processes to ensurethat codes reflect continual improvementand best-practice concepts.

[See Chapter 3, recommendations 3.18 - 3.20].

Monitoring ecologically sustainable forestmanagement

Key Recommendation 10:All New South Wales government departmentswith a direct forest management responsibilityshould implement long-term monitoring programsso as to be able to track changes in important

forest values. Monitoring methods must be able todetect changes at spatial and temporal scales thatare significant for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. A set of key indicators forecologically sustainable forest managementshould be selected, used and subject to ongoingimprovement. These indicators should becompatible with the regional framework and thecore set of indicators developed by the MontrealProcess Implementation Group, a nationalcommittee working to identify criteria andindicators for reporting ecologically sustainableforest management. Supplementary indicators thatcover additional locally important values shouldalso be used.

The setting of targets (for example, sustainableyields, size of animal populations, degree of sitedisturbance) essential to interpreting effects offorest management on forest values should occuras part of the strategic planning process.


Environmental management system

Key Recommendation 11:All New South Wales departments with directforest management responsibility should developand implement a recognised (and certifiable)environmental management system. Furtherdetails of the requirements for implementation ofsuch a system can be found in Chapter 7 andAppendix A. The environmental managementsystem is essential to ensure continualimprovement of forest management (‘adaptive’forest management) and to permit effective auditsthat demonstrate compliance with principles andregulations for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

Essential components of adaptive forestmanagement that are currently poorly developedand need to be strengthened to includeperformance measures that can gauge whethermanagement is ecologically sustainable andreview processes that will lead to continualimprovement in the management system.

The results of applying the environmentalmanagement system and the outcomes ofmanagement plans should be publicly reported toraise community confidence that ecologicallysustainable forest management is being achieved.Regulatory compliance should also be reportedand subject to independent validation.


26 March 2001 16

Co-ordination of research anddevelopment

Key Recommendation 12:Steps should be taken to achieve bettercoordination and effective use of resourcesallocated to research for ecologically sustainableforest management in New South Walesgovernment agencies. Such action should lead tothe formation of a single research unit thatservices the needs of both forest management andregulation. A single unit would improve researchco-ordination and strengthen the focus on meetingthe needs of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement , which are often generic acrosstenures. The unit should undertake formalcollaborative work with external researchproviders to enhance multidisciplinary research.There is merit in linking the proposed forestresource information unit to the activities of theresearch unit and in co-locating these two units.


Institutional structures

Steps should be taken to separate existing forestregulatory and management functions and toimprove the cost-effectiveness of regulatoryprocedures.

The expert working group recognises recentstructural changes within the New South Walesforest management system and the need for someconsolidation.

Key Recommendation 13A:In the short term, an inter-agency coordinatinggroup involving existing regulatory agenciesshould be established to:

■ better coordinate planning in relation to cross-tenure issues;

■ ensure consistency of plans with the regionalforest agreement and other hierarchicalcomponents of the planning structure;

■ coordinate the process of granting licences andapprovals;

■ coordinate independent audits of processes andoutcomes;

■ ensure better implementation and enforcementof regulations;

■ improve response to public concerns aboutinadequate compliance with policies andcodes; and

■ effectively report to the public and governmentof the findings from audits.

However, even in the short term, it is essentialthat the following functions are managed andapproved by a single agency:

■ responsibility for ensuring that forests-relatedplans address management requirements forecological sustainability and specifyecologically sustainable management targets(such plans include, for example, managementarea plans for public forests; regionalvegetation and private forest managementplans; and local and regional environmentalplans);

■ responsibility for establishing an effective codeof forest practice system, including theapproval of codes and methods for theirimplementation (see key recommendation 9);

■ responsibility for ensuring that monitoring (bythe forest manager) of agreed ecologicallysustainable forest management outcomes isconducted (see key recommendation 10).

Within three years, the position of forest regulatorshould be established as a means of moreeffectively performing the above functions whichare necessary for achieving ecologicallysustainable forest management and to approveoperations not adequately addressed by codes ofpractice or approved plans of management.

[See Chapter 2, recommendation 2.2 andrecommendations in Chapter 5].

Key Recommendation 13B:There is a need to strengthen cooperation andcoordination between Government agencies so asto achieve integrated management forconservation, wood production and other values inboth public and private forests. Specifically:

■ active management across tenures of thecomprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR) reserve system (formal and informalreserves and areas managed by prescription);

■ complementary management of general woodproduction zones within State Forest;

■ effective threat abatement practices;

■ an appropriate balance between recreation andconservation;

■ more effective management and use ofresource information supporting ecologicallysustainable forest management ;

26 March 200117

■ more effective use of expertise;

■ support for private native forest management;

■ better strategic management area plans;

■ better coordination of research anddevelopment;

■ more effective communication of ecologicallysustainable forest management outcomes.

In order to promote cultural change withinexisting forest agencies, the formation of aninterdepartmental coordinating committee mayprovide some interim benefit. However, in themedium-term, a more effective option would bethe formation of a Natural Resources ManagementAgency with management responsibility for allpublic forested land and a support function formanagers of private forested land.

This recommendation is contingent upon thecreation and filling of the position of forestregulator in order to assist in maintaining abalance between forest uses. The proposed naturalresources agency will be guided in balancingconservation and wood production objectives byobjectives specified in RFAs, requirements of theexternal regulator, and by other governmentpolicy.

A logical corollary of the proposals inRecommendations 13A and 13B will be to extendthem so as to cover not only forests but all naturalresources. However, this is outside the expertworking group’s terms of reference.


Key Recommendation 13C:Private forest managers should be given assistancewith the implementation of ecologicallysustainable forest management, including:

■ technical assistance in the preparation ofconservation management plans, private forestmanagement plans and individual timberharvesting plans;

■ negotiation of conservation agreements; and

■ the provision of advice and training in relationto codes of practice.

A Private Forest support Unit should beestablished to assist forest managers.


26 March 2001 1

INTRODUCTION ANDMETHODOLOGY

This chapter provides a description of theconceptual framework used to assess forestmanagement systems and processes in New SouthWales against the requirements for ecologicallysustainable forest management.

The chapter also contains the principles ofecologically sustainable forest management(ESFM) as defined for New South Wales, theexpert working group’s interpretation of theseprinciples as they were used in the assessment, andan historical perspective on forest management inNew South Wales.

BACKGROUND

This report presents the results of an assessment ofcurrent forest management systems and processesin New South Wales for their ability to manageforests sustainably. The assessment was conductedby an independent expert working group.

The report will guide State and CommonwealthGovernments on the improvements needed inexisting forest management systems and processesto achieve ecologically sustainable management ona State-wide and regional basis.

Recommendations from the report will beconsidered in conjunction with those from otherelements of the comprehensive regionalassessments in the development and negotiation ofregional forest agreements between the New SouthWales and Commonwealth Governments.

Ecologically sustainable forestmanagement

Ecologically sustainable forest managementunderpins the National Forest Policy Statementobjectives (Commonwealth of Australia 1992b;p. 25). The operative rules for an assessment ofecologically sustainable forest management are:

The Commonwealth-State regional agreementresulting from the comprehensive regionalassessment will also cover guidelines for allaspects of ecologically sustainablemanagement of the forests in question, takinginto account the existing regulatoryframework in the States and building on forestmanagement strategies and practices. In thisrespect, the guidelines will cover, forexample, management for sustainable yield,the application and reporting of codes ofpractice, and the protection of rare andendangered species and national estate values.They may also specify the levels and types ofdisturbance that are acceptable for a particularforest so as not to adversely affect nationalestate and other conservation values of thatforest.

The NSW ESFM Group developed a workingdefinition of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement as a basis for the assessment. Thatdefinition is

Ecologically sustainable forest management(ESFM) is managing forests so that they aresustained in perpetuity for the benefit ofsociety by ensuring that the values of forestsare not lost or degraded for current and futuregenerations.

To maintain the overall capacity of forests toprovide goods and protect the full suite of forestvalues, forest on all land tenures must be managedfor ecological sustainability. This can be achievedthrough:

■ definition of agreed targets for biodiversity,wood production and other forest values atregional scales;

■ a comprehensive, adequate and representativenetwork of dedicated and secure natureconservation reserves for protecting biologicaldiversity and other values;

Assessment of management systems and processes for achieving ecologically sustainable forest management in NSW

26 March 2001 2

■ integrated planning processes and managementsystems on all tenures;

■ application of appropriate codes of practice andenvironmental prescriptions;

■ management plans incorporating sustainableyield harvesting practices; and


26 March 2001 3

TABLE 1: NATIONALLY AGREED CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLEFOREST MANAGEMENT

ASSESSMENTCRITERIA

CRITERIA(1) DESCRIPTION

System design tomeet nationalprinciples ofecologicallysustainable forestmanagement(2)

The planning and management of native forests should:

1. Maintain the full suite of forest values for present and future generations.

2. Maintain and enhance long -term multiple socio-economic benefits to meetthe needs of societies.

3. Protect and maintain biodiversity.

4. Maintain the productive capacity and sustainability of forest ecosystems.

5. Maintain forest ecosystem health and vitality.

6. Protect soil and water resources.

7. Maintain forest contribution to global carbon cycles.

8. Maintain natural and cultural heritage values.

9. Utilise the precautionary principle for prevention of environmentaldegradation.

Public transparency Scrutiny: Type and level of scrutiny - parliamentary, administrative.

Consultation: Opportunity for public comment, individual stakeholder and groupsubmissions, advisory group involvement in the process, information exchange,provision for feedback in consultation process.

Access to information: Process for access to information.

Public involvement: Opportunity for individual stakeholder or community groups to beinvolved in the decision-making process.

Reporting: Mechanism for reporting of processes and outcomes for all systemcriteria.

Monitoring Trend measurements: Process for assessment of change.Monitoring regimes: Process for regular monitoring of indicators.Standards: Process for designation of quantifiable measures against which thequality or performance of a characteristic or attribute is assessed.Performance targets: Process for designation of specified goals.Performance verification: Process for ensuring achievement of standards and targets

Compliance Audit arrangements, penalties, incentives: Processes that ensure compliance withstated goals or objectives.

Scientific andtechnical basis

Mechanism for assessing adequacy of information (for example scientific/peerreview); Process for incorporation of information into decision making process.

Review Mechanism for review, feedback and continual improvement, internal/external,periodicity.

(1) These criteria need to be applied at the appropriate ecological scales.(2) The nine principles should be interpreted and applied in the context of the National Forest PolicyStatement and other existing policy documents. Definitions contained in the National Forest Policy Statementapply to these principles. Planning and management of plantations should be consistent with the principlesestablished by the Ministerial Council for Forest Fisheries and Aquaculture in the document, Forest PracticesRelated to Wood Production in Plantations: National Principles.


26 March 2001 4

■ management of native forests outside thereserve system to complement the objectivesof managing the nature conservation reservesystem (Commonwealth of Australia 1992).

ASSESSING ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT– CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK

Nationally agreed criteria for assessment ofecologically sustainable forest management(Table 1) were developed by officials of theCommonwealth and State Governments at theComprehensive Regional AssessmentImplementation Forum (CRAIF) in 1996, usingthe following as guides:

■ the National Forest Policy Statement;

■ Australian Forestry Council Principles forEnvironmental Care in Native HardwoodLogging;

■ criteria and indicators of the Montreal Process(The Montreal Process 1995);

■ Forest Stewardship Council principles andcriteria for natural forest management(FSC 1995);

■ outcomes of the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UnitedNations 1992); and

■ the principles and guidelines of theInternational Standards Organisation’s 14000series, relating to environmental managementsystems (Standards Australia 1996).

Under the agreement, forest management systemsare to be assessed for their ability to ensure forestsare managed sustainably. These assessments areto be undertaken bilaterally by theCommonwealth and each State individually.Expert advisory groups are to be responsible fordirecting the: collection of information,assessment of existing management systems andprocesses against agreed criteria, and productionof an independent report. The report willcontribute to the overall assessment of the abilityof forest management to manage forestssustainably. Additionally, jointCommonwealth/State project management groupswill provide secretariat support for the group,including information collection anddocumentation; and joint Commonwealth/StateRFA (regional forest agreement) steeringcommittees will oversee the assessment process.

Using the nationally agreed criteria, the NSWESFM Group developed a set of principles to beused in the assessment of management systemsand processes for each tenure and forest use inNew South Wales (see Table 2). Tenure includesconservation reserves, State forests, administrativereserves and private lands; use includesconservation, timber production, plantations, otherforest produce, recreation and tourism, water, andmineral resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSYSTEM COMPONENTS FORACHIEVING ESFM

A framework for the assessment was developedbased on the International StandardsOrganisation’s 14000 series, 14001/14004Environmental Management Systems (EMS)(Standards Australia 1996). The components ofan environmental management system are:

■ commitment, legislation and policy framework

■ planning

■ implementation

■ information, monitoring and evaluation

■ review and improvement.

Commitment, legislation and policy frameworkUnder this component of an environmentalmanagement system, the legislative and policyframework of forest management should ensurethat all forest values are protected and maintainedin a balanced manner. The framework shouldensure that principles of ecologically sustainableforest management are applied to meetCommonwealth and State Government obligationsto international agreements, treaties andconventions, environmental1 legislation and otherregulatory instruments. Co-ordination ofCommonwealth and State forest-related policiesand legislative requirements may also be treatedunder this heading. Commitment of governmentsand departments should be assessed in terms ofthe development and application of legislation,policies, conventions and agreements whichcontribute to achieving ecologically sustainableforest management.

1Environmental is used here in a broad sense toinclude environment, economic, social, resourceand heritage values or attributes.


26 March 2001 5

PlanningThe principles of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement should be reflected in the goals andobjectives of plans. The planning process shouldprovide a sustainable balance (i.e. withinecological constraints) between competingdemands for all forest uses across all land tenures.Planning arrangements for ecologicallysustainable forest management may require ahierarchy of strategic and operational plans at a


26 March 2001 6

TABLE 2: NSW ESFM GROUP’S PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSMENT OF FOREST MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS AND PROCESSES IN NEW SOUTH WALES

The five principles developed by the NSW ESFMGroup for use in the assessment of forestmanagement systems and processes in NewSouth Wales are:

PRINCIPLE 1: Maintain or increase the fullsuite of values across the New South Walesnative forest estate for present and futuregenerations

The principle of intergenerational equity (that inmeeting the needs of the present generation, theability of the future generations to meet their ownneeds is not compromised) is embodied in thisprinciple

■ Ensure that ecologically sustainable forestmanagement at the regional and smallerscales is implemented by ecologicallyappropriate planning and operational practices,and that ecologically sustainable forestmanagement targets are set and indicators ofperformance are monitored.

■ Ensure the long-term maintenance of the fullrange of values of the New South Walesexisting forest estate. The intention is tomaintain or increase not only the full range ofvalues, but also the magnitude or level atwhich those values are maintained orincreased.

■ Encourage the increased production ofplantation-grown timber and the social andeconomic benefits flowing from this increasedproduction to supplement the wood supplyfrom native forests.

Aims include:

A: Biodiversity

■ biological diversity of forests at the ecosystem,species and genetic levels where biologicaldiversity includes natural patterns ofecosystems, species and gene pools in timeand space.

■ address the requirements of vulnerablespecies, assist with the recovery of threatenedspecies, and maintain the full range ofecological communities at viable levels.

■ protect landscape values by the carefulplanning of operations and the reservation ofappropriate patches and corridors ofvegetation.

B: Productive capacity and sustainability of forest ecosystems

■ maintain ecological processes within forests(such as the formation of soil, energy flowsand the carbon, nutrient and water cycles,fauna and flora communities and theirinteractions)

■ maintain or increase the ability of forestecosystems to produce biomass whetherutilised by society or as part of nutrient andenergy cycles

■ ensure the rate of removal of any forestproducts is consistent with ecologicallysustainable levels

■ ensure the effects of activities/disturbancesthat threaten forests, forest health or forestvalues are benign.

C: Forest ecosystem health and vitality

■ reduce or avoid threats to forest ecosystemsfrom introduced diseases, exotic plants andanimals, unnatural regimes of fire or flooding,wind shear, land clearing and urbanisation

■ promote good environmental practice inrelation to pest management

■ ensure the effects of activities/disturbanceswithin forests, their scale and intensity,including their cumulative effects are controlledand benign.

■ restore and maintain the suite of attributes(ecological condition, species composition andstructure of native forests) where forest healthand vitality have been degraded.

D: Soil and water

■ maintain the chemical and biological functionsof soils by protecting soils from unnaturalnutrient losses, exposure, degradation andloss

■ maintain the physical integrity of soils byprotecting soils from erosion, mass movement,instability, compaction, pulverisation and loss

■ protect water quality (physical, chemical,biological) by measures controlling disturbanceresulting from forest activities

■ identify and maintain at appropriate levels,water yield and flow duration in catchments


26 March 2001 7

TABLE 2: NSW ESFM GROUP’S PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSMENT OF FOREST MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS AND PROCESSES IN NEW SOUTH WALES (cont)

E: Positive contribution of forests to global geochemical cycles

Maintain the positive contribution of forests to theglobal geochemical cycle (including climate, airand water quality and deposition)

F: Long-term social and economic benefits

■ maintain and enhance, on an ecologicallysustainable basis, production of wood andwood products, including value adding,investment and resource security

■ provided it is ecologically sustainable set,maintain or enhance the level of use of non-wood products and uses, including bee-keeping, grazing, mining, recreation andtourism, reliable water supply

■ maintain and enhance, on an ecologicallysustainable basis, the provision of employmentand community needs such as economicdiversification, investment skills, education,jobs stability, training and indigenous needs

■ encourage the establishment and use ofplantation forests on existing cleared land toexpand social and economic values

■ maintain and enhance the intangible socialwelfare benefits which forests provide.

G: Natural and cultural heritage values

■ protect social, natural and cultural heritagevalues and sites, including aesthetic,landscape, historic, cultural, educational,scenic spiritual and scientific values andindigenous values and sites

PRINCIPLE 2: Ensure public participation,access to information, accountability andtransparency in the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management

■ ensure public participation in decision-makingprocesses at local, regional, State and Federallevels

■ ensure comprehensive, timely and reasonablepublic access to information

■ ensure transparency, openness andaccountability in decision making processesand performance.

PRINCIPLE 3: Ensure legislation, policies,institutional framework, codes, standards andpractices achieve ecologically sustainablemanagement of

the native forest estate through requirementsand/or by providing incentives

■ establish a process for shared managementand administration, recognising the customaryand traditional rights of indigenous people andthe interests of private landholders and otherstakeholders in an area’s management

■ ensure compliance with stated goals andobjectives.

PRINCIPLE 4: Apply precautionary principlefor prevention of environmental degradation

The incorporation of the precautionary principleinto decision making has been endorsed by Stateand Commonwealth Governments(Commonwealth of Australia 1992 p. 49,IGAE 1992) and is defined as ‘where there arethreats of serious or irreversible environmentaldamage, lack of full scientific certainty should notbe used as a reason for postponing measures toprevent environmental degradation’. In theapplication of the precautionary principle, publicand private decisions should be guided by:

■ careful evaluation to avoid, whereverpracticable, serious or irreversible damage tothe environment; and

■ an assessment of the risk-weightedconsequences of various options.

PRINCIPLE 5: Apply best available knowledgeand adaptive management processes

■ Ecologically sustainable forest managementwould utilise the concept of adaptivemanagement and continuous improvementbased on best scientific and expert advice andtargeted research on critical gaps inknowledge, monitoring or evaluation.

■ establish an effective process of monitoring.

NOTES ON THE PRINCIPLES

Transparency in a process is the degree to which thepublic or stakeholder groups understand the decision-making process and can see who is taking decisions.

Openness in a process is the degree to which it allowsinterested parties to participate in the decision-makingprocess.

Accountability in a process is the ability to identifywho is responsible for implementing agreed decisions.


26 March 2001 8

range of scales (regional to coupe) to provide forthe protection and management of allenvironmental, social, cultural and economicvalues. The assessment should focus on the extentto which planning processes at their various levelsmeet the principles for ecologically sustainableforest management, their transparency andopenness to ensure public confidence, and thebasis (scientific, technical, best availableknowledge) upon which they are developed.

ImplementationEffective implementation of practices to achieveecologically sustainable forest managementdepends on having the capabilities and supportmechanisms that are necessary to achieve theobjectives and targets of policies and plans. Anumber of factors must be assessed to determinethe capability of governments and agencies andprivate forest managers, to deliver ecologicallysustainable forest management. Such factors are:designation of responsibility for achievingobjectives and targets; capacity to implementplans through adequate resourcing; operationalcontrols over the implementation of plans;documentation and records keeping; effectivecommunication practices; education; andknowledge, skills and training.

Information, monitoring and evaluationEcologically sustainable forest management needsto be supported by environmental and socio-economic databases containing information atrelevant levels of detail and scales. To determinethis, the type, currency, appropriateness andaccessibility of information upon which strategicregional and smaller scale planning is based, should be assessed.

Processes for measuring and monitoringimplementation of management plans and changesin environmental values as a result of forest uses,for evaluating and auditing the actual performanceof management in relation to objectives andtargets (compliance and conformance), and thecapacity and capability of the management systemto carry out corrective (and preventative) actionsshould be assessed. Audit processes applicable todifferent components of the management systemshould be assessed in relation to a number offactors: frequency of audit (which should bedetermined by the potential for environmentaldamage associated with the activity undermanagement), the objectivity and impartiality ofthe audit process, the level of training of

management personnel, and the transparency ofthe audit process to the public.

Review and improvementAn important component of ecologicallysustainable forest management is the commitmentand capacity of the organisation to review andcontinually improve its environmentalmanagement system and its overall environmentalperformance. Processes that allow performancereview and continual improvement throughadaptive management, including short and long-term monitoring of management systems andenvironmental performance indicators, arerequired. Processes that facilitate theincorporation of new knowledge arising fromresearch and development are integral toecologically sustainable forest management.Processes enabling review and improvementshould be assessed on the extent to which theyallow the management system to change inresponse to changing legislation, advances inscience and technology, changing expectationsand requirements of interested parties, or lessonslearned from environmental incidents and pastpractice.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

Current forest management systems andprocesses

The ISO 14000 series provides an environmentalmanagement system at an organisation2 levelonly. The ISO model was adapted to incorporatethe management elements of New South WalesGovernment agencies responsible for forestmanagement and regulation.

Each of the three regulatory agencies(Environment Protection Agency, Department ofLand and Water Commission and Department ofUrban Affairs and Planning) and six managementagencies (State Forests, National Parks andWildlife Service, Rural Fire Services, Departmentof Mineral Resources, Department of Agriculture,

2An organisation can be Commonwealth andState Government organisations or statutoryauthorities, Governments, private or non-government organisations. For the purpose ofecologically sustainable forest managementassessments, Governments and theiradministrative structures are to be assessed.Private organisations have not been included inESFM assessments to date.


26 March 2001 9

Sydney Water) prepared a spreadsheet containingdetailed information on a range of attributes foreach 'element' or aspect of forest management forwhich they are responsible, in relation toenvironmental management system componentsand the ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principles (Table 3).

Agencies also provided overview statementsdescribing their roles, responsibilities and inter-relationships, including a brief summary of areasfor improvement in relation to ecologicallysustainable forest management.

A library of source documents on agencymanagement arrangements was compiled for usein the assessment.

The concept of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement evolved following the RioDeclaration of 1992 and therefore post-dates thedevelopment of most forest management andregulatory agencies in New South Wales. As aresult, not all management goals are specificallyaligned with the principles of ecologicallysustainable forest management.

Similarly, departmental structures have not beendeveloped within the framework of anenvironmental management system, as suchsystems are a recent innovation (post-1987) andare still being refined.

For these reasons, it has not been possible tosystematically describe the current forestmanagement arrangements in relation to theprinciples of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement and the guidelines for environmentmanagement systems.

Departmental restructuring and legislativechanges during the course of the assessment madedetailed documentation of the current systems andprocesses very difficult and of limited long-termvalue.

To complete the assessment within theseconstraints and the given timeframe, theassessment focused primarily on

■ identifying areas of forest management andregulation within and between agencies thatare most in need of improvement to achieveecologically sustainable forest management;and

■ developing recommendations that wouldprovide the basis for delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management and continuedimprovement of New South Wales forestmanagement.

Assessment by expert working group

An expert working group was appointed toindependently assess existing managementsystems and processes of the kinds describedabove and produce a report that would contributeto the overall development of ecologicallysustainable forest management in New SouthWales. The experts were supported by a 'focus'group comprised of State agency andCommonwealth Government officers who assistedin the process of information collection anddocumentation, and by a Commonwealthsecretariat during the preparation of the report.

Members of the expert working group and theirareas of specialisation were:

Professor David Farrier (University ofWollongong), legislative framework (all levelsof government)

Dr Ross Florence (visiting fellow ANU),ecology and silviculture

Dr Robert McCormack (CSIRO Forestry andForest Products), forest management andplanning (planning, controls, regulations,industry issues)

Dr John Raison (CSIRO Forestry and ForestProducts), soil, water and site productivity(Chair of the group)

Mr. Stan Rodgers (consultant), environmentalmanagement systems (management systemdesign, compliance, audit, review andimprovement, etc.)

Dr Andrew Smith (consultant), forest faunaand flora conservation (flora and fauna,habitat, biodiversity and environmental issues).

The expert working group’s assessment wasconducted according to the Terms of Referencedeveloped by the NSW ESFM Group (Table 4).

The assessment was conducted in two stages.

■ in the first stage, regulatory and managementarrangements were assessed in relation to anenvironmental management system

■ in the second stage, management elementswere assessed against the principles forecological sustainability as developed for NewSouth Wales.

Information for the assessment was collected intwo ways: through background material providedby the five agencies under assessment and throughinterviews with staff of these agencies.


26 March 2001 10

Briefings were not held with local governmentrepresentatives. Information for the assessment oflocal government functions was provided byofficers of the Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning.

Submissions on early drafts of the report fromindustry, conservation groups, unions, andrepresentatives of State and CommonwealthGovernments on the NSW ESFM Group wereconsidered by the expert working group beforecompletion of the final report.


26 March 2001 11

TABLE 3: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS OF NEW SOUTH WALES AGENCIES, CLASSIFIED TOASSESS THEIR ABILITY TO SUSTAIN FORESTS ECOLOGICALLY

ESFM/EMS CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

1. Management element Individual elements of an agency’s management arrangements

2. Status of element Whether the management element is under development, in draft,current, or under review

3. Discretionary or compulsory Whether the element is based on policy or legislation

4. Primary agency Agency assigned primary responsibility under the legislation

5. Agency linkages Relationship with agencies having secondary responsibility for themanagement element (NP&WS, SFNSW, DLWC, DUAP, EPA, Depts.of Bushfire Services, Aboriginal Affairs, Mineral Resources andAgriculture, Water Board, RTA, local government, other agencies andstakeholders)

6. Current function (pre-ESFM) The objective(s) of the current management element. These cover –Mining and exploration; extractive industries; apiculture; grazing; flora(protected); old-growth; rainforest; threatened species, communitiesand processes; wilderness; natural and cultural (European) heritage;indigenous heritage; recreation and tourism; soil protection; waterquality; air quality; fire; forest health and diseases; pest plants andanimals; social and economic; plantation: harvesting, silviculture,roading and inventory; native forests: harvesting, silviculture, roadingand inventory; farm forestry; public use/utilities; land use/resourceallocation; regional development; policy development; environmentalassessment; regulatory form; land protection; other

7. NSW ESFM Principles

P1– maintenance of the full suite of forest values

Identifies the particular attributes of each principle addressed by themanagement element, i.e. biodiversity, productive capacity, forestecosystem health and vitality, soil and water, global geochemicalcycles, social and economic benefits, natural and cultural heritagevalues

P2 – public involvement, access to information, accountability and transparency

Whether and how the management element addresses transparencythrough scrutiny, consultation, access to information, publicparticipation, documentation, reporting

P3 – Ensure processess achieve ecologically sustainable management of the native forest estate through requirements and/or by providing incentives

Whether the management element has a mandatory requirement orprovides incentives through penalties, rewards or benefits to achieveecologically sustainable forest management .

P4 –- Precautionary principle Whether and to what degree the management element addresses thePrecautionary Principle.

P5 –- Knowledge and adaptive management

Whether the management element has processes forassessment/review mechanism and/or incorporation of information

8. EMS* (ISO 140001) components

Component 1 - Commitment,legislation and policy

Records the EMS component (1-5) the management element isequivalent to:

National legislation/policy, state legislation, state and local govt.policies, departmental policy

Component 2 - Planning State-wide, regional, local, corporate, strategic, operational

Component 3 - Implementation Accountability and responsibility; programs and budgets; operationalcontrol; documentation, records and reporting; knowledge, skills andtraining; communication and education; emergency preparedness

Component 4 - Measurement and evaluation

Forest information; monitoring and evaluation of plans and programsimplementation; monitoring condition of the forest environment andvalues; auditing; corrective action

Component 5 - Review and improvement

Review of the management system; continual improvement; researchand development


26 March 2001 12

TABLE 3: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS OF NSW AGENCIES, CLASSIFIED TO ASSESS THEIRABILITY TO SUSTAIN FORESTS ECOLOGICALLY (CONT)

9. Tenure State forest lands, national parks lands, other crown lands, privatelands, other

10. Source document (title and page reference)

Bibiographic reference

11. General Description Summary description of the management element in relation to ESFM

NotesESFM - Ecologically sustainable forest managementEMS - Environmental management system

TABLE 4: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE NSW ESFM EXPERT WORKING GROUP

1. Assess the scope, quality and integrity ofsystems/processes applicable to forestmanagement in New South Wales, and thedegree to which they deliver ecologicallysustainable forest management as directed bythe NSW ESFM Group:

− The assessment is to be structured andreported on the basis of managementsystem components and assessmentprinciples as developed by the NSW ESFMGroup and agreed by the SteeringCommittee.

− The objective of the assessment is toprovide the basis for accreditation ofmanagement systems/processes anddevelopment of recommendations forimprovement of forest managementsystems and processes where required toachieve ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. The work will not focus onthe detail of management practicespertaining to the various systems/processes.The performance of New South Walesmanagement systems and processes inrelation to management practices and otherperformance-based issues will bedetermined through complementaryprojects as described in broad project areasin the NSW ESFM Technical Framework.

− Assess the effectiveness of current NewSouth Wales management systems andprocesses in meeting the assessmentprinciples.

− Identify the strengths, significant gaps,deficiencies, duplication and opportunitiesfor the delivery of ecologically sustainable

forest management in New South Walesmanagement systems and processes.

− Recommend efficient and cost-effectiveoptions for improvements and actions tosupport strengths and address identifiedgaps or deficiencies in New South Walesmanagement systems and processes todeliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

The expert working group, in undertaking theassessment, may consult with other parties asagreed with the NSW ESFM Group,

1. The assessment is to cover all forest tenures,grouped appropriately, and significant forestuses for New South Wales as agreed with theNSW ESFM Group. The expert working groupwill take account of different managementobjectives and systems for different tenuresand uses.

2. The expert working group will provide adviceto the NSW ESFM Group on the structure ofthe assessment and background description ofmanagement systems and processes (refer Step4 Project Specification: Guidelines fordescription of New South Wales managementsystems and processes.)

3. The expert working group will provide a DraftAssessment Report: Independent Assessmentof New South Wales Management Systemsand Processes. The report will includeidentification and recommendation of optionsfor improvement of New South Wales forestmanagement systems and processes to theNSW ESFM Group at an agreed date (referStep 6 of Project specifications.)


26 March 2001 13

4. The expert working group will provide a FinalAssessment Report in an agreed format to theNSW ESFM Group at an agreed date.


26 March 2001 14

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

This section provides an historical perspective onforest management and nature conservation inNew South Wales.

State forest management

The brief for the assessment required that thecurrent policies, management systems andprocesses of State Forests of New South Wales beevaluated for their effectiveness in deliveringecologically sustainable silvicultural practice. Asunderstanding the results of this assessmentrequires an appreciation of the present forestcondition, and because that condition reflects theinfluence of forest policies, strategies andpractices over many decades, it is appropriate atthe outset to place current forest management inan historical context.

The Aboriginal people were the first ‘managers’of the Australian forests. The relationship betweenthe Aboriginals, the country and its resources wasone of interdependence—sustaining the naturalenvironment was crucial to Aboriginal survival.The open ‘woodland structure’ of many forests atsettlement (wide-spaced, large-boled trees over agrassy forest floor) is widely attributed to regularlow intensity Aboriginal burning, andundoubtedly this is one of the factors involved(Florence 1996). Indigenous peoples havecontinued their association with the foreststhrough employment in the forest industry andthrough their protection of sacred places, such asBiamanga. They wish to continue to be part of themanagement of forests and ensure that theirvalues are protected and managed for futuregenerations.

From the 1880s, increasing importance was givento the establishment of a managed forest estate,and to forest assessment and harvesting control.At the time, the New South Wales managementpractices were dominated by three priorities: theneed to eke out wood supply to industry byconserving part of the growing stock from harvestin favour of later cutting, to improve theproductive condition of the growing stock andregenerate the forests (mainly by ringbarking non-commercial old-growth trees), and to controlrecurrent wildfire. While lack of resources duringthe Great Depression and the intervention ofWorld War II curtailed these activities, goodprogress was made in bringing orderlymanagement to the forests.

An expansion in professionally trained staff fromthe 1950s meant that substantial progress wasmade in forest inventory, yield regulation, and inthe application of silvicultural and harvestingregimes designed to improve the forest condition.Programs to regenerate lower slope wetsclerophyll forest (‘gully conversion’) throughclearing, burning and seeding began on someforests in the late 1950s, and greater attention wasgiven to protecting areas of high conservationvalue through forest preserves, flora reserves andprimitive reserves.

During the decades of rapid economic growth thatfollowed World War II, demand could not be metfrom forests that had been brought undermanagement before the war. All Australiangovernments committed themselves to meeting asmuch of the wood demand as possible—largelyfrom previously unmanaged native forests. Doingso avoided unacceptable expansion in woodimports, maintained local industries andcommunities, and contained timber prices at atime of rapid inflation. Previously unmanaged(mainly old-growth) forests were harvested atrates well in excess of sustainable yields, andwoodchip export programs were initiated,primarily to gain access to sawlogs from forestswhich could not be managed economically forsawlogs alone.

New South Wales came to accept an implicitstrategy of 'running down' the sawlog supplyingcapability of the native forests, while rapidlydeveloping an alternative and more efficientsoftwood resource. This may have been aneffective wood production strategy under difficultdemand-and-supply circumstances, but the seedsof environmental conflict were sown in this way.Nevertheless, and despite the wisdom ofhindsight, it is difficult to see what elsegovernments might have done at a time of rapidlyescalating demand, and before the emergence of abroadly based environmental ethic.

Wood supply as the dominant managementobjective was reinforced through the IndigenousForest Policy (Forestry Commission of NewSouth Wales 1976). While the policy recognisedother forest values and the need to manage forthem, environmental objectives remained, inpractice, secondary to those concerned with short-term wood supply. The old-growth mountain andescarpment forests were logged ‘to the limits ofeconomic accessibility’ and the coastal regionforests were subjected to continuing selectionsilviculture. Selection prescriptions were designedto conserve the species and trees with the greater


26 March 2001 15

growth potential for later harvest. However,because of uncertainties about the demand forhardwood beyond the year 2000, the policy madelittle provision for expenditure on siteregeneration treatments. Without effectiveregeneration of harvested forest, the continuity ofwood supply for the long term was detrimentallyaffected.

Environmental objectives came to play anincreasingly important role in formulatingmanagement strategies and plans through the1970s and ‘80s. The commission employed itsfirst wildlife research officer in 1979, introducedthe first soil mitigation erosion controls for forestoperations in 1975, and the first codes of loggingpractice and harvesting plans in the late 1970s.Multiple-use zoning (the ‘preferred managementpriority’ classification) was introduced in 1980,and the first environmental impact statement wasprepared in 1984. The Native Forest PreservationPolicy was ratified in 1984, and a WildlifeConservation Policy formulated in 1987. Whilethese were positive steps in environmentalmanagement, the prescriptions applied to generalwood production zones did not take adequateaccount of the considerable ecological andstructural diversity within the forests and couldnot be consistent with modern principles ofecologically sustainable forest management .

The effects on productivity of the IndigenousForest Policy have been most notable in threesituations: on sites where some form of post-logging site treatment was essential to obtainseedling regeneration, but was not applied; whereselection logging generated a successional trendtowards the more tolerant and generally lessproductive species (that is, the latter species ‘tookover’ from the more valued timber species); andgenerally, where site production has been affectedby sub-optimal levels of growing stock. Systemsmanaging for ecological sustainability will needto deal with all these matters. Nevertheless, theexpert working group accepts that selectionmanagement during this period helped maintain‘semi-natural’ forests, creating a vegetational andstructural framework within which futuremanagement could be directed effectively towardsmanaging the forests sustainably.

State Forests of New South Wales is now in acritical transitional phase— moving from thestrong timber orientation of the past to a system ofmanagement where environmental conservationhas become the dominant objective. It is fortunatethis is happening at a time when the woodproduction pressure on the native forest is

declining: Australia’s forest timber industry ischanging from reliance on hardwood to relianceon softwood. Nevertheless, there will be acontinuing demand for hardwood where attributesof strength, durability and attractiveness areimportant to consumers.

Nature conservation

Prior to the 1990s the goal of conserving nativeflora and fauna, historical sites, landscapes andlandforms was pursued primarily throughdedication of national parks under the directionand management of the NSW National Parks andWildlife Service. National parks were generallysmall, isolated, and dominated by vegetationcommunities of little or no commercial value.They were also managed primarily for recreation,leading to some conflict with nature conservationobjectives. The most important areas ofbiodiversity in the State are retained natural forestin State Forests and forests on private land. Withthe exception of some State environmentalplanning policies that protected wetlands andlittoral (coastal) rainforest, there was little formalprotection of extensive habitats outside nationalparks and reserves, often referred to as ‘off-reserve’ habitats. Historically, most decisions onthe role of State forests were made bygovernments in order to sustain wood supply toindustry, to maintain rural employment, to preventan explosion of wood imports, and to limitincreases in the price of timber. Largely becauseof this, a substantial part of the public forestresource was allocated to wood production,creating, by present-day standards, an imbalancebetween the production and conservationfunctions of the forests. It was accepted during theimmediate postwar decades that as little as 5 percent of the forest constituted an adequate nationalpark estate.

The implementation of periodic State-widereviews of public land use provides a mechanismfor resolving imbalances in public land allocation.Victoria in 1970 and Western Australia in 1974were the first States to undertake comprehensivepublic land use reviews for reallocation of publicforests to nature reserves. No equivalent reviewstook place in New South Wales but significanttransfer of rainforest from State forest to nationalpark occurred later, in the 1980s. This left anational park network where rainforest and semi-arid lands and scrubs were over-represented, andthe high-quality, commercially valuable forests ofthe tablelands, slopes and coastal lowlands wereunder-represented. The current process leading to


26 March 2001 16

formal agreements over forest use is the firstobjective assessment of land allocation forconservation purposes in New South Wales.

Australia's National Forest Policy seeks to achieveconservation targets through a combination ofreservation and complementary multiple usemanagement in off-reserve wood productionforests. No serious consideration was given to off-reserve conservation in public and private forestsin New South Wales prior to the 1990s becauseexisting legislation did not provide adequateprotection for off-reserve wildlife habitat. Alicence was required from National Parks andWildlife Service under the National Parks andWildlife Act 1974 for the direct taking or killing ofwildlife (for example, for trade or research) but nolicence was required for the indirect taking orkilling of wildlife by destruction of habitat (forexample, through clearing or forestry) on publicor private land. Environmental impact statementswere required for major developments butapproval authorities had little power to enforce theprinciples and practices associated withecologically sustainable forest management andthere were no codes of practice or conservationprotocols for protection of biodiversity values inState forests.

This situation changed suddenly in 1991 when theLand and Environment Court ruled that forestryactivities that modified wildlife habitat inChaelundi State Forest would result in the takingor killing of endangered species and thereforerequired a licence under the National Parks andWildlife Act. This ruling empowered the NationalParks and Wildlife Service to impose conditionson forestry practices to ameliorate impacts onthreatened fauna. These powers were re-enforcedby the introduction of the Endangered FaunaInterim Protection Act 1992, which required thepreparation of fauna impact statements approvedby the National Parks and Wildlife Service for allactivities on private and public land likely to havea significant adverse effect on the habitats ofvulnerable and endangered fauna. Assessmentcriteria known as the ‘7 point test’ were specifiedin the Act for the purpose of determining when adevelopment was likely to have a significantimpact and require and fauna impact statement.

The Endangered Fauna Interim Protection Actwas replaced in 1995 by the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act, which extended the list ofthreatened species to include flora, ecologicalcommunities and individual threatenedpopulations (including invertebrates) in additionto fauna, and made a number of other changes

including the listing of threatening processes anda requirement to prepare threat abatement plans,threatened species’recovery plans, and propertymanagement plans for land use activities thatrequired a licence. The Threatened SpeciesConservation Act also introduced a new ‘ 8 pointtest’ of significance for determining when aspecies impact statement must be prepared andsubmitted to the Director General of the NationalParks and Wildlife Service for approval(concurrence) or advice.

The Threatened Species Conservation Act is themost comprehensive and effective legislation forvegetation and habitat protection in Australia. It isthe most important Act regulating vegetationclearing and modification on all tenures in NewSouth Wales. Since some species listed asthreatened under the Act are widely distributed inthe State and, in the case of species such as bats,can occur in significant numbers in a single largeold tree, clearing or modification (for example, byforestry) of almost any patch of remnant naturalforest requires a fauna or fauna habitat survey andassessment under the ‘8 point’ test. The NationalParks and Wildlife Service considers the Actcurrently represents the most appropriatelegislative response to the challenges ofbiodiversity conservation.

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995includes amongst its objects:

■ the promotion of ecologically sustainabledevelopment;

■ the elimination or management of threateningprocesses;

■ the proper assessment of any impacts affectingthreatened species, populations andcommunities; and

■ the encouragement of co-operativemanagement for conservation of threatenedspecies.

These objects and the mechanisms of the Actprovide scope for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement on forests in both private and publictenures, yet achievement of such management hasbeen far from consistent and effective.Information required for cost-effective delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management isbeing withheld by government agencies, there areinconsistencies and loopholes in impactassessment procedures, standard measures forelimination and management of threats (codes ofpractice) have not been developed for mostactivities on private land, and protection of


26 March 2001 17

threatened species cannot be guaranteed on publiclands, including national parks. Rectification ofthese deficiencies requires little modification ofexisting legislation but major changes in policies,planning processes, practices and commitment ofgovernment agencies.

Because off-reserve wildlife habitat protectionlegislation in New South Wales is relatively newand is not yet fully backed by a history ofeffective implementation and enforcement, theconservation community distrusts the ability ofoff-reserve management to achieve sustainableforest management over the long term. Thisuncertainty has fostered a single strategy approachto conservation based on accumulation of as mucharea as possible in national parks. This approachfails to recognise the important role played bymultiple use forestry in protecting biodiversity inNew South Wales forests. In the post-regionalforest agreement environment, the most extensiveareas of wildlife habitat will still occur off-reservein State forests and retained vegetation on privateland. The future of biodiversity under this newarrangement will remain dependent onecologically sustainable management of the off-reserve estate. As New South Wales has the mosteffective off-reserve wildlife habitat protectionlegislation in Australia, the State has anopportunity to lead the way in restoring publicconfidence in ecologically sustainable approachesto biodiversity conservation off-reserve.

INTERPRETATION OFECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLEFOREST MANAGEMENT

The assessment focused on the ability ofmanagement systems and processes to achieveecologically sustainable forest management, butnot on the detail of management practicespertaining to systems and processes. The expertworking group has interpreted the fiveecologically sustainable forest managementprinciples contained in its Terms of Reference inthe following manner for the purpose of assessingforest management systems and processes in NewSouth Wales:

Principle 1: Maintain or increase the fullsuite of forest values for present andfuture generations across the New SouthWales forest estate

(Principle 1 has seven parts)

A BiodiversityThis aspect of the principle is taken to mean thatbiodiversity values in forests (at community,species, population and genetic levels) will bemaintained above minimum target levels at State-wide and regional scales. This goal will beachieved by a combination of strategies: forestreservation, off-reserve multiple use management,maintenance of wildlife corridors and links, andcontrol of processes that threaten biodiversity.

Reservation will be achieved through dedicationof a comprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR) reserve system that includes nationalparks, reserves, and retained off-reserve areas onother public and private lands.

Off-reserve multiple use management will beachieved by bioregional planning which identifiesthe most appropriate use for the land andidentifies codes of practice (conservationprotocols) for specific landuses to ensure themaintenance of biodiversity values above targetlevels, which may be lower than in reserves.

Corridors and links will be maintained byregulation of clearing and development patterns;management of the forest matrix to facilitateanimal movement and dispersal between formalparks and reserves; and by protection andrestoration of designated habitat corridors.

Control of threatening processes will be achievedby improved resourcing for development andimplementation of State-wide threat abatementplans and recovery plans for groups of rare andendangered species affected by threateningprocesses common to them all. Rare andendangered species that are not adequatelyprotected in reserves or by threat abatement planswill be managed under individual speciesrecovery plans.

B Productive capacity and sustainability offorest ecosystemsThis component of the principle requires acommitment to maintaining or increasing theproductivity (biomass production) of forests, andto ensuring that the yield of forest products issustainable. Ecologically sustainable practice istaken to mean that adequate account is taken ofecosystem processes, natural species andcommunity patterns and silvicultural principleswhen formulating management practices in orderthat both wood production and a wide range ofenvironmental values are maintained. Whilerequirements for the sustainable management ofnon-wood values are also dealt with under other


26 March 2001 18

parts of Principle 1, these values should beconsidered in an integrated way when formulatingsilvicultural practice for wood production.

C Forest ecosystem health and vitalityThis component of the principle encompasses theconcept of ecological integrity, and threats to itfrom changing environmental conditions. It placesconstraints on the type and acceptable level ofdisturbance to forest ecosystems. It requires anappreciation of that point beyond whichdisturbance to a forest ecosystem may begin toadversely affect forest health, vitality andproductivity. Applying this part of the principlerequires that site attributes, natural speciesmixtures and stand structures, and the effects ofmanagement activities are fully considered.

Threats to ecosystems from pests and diseasesoften result from an imbalance between speciesand community patterns and stand structures, andsite resources. Achieving ecologically sustainableforest management may depend on restoring thisbalance.

D Conservation of soil and water resourcesThis aspect of the principle is taken to mean thateffective management actions will be taken toprotect soil and water values. These actions willinvolve assessment of inherent risk,implementation of mitigation practices (these willvary from site to site), and maintaining soil andwater values by monitoring against agreedstandards. Soil and water values generally need tobe protected at the catchment, sub-catchment andlocal scale.

E Positive contribution to global geochemicalcyclesThe expert working group has restricted itsinterpretation of this principle to carbon cycles,because forest management can significantlyaffect carbon release to the atmosphere and take-up from it. The expert working group accepts thatforests make a beneficial contribution to globalcarbon cycles when managed in an ecologicallysustainable way. The appropriate scale ofinterpretation is the region, not the individuallogging unit.

F Long-term social and economic benefitsThe basis of this component is the promotion offorest-related economic activity that is consistentwith the maintenance of environmental values.This goal is consistent with the National ForestPolicy Statement. Forests as a whole need to be

managed so as to maximise the long-term welfareof, or benefit to society, in terms of the goods andservices it requires from forests. The foresteconomy covers timber, other forest products anduses, such as water supply, mining, grazing,recreation and tourism.

G Natural and cultural heritage valuesHeritage encompasses archaeological sites,historic places and customs (cultural heritage) andnatural values or objects (natural heritage) that areof aesthetic and social value. Ecologicallysustainable forest management must includeprocesses to identify, evaluate, and protect thesevalues.

Principle 2: Ensure public participation,access to information, accountability andtransparency in the achievement ofecologically sustainable forestmanagement

This principle is interpreted as a requirement thatpublic participation will take place at strategicplanning levels and other critical stages in thedecision-making process. Proactive contributionto policy-setting processes should be encouraged;adequate information should be provided to allstakeholders; processes should be assessed fortransparency, openness and accountability; andany deficiencies identified, reviewed and resolvedby consensus. To demonstrate this principle hasbeen met, key processes and outcomes should bewell documented in a form readily understood bythe interested public.

Principle 3: Ensure legislation, policies,institutional frameworks, codes,standards and practices achieveecologically sustainable management ofthe native forest estate throughrequirements and/or by providingincentives

Principle 3 will be achieved largely throughcompliance with Principle 1. Principle 3recognises that ecologically sustainable forestmanagement cannot be achieved purely throughregulation, but only by developing an appropriatebalance between incentives and regulation.

Principle 4: Apply the precautionaryprinciple for prevention of environmentaldegradation

The expert working group accepts that lack of fullscientific certainty about the prospect of


26 March 2001 19

environmental degradation should not be used as areason for postponing measures to prevent thedegradation. Given the complex patterns ofspecies and communities within many nativeforests, and the sensitive relationships betweenforest communities and the environment, carefulapplication of the precautionary principle will beessential to avoid environmental damage.Ecologically sustainable forest managementcannot be achieved by relying on project-basedassessment. For the precautionary principle to beimplemented effectively the expert working groupconsiders a shift to bioregional planning to beessential.

Careful evaluation of a proposed activity isneeded in order to avoid, wherever practicable,serious or irreversible damage to theenvironment—backed up by risk-weightedassessments of management options linked with‘best practice’ activities.

Principle 5: Apply best availableknowledge and adaptive managementprocesses

This principle requires that all forest andregulatory agencies make an active effort to applyrelevant knowledge generated both from withinand external to forest management agencies.Adaptive management requires setting targets forecologically sustainable forest management valuesduring the planning process, and monitoring tocheck whether targets are achieved. Appropriatereview and improvement processes are required sothat changes to forest management can beimplemented when required. Strategic and tacticalresearch and development programs are essentialto underpin better forest management.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALEISSUES AND TRADE-OFFS AMONGFOREST VALUES

It is clear that there is no simple or precisedefinition of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. The principles proposed address thecomponents of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement (or forest values) seen as importantto society. However, the relative weighting givento the values, and the quantity of each desired willvary locally, and thus must relate to an agreedmanagement goal for a particular area of forest.Emphasis will vary from conservation, throughmultiple use, to intensive wood production (forexample, plantation forestry).

Forest values vary in both space (for example,with environmental conditions) and time (forexample, during forest succession afterdisturbance and as forests’ age). This is true forboth protected natural forests and those that aremanaged for timber production. It follows that notall parts of the forest can contribute equally to allforest values, and that any patch might well makedifferent contributions at different points in time.Management plans must reflect these aspects offorest life and address ecologically sustainableforest management at appropriate scales. Forexample, soil and water values and endangeredspecies need to be protected at the local (site)level, but most biodiversity goals (targets) will beachieved at larger scales that encompass bothreserves and wood production forests. Woodproduction goals will also be set at larger scales,with some patches of forest making nocontribution and others making a largecontribution. This is effectively a zoning of forestuse to meet agreed objectives.

Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect particularpatches of forest to provide the same level of allforest values when they are managed for differentpurposes. The community must decide what levelsand mix of environmental, social and economicvalues provide an acceptable balance forecologically sustainable forest management.However, the expert working group stresses thatsetting targets for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement should not be based solely onstakeholder consensus, because this can fail toadequately consider the scientific requirements formaintaining some values (for example, viability ofspecies populations, sustainable wood supply).The selected mix of values must accept some lossof habitat on the one hand, and potential woodproduction on the other. A key issue is that ofirreversible change (for example, speciesextinction, severe soil erosion). Where this isjudged to be a real threat, a highly precautionaryapproach to forest management must be adopted.

LEGISLATION, POLICYAND COMMITMENT

THE STRUCTURE OF LEGISLATIONRELATING TO NEW SOUTH WALESFORESTS: THE NEED FOR REFORM

This chapter reviews the existing legislativeframework and institutional structure applyingwithin New South Wales, examines the State’scurrent forest-related policies, and makesrecommendations for more appropriateinstitutions and mechanisms for achievingecologically sustainable forest management.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES,CONVENTIONS AND INITIATIVES

Australia is party to a number of internationalconventions that have a bearing on forestmanagement. These include:

■ United Nations Convention on Climate Change

■ United Nations Convention on BiologicalDiversity

■ UNESCO Convention for the Protection of theWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage (WorldHeritage Convention)

■ Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat(Ramsar Convention)

■ China-Australia Migratory Bird and Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreements(CAMBA and JAMBA)

■ Convention on the Conservation of MigratorySpecies of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention)

■ Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES)

■ Convention on Conservation of Nature in theSouth Pacific (Apia Convention)

■ Convention Concerning the Protection of theNatural Resources and the Environment of theSouth Pacific Region (SPREP Convention).

Although these conventions are binding onAustralia under international law, the obligationswhich they contain are frequently such that theyallow the Commonwealth Governmentconsiderable flexibility when it comes to theirimplementation. A significant exception to this isCITES, which contains very precise obligationsrelating to international trade in relation to specieslisted in the convention.

Implementing international conventions does notnecessarily require legislation. Where legislationis required, it may be that current legislation, bothCommonwealth and State, is consideredsufficient to meet Australia’s obligations.

In the past, conventions dealing with natureconservation issues have tended to focus on theconservation of particular species (for example,waterfowl, migratory birds) and areas of specialconservation significance. There has been aconsiderable emphasis on setting aside areas asicons, neglecting the management across thewhole landscape, which is increasingly seen asnecessary for conservation of biological diversity.A focus on particular species, such as waterfowlin wetlands, may produce distortions in terms ofthe ecological character of particular wetlands.

The World Heritage Convention obliges Australiato identify and delineate properties in its territorywhich fall within the convention’s definition of‘natural heritage’. The Commonwealth has a dutyto do all it can, ‘to the utmost of its ownresources’ to ensure the identification, protection,conservation, presentation and transmission tofuture generations of this heritage. Listing undertwo of the categories of natural heritage can bejustified in terms of being outstandingaesthetically, regardless of whether or not the


26 March 2001 2

property has significance in terms of conservationof representative biodiversity.

Under the Ramsar Convention, each party isrequired to ‘designate suitable wetlands within itsterritory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands ofInternational Importance’, nominating at least oneat the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to theconvention. Unlike under the World HeritageConvention, there is no provision for vetting ofnominated areas by an international body prior tolisting. In terms of management, each party has anobligation to ‘promote the conservation’ of listedwetlands, but, in addition, there is a broadobligation to promote, as far as possible, the ‘wiseuse’ of wetlands generally. By obliging parties topromote the ‘wise use’ of wetlands in general, theconvention avoids the exclusive focus on theconservation of special areas associated withlisting processes, which are found in the WorldHeritage Convention.

Unlike earlier conventions, the in-situconservation provisions of the United NationsConvention on Biological Diversity do not focuson the conservation of special areas or specialspecies. While parties are required ‘as far aspossible and appropriate...[to] establish a systemof protected areas or areas where special measuresneed to be taken to conserve biological diversity’,a protected area is defined simply as ‘ageographically defined area which is designatedor regulated and managed to achieve specificconservation objectives.’ There is also acommitment to promote buffer zones adjacent toprotected areas, where development is‘environmentally sound and sustainable.’

While parties are required to legislate/regulate forthe protection of threatened species, they mustalso:

■ cover threatened populations of species (thatis, protect genetic diversity within species),

■ ‘promote the protection of ecosystems, naturalhabitats and the maintenance of viablepopulations of species in natural surroundings’

■ ‘regulate or manage biological resourcesimportant for the conservation of biologicaldiversity whether within or outside protectedareas with a view to ensuring theirconservation and sustainable use’ (emphasissupplied).

■ identify and regulate or manage processes andactivities which have significant adverseimpacts on the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity. The

control/eradication of introduced species isspecifically mentioned, but this provisionwould include human activities such as thedestruction of habitat by land clearing.

These commitments do not necessarily involve theuse of regulatory measures. Article 11 of theconvention provides that parties must:

as far as possible and as appropriate adopteconomically and socially sound measuresthat act as incentives for the conservation andsustainable use of components of biologicaldiversity.

A significant feature of the convention is itsemphasis on both conservation and sustainableuse of components of biological diversity. Theobjectives of the convention are:

the conservation of biological diversity, thesustainable use of its components and the fairand equitable sharing of the benefits arisingout of the utilisation of genetic resources,including by appropriate access to geneticresources and by appropriate transfer ofrelevant technologies, taking into account allrights over those resources and totechnologies, and by appropriate funding.

‘Sustainable use’ is defined to mean:

the use of components of biological diversityin a way and at a rate that does not lead to thelong-term decline of biological diversity,thereby maintaining its potential to meet theneeds and aspirations of present and futuregenerations.

There are a number of other internationalinitiatives which do not create legally bindingobligations, but are very relevant to activities inforests. These include:

■ The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21

■ UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program

■ The United Nations Commission forSustainable Development

■ The Montreal Process and the SantiagoDeclaration

■ Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.

NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

The National Forest Policy Statement (NFPS)(Commonwealth of Australia, 1992b) agreedbetween the Commonwealth, States andTerritories was the starting point for thecomprehensive regional assessment processleading to regional forest agreements. The policy


26 March 2001 3

sets the broad framework for addressing theprinciples of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement and builds on the National Strategyfor Ecologically Sustainable Development.

The National Forest Policy Statement established11 national goals to be ‘pursued within aregionally based planning framework thatintegrates environmental and commercialobjectives so that, as far as possible, provision ismade for all forest values’. These broad nationalgoals are:

■ Conservation: to ‘maintain an extensive andpermanent native forest estate in Australia andto manage that estate in an ecologicallysustainable manner so as to conserve the fullsuite of values that forests can provide forcurrent and future generations’;

■ Wood production and industry development:‘to develop internationally competitive andecologically sustainable wood production andwood products industries’ which maximisevalue-adding opportunities and efficient use ofwood resources;

■ Integrated and coordinated decision makingand management: ‘to reduce fragmentation andduplication in the land use decision-makingprocess between the States and theCommonwealth and to improve interactionbetween forest management agencies in orderto achieve agreed and durable land usedecisions’;

■ Private native forests: ‘to ensure that privatenative forests are maintained and managed inan ecologically sustainable manner, as part ofthe permanent native forest estate, as aresource in their own right, and to complementthe commercial and nature conservation valuesof public native forests’;

■ Plantations: ‘to expand Australia's commercialplantations of softwoods and hardwoods so asto provide an additional, economically viable,reliable and high-quality wood resource forindustry[and]increase plantings to rehabilitatecleared agricultural land, to improve waterquality, and to meet other environmental,economic or aesthetic objectives’;

■ Water supply and catchment management. Thegoals are to ensure the availability of reliable,high-quality water from forested land and toprotect catchment values;

■ Tourism and other economic and socialopportunities: ‘to manage Australia's forests in

an ecologically sustainable manner for a rangeof uses, including tourism, recreation andproduction of non-wood products’;

■ Employment, workforce education andtraining: ‘to expand employment opportunitiesand the skills base of people working in forestmanagement and forest-based industries’;

■ Public awareness, education and involvement:‘to foster community understanding of andsupport for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in Australia and to provideopportunities for effective public participationin decision making’;

■ Research and development: ‘to increaseAustralia's national forest research anddevelopment effort and to ensure that it is wellcoordinated, efficiently undertaken andeffectively applied’; and

■ International responsibilities: to promotenature conservation and sustainable use offorests outside Australia and to ensure thatAustralia fulfils its obligations under relevantinternational agreements.

Important elements of the above goals that werehighlighted in the assessment of State legislationin relation to ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principles in New South Walesinclude:

■ planning on a regional basis: although there aremovements in this direction, they areuncoordinated and potentially conflicting;

■ integrated and coordinated decision makingand management: this is a particular problemin New South Wales because a number ofGovernment agencies are involved in forestrymanagement and planning;

■ managing private native forests in anecologically sustainable manner: at presentthere are a number of regulatory regimes inNew South Wales concerned with theprotection of private forests, but no clearcommitment to managing private forests in anecologically sustainable way;

■ public participation in decision-makingprocesses.

The National Strategy for the Conservation ofAustralia's Biological Diversity (Commonwealthof Australia 1996), another national level policyinitiative agreed by the Commonwealth and theStates and Territories, is designed to go some waytowards meeting Australia's obligations under the


26 March 2001 4

international convention on biological diversity.This national strategy is the core policyunderpinning part A of the first NSW ecologicallysustainable forest management principle (seeChapter 1). The Draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy(1997) complements the national strategy, and isbased on similar principles.

The goal of the national strategy for biodiversityis to ‘protect biological diversity and maintainecological processes and systems’.

The content of the national strategy relevant topart A of the first NSW ecologically sustainableforest management principle includes:

■ biological diversity is best conserved in-situ;

■ central to the conservation of biodiversity isthe establishment of a comprehensive,adequate and representative (CAR) system ofecologically viable protected areas integratedwith the sympathetic management of all otherareas, including agricultural and other resourceproduction systems. The reserve system is tobe established over a period of ten years.

The national strategy for biodiversity requires thatplanning must be carried out on a bioregionalbasis using natural boundaries such as vegetationtypes, catchments and climatic factors. The draftState strategy identifies as a priority to becompleted by 2000, the need to:

Develop and promote a model bioregionalplanning framework and process whichidentifies and develops mechanisms betweenall spheres of government, including LocalGovernment, to ensure cooperative andcoordinated land use planning involving fulland continued community participation ....

The expert working group considers thatecological sustainability must be considered on aregional basis through a planning mechanism,with decisions on individual applications havingto comply with the plan. In other words, economicbenefits can only be pursued within theconstraints of ecological sustainability at aregional level.

The commitment by the Commonwealth and StateGovernments to set up a comprehensive, adequateand representative reserve system was first madein the National Forest Policy Statement. It wasrepeated in the National Strategy for theConservation of Australia's Biological Diversity.The Draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy commitsthe State Government to having such a system ofreserved forest in place by 2000. It defines the

three principles involved in the so-called CARreserve system in the following way:

■ comprehensiveness - the degree to which thereserve system encompasses the full range ofbiological/biophysical diversity and othervalues;

■ adequacy - the capability of the reserve systemto maintain biodiversity and ecologicalpatterns and processes and other values, givenboth natural and human-influenceddisturbances; and

■ representativeness - the extent to which theareas selected for inclusion in the reservesystem sample known biological/biophysicaldiversity and other values.

The CAR reserve system is to be based on aprecautionary ‘general criterion’ of reserving 15per cent of the distribution of each forestecosystem as it existed in 1750. This benchmarkwas set by JANIS, the committee established tooversee the implementation of the national forestpolicy (from Joint ANZECC-MCFFA NationalForest Policy Statement ImplementationSubcommittee). The notion of a reserve system isbroadly conceived and the intention is to includeprivately owned land to ensure that the full rangeof forest ecosystems is represented. There is also acommitment to complementary off-reservemanagement (that is, management of nativeforests outside the formal protection of nationalparks and reserves).

An ongoing study of conservation reserves innorth-eastern New South Wales has found thatprotected areas comprise the least desirable land,that is, land that is often steep and infertile and‘with the least potential for grazing, cropping orurban developments’.

Strict reservation in the region is basedlargely on the distribution of Crown landwhich has been an inexpensive source of landfor reserves. Crown land is generally the landthat remained after the parts of the regionwith the most promise for commercial useswere converted to freehold ... Within Crownland there is a tendency for reserves to beconcentrated in areas with least potential forcommercial logging. Reservation cantherefore be regarded as a residual land usewithin a residual tenure. (Pressey et al.1996).

These results emphasise the need for governmentsto devise appropriate policy instruments to allowthe incorporation of areas of private land within


26 March 2001 5

the CAR reserve system and to provide for off-reserve management.

COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION

Commonwealth law relevant to ecologicallysustainable forest management in New SouthWales is largely based on regulations made underthe Export Control Act 1982. Under theregulations, prospective exporters must obtain alicence from the Minister for Primary Industriesand Energy to export woodchips or unprocessedwood. The Export Control (Hardwood WoodChips) (1996) Regulations govern export ofhardwood chips derived from native forests, andthe Export Control (Unprocessed Wood)Regulations cover unprocessed wood generally,and woodchips derived from other than nativeforests.

In the case of applications for a transitionallicence to export hardwood chips derived fromnative forests, the export control regulationsrequire the Minister to consider the need to protectareas that may be needed to establish acomprehensive, adequate and representativereserve system, the economic and social effects ofthe decision, and the applicant's ability to exportmaterial (financial resources available to theapplicant, access to port facilities, and ability tomarket the material).

The export control regulations also impose anational annual aggregate ceiling on hardwoodchip exports from native forests under transitionallicences and prohibit their export from 1 January2000 unless they are derived from an area coveredby a regional forest agreement.

The need to obtain an export licence triggers theoperation of other Commonwealth legislationunder which significant environmental assessmentobligations are imposed on those wishing toexport unprocessed wood. The EnvironmentProtection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974requires the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy to refer environmentally significantactivities to the Minister for the Environment fordecision as to whether an environmental impactstatement, a public environment report or aninquiry should be ordered.

The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975provides some protection for places listed on theRegister of the National Estate. AllCommonwealth Ministers have a duty to ensurethey do not make decisions that adversely affect aplace or building on the Register of the National

Estate or the Interim List unless they are satisfiedthat there is no ‘feasible and prudent alternative’.In the event that there is no such alternative, allreasonable measures must be taken to minimiseenvironmental damage. Advice must be requestedfrom the Australian Heritage Commission inregard to all proposed Commonwealth actionslikely to have a significant effect (whether or notadverse) on any listed place or building. Thus ifthe Minister for Primary Industries and Energyconsiders that the granting of an export licencemight significantly affect a place on the Register(or Interim List) of the National Estate, theMinister is required to seek advice from theCommission.

These legislative instruments have a limited andarbitrary hold over activity in forests. They areonly triggered by proposed Commonwealthdecisions or actions, not those of State agencies orprivate industry. For example, where an exportlicence is not required because the timber inquestion is not to be exported, the Commonwealthenvironmental assessment provisions do notapply. In addition, these provisions are onlytriggered by the export of the commodity and notthe initial activity (that is, the logging operation)which produces it.

Consequently, the Commonwealth Governmentintroduced the Export Control (Regional ForestAgreements) Regulations in 1997. This legislationeffectively removes export controls from allunprocessed wood and woodchips derived fromnative forests in regions covered by regionalforest agreements (plantation-sourced material issubject to a separate export control removalprocess on a State-wide basis). As a result, theexport licence ‘trigger’ (that is, licenceapplications) for Commonwealth environmentalassessment will no longer apply to forestry exportoperations unless some other Commonwealthapproval is required.

The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exportsand Imports) Act 1982 will continue to play a rolein conserving biodiversity by regulating the exportof species.

Other relevant Commonwealth legislation appliesonly to selected areas. The World HeritageProperties Conservation Act 1983 protects areasidentified as being of world heritage significancefrom immediate threat. It offers little in terms ofongoing management. Similarly, the Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Heritage ProtectionAct 1984 applies to areas of ‘particular


26 March 2001 6

significance to Aboriginals in accordance withAboriginal tradition’.

The Endangered Species Protection Act 1992plays a peripheral role in the States as it appliesonly to Commonwealth land. This includes areasof high biodiversity and heritage significanceowned by the Department of Defence (forexample, Holdsworthy army base). However,should a listed species occur on privately ownedland or State Crown land in addition toCommonwealth land, the Commonwealth’s onlyobligation under the Act is to ‘seek thecooperation’ of the relevant State with a view tothe joint preparation and implementation of arecovery plan or threat abatement plan. If thespecies in question is found only outsideCommonwealth land, the CommonwealthMinister for the Environment can offer financialassistance for the preparation of these plans. Noobligations are placed on Commonwealthagencies in their activities and decision-makingoutside Commonwealth areas unless the State hasa threat abatement plan in place. To the extent thatit is not bound by the provisions of the New SouthWales law relating to endangered species, the onlyobligation which the Commonwealth endangeredspecies legislation places on Ministers is to ‘haveregard to the desirability of complying’ with therequirements of the State legislation.

INTRODUCTION TO NSW LAW

New South Wales legislation relating to forests isa complex mixture of ancient and modern. Itcontains some of the most innovative and excitingtechniques currently available to law as aninstrument of social policy, but these must coexistwith crude and clumsy mechanisms from a timelong past, which have little to do with modernideas about natural resource management. For themost part, the new breed of holistic‘environmental law’, such as the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979, has beensimply superimposed on outdated sectoral andsegmented natural resources law which had itsorigins in a period of resource development ratherthan environmental management.

In some contexts, there is little relationshipbetween law, on the one hand, and current policyand planning processes, on the other. Policy andplanning processes may simply bypass the law.This is very much the position in relation to waterresources policy and management and the WaterAct 1912, for example. While there have beendramatic changes in the level of water planning

and management in recent years, these havelargely taken place within the existing legalframework. So far as the law is concerned, theapproach of government in recent years has beento deal with specific problems as and when theyhave arisen by ad hoc amendments, rather thancarrying out a fundamental re-examination of thelegislation. The result is that the Water Act is apatchwork quilt of unclear and potentiallyconflicting provisions, quite inaccessible to thebroader community.

In other contexts, where fundamentalreconsideration of legislation has taken place, thisappears to have been carried out by particularagencies in relative isolation in a segmentedfashion. The recent New South Wales initiativesin the fields of pollution control andenvironmental planning are a case in point: at onestage, there were two different versions of aproposed integrated approvals process in twodifferent pieces of draft legislation.

Production forests on public land

The primary legislation relating to forests as aresource was first enacted over 80 years ago. TheForestry Act 1916 still plays an essential role inrelation to forest management on land in publicownership, although it has been subject to severalmajor amendments and incremental additions.

Section 8A(1) of the Forestry Act sets out theobjects of the Forestry Commission (now StateForests of NSW). After spelling out those objectsrelating to the conservation and utilisation of thetimber resource, it provides that, consistent withthe use of State forests for the purposes of forestryand of flora reserves for the preservation of thenative flora, State Forests will :

■ promote and encourage the use of forests orrecreation; and

■ conserve forest birds and animals.

There is no clear commitment in the legislation toconserve biological diversity in productionforests. The requirement that conservation of birdsand animals should be ‘consistent with’ timberproduction suggests that the latter is to takepriority. This is not clarified by section 8A(2),which simply provides that State Forests musttake ‘all practicable steps that it considersnecessary or desirable to ensure the preservationand enhancement of the quality of theenvironment’ (emphasis supplied).


26 March 2001 7

After 1979, the body administering the ForestryAct also had to comply with the environmentalassessment provisions of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act, including thepreparation of an environmental impact statementwhere there was likely to be a significant effect onthe environment.

History shows that State Forests felt no ownershipof this legislation and had significant problems ingrappling with the implications of its provisionsfor public forestry operations. This led to furtherstatutory intervention in the form of the TimberIndustry (Interim Protection) Act 1992. Thislegislation was an ad hoc response to thedifficulties faced by State Forests and the timberindustry as a result of judicial decisions whichmade it clear that the environmental impactassessment responsibilities of State Forests underPart 5 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act were much greater than StateForests had previously believed.

One of the stated objects of the Timber Industry(Interim Protection) Act was to protect theemployment of timber industry workers. To thisend, the legislation suspended the operation ofPart 5 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act in a number of forestmanagement areas so as to allow logging tocontinue. At the same time, under the legislation,a timetable was set for the completion ofenvironment impact statements where these wererequired under the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act. These are still to be finalised. Inthe interim, the logging operation is beingsupervised by the Regulatory and PublicInformation Committee, comprisingrepresentatives from the National Parks andWildlife Service, the Environment ProtectionAgency, the Department of Land and WaterConservation and State Forests. The latter mustsubmit proposed logging and roading plans to thecommittee for its scrutiny before they may beadopted. In areas of old-growth and potentialwilderness, as identified in Schedules 1 and 2 ofthe Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act, Part5 was not suspended and had to be complied withprior to logging operations.

The expiry date of the Timber Industry (InterimProtection) Act has been put back on a number ofoccasions and is currently 1998. The continuedexemption of State Forests from requirements toundertake environmental impact statements isinconsistent with the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management, in particular, theprecautionary principle. The expert working

group’s position on environmental impactstatements is contained in Chapter 3.

In 1993 the Minister for Urban Affairs andPlanning was given the power to veto theproposals of State Forests and other agencies, insituations where an environmental impactstatement has been required under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The Environment Protection Authority has alsobegun to licence harvesting activities authorisedby State Forests where there is a threat of waterpollution, under the provisions of the CleanWaters Act 1970 and the Pollution Control Act1970 (see now the Protection of the EnvironmentOperations Act 1997, not yet in force).

More recently, yet another tier has been added tothis process of incremental overlay. Theprovisions of the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995 now require a speciesimpact statement to be considered in situationswhere a proposal is likely to significantly affectthreatened species, etc. In these circumstances, theconcurrence of the Director-General of NationalParks and Wildlife must be obtained before aproposal can be approved.

On top of the confusion and uncertainty resultingfrom this process of incremental legal change, thelegislative responsibilities imposed ongovernment agencies are frequently so broad thatthe agencies do not have the resources toimplement them. The result is that, in manyinstances, legislative requirements are no morethan symbolic. They may satisfy short-termpolitical imperatives, but in practice they leaveagencies with substantial discretion in choosingthe areas to which they will allocate resources. Inthe case of State Forests, legal proceedingsbrought by conservation groups, and subsequentlegislation in the form of the Timber Industry(Interim Protection) Act deprived the agency ofthis discretion. The result was that limitedresources were deflected from the process ofstrategic planning into the process ofenvironmental impact assessment, in particular,preparation of environmental impact statements,which were originally designed by the legislationas operational instruments.

Conservation areas

Legislation designed to conserve non-productionforests is another complex situation. Even thoughthe National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 is morerecent than the forestry legislation, it does not set


26 March 2001 8

out the objects of the legislation or the objects ofthe National Parks and Wildlife Service. There isno mention of the concept of biological diversityin the legislation and no commitment thatcorresponds to that of the National Forest PolicyStatement for a comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative reserve system. It is clear that areascurrently reserved or dedicated under the Act fallfar short of meeting this objective.

There is no clear conception of a national park.National parks are simply ‘spacious areascontaining unique or outstanding scenery ornatural phenomena’. There is a significantemphasis on public enjoyment in the concept ofnational parks and wilderness areas, with no clearpriorities identified in relation to biodiversityconservation. One of the objectives of amanagement plan for a national park is theencouragement and regulation of the appropriateuse, understanding and enjoyment of eachnational park by the public. The provisionsallowing leases to be granted in national parksreflect a recreational/tourism emphasis. Permittedpurposes include the erection of hotels and guesthouses. Wilderness areas must be ‘capable ofproviding opportunities for solitude andappropriate self-reliant recreation’.

Nature reserves are dedicated for the purposes of:

■ the care, propagation, preservation andconservation of wildlife;

■ the care, preservation and conservation ofnatural environments and natural phenomena;

■ the study of wildlife, natural environments andnatural phenomena; and

■ the promotion of the appreciation andenjoyment of wildlife, natural environmentsand natural phenomena.

‘Wildlife’ is defined narrowly in the legislation toinclude only mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibiansand plants, thus excluding consideration ofsignificant elements of biological diversity even inrelation to nature reserves. The notion of‘propagating’ wildlife in nature reserves is quiteout of touch with current notions of biodiversityconservation.

Recommendation 2.1: The legislation setting upthe National Parks and Wildlife Service asmanager of conservation areas in publicownership, and State Forests as manager ofproduction forests in public ownership, shouldbe amended so as to clearly identify theobjectives of these agencies and the areas

which they manage in terms of the demands ofecologically sustainable forest management. Inparticular, it should be made clear that theprovision of recreational opportunities in landear-marked as being required for the proposedcomprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR) forest reserve system should besubservient to the conservation of biologicaldiversity.

Off-reserve conservation

Following the enactment of the Native VegetationConservation Act 1997, which came intooperation at the beginning of 1998, the positionwith regard to off-reserve conservation on areas ofprivate land has been simplified and rationalised.Provisions regulating the removal of nativevegetation previously found in the SoilConservation Act 1938 (protected lands), theWestern Lands Act 1901 (the Western Division)and State Environmental Planning Policy 46(SEPP 46) have been repealed and replaced by asingle system set up by the new legislation andadministered by the Department of Land andWater Conservation. Both ‘clearing’ and ‘nativevegetation’ are broadly defined. Groundcover andunderstorey plants are included along with trees.The notion of ‘protected land’ is retained underthe new legislation, and in these areas even non-indigenous trees are protected.

The general position under the Native VegetationConservation Act is that, subject to certainexemptions, development consent under Part 4 ofthe Environmental Planning and Assessment Actis required for vegetation clearance on privatelyowned and Crown leasehold land.

There is a general exemption for clearing inaccordance with any native vegetation code ofpractice that is in force under the provisions of theAct, but this exemption does not apply to land thathas been mapped as State protected land (steeplysloping land, the banks of watercourses and landwhich is environmentally sensitive or subject toland degradation).

These are interim arrangements. The legislationgoes on to provide for Regional VegetationCommittees or for the Director-General of theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation todevelop regional vegetation management planswhich, once approved by the Minister, willindicate areas where clearing consent is requiredand areas where it is not.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation isresponsible for deciding whether or not to grant


26 March 2001 9

consent. A register of consents granted must bemade available for public inspection.

In spite of this significant rationalisation,provisions concerning vegetation conservation inother legislation have survived the amendmentsand will continue to be available to othergovernment agencies. Interim and permanentconservation orders can be made by the Ministerfor Urban Affairs and Planning under theHeritage Act 1977 to protect places of scientific,natural or aesthetic significance. Under theNational Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, theMinister for the Environment can issue interimprotection orders in respect of any land of naturalor scientific significance, providing for the‘preservation, protection and maintenance’ of thearea concerned, its fauna and plants. However,interim protection orders last only up to two years,and there is no equivalent in the National Parksand Wildlife Act of the permanent conservationorder provided for in the Heritage Act. TheNational Parks and Wildlife Act envisages thatlong-term conservation will be achieved throughvoluntary conservation agreements rather thanregulation.

Under State Environmental Planning Policies 14and 26, local councils and the Department ofUrban Affairs and Planning will continue toregulate the clearing of mapped areas of coastalwetland and littoral (coastal) rainforest. There arealso conservation provisions under many localenvironmental plans, such as environmentalprotection zones and clearing consentrequirements.

The new legislation provides that where localenvironmental plans adequately provide for theconservation and management of nativevegetation in a local government area, consistentwith the objectives of the Native VegetationManagement Act, then the Minister may exemptthe area from some or all of the provisions of theAct. If a local government area has not beenexempted, then the provisions of the NativeVegetation Management Act and regionalvegetation management plans override theprovisions of local environment plans, and thepowers of local councils. However, as regionalvegetation management plans are developed, thelegislation requires them to provide for at least thesame level of vegetation protection andconservation as that provided for in existing localenvironmental plans.

The threatened species overlay

The provisions of the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995 now require a speciesimpact statement to be considered in situationswhere forestry activity in State forests or aproposal to clear native vegetation under theNative Vegetation Conservation Act are likely tosignificantly affect a threatened species,population or ecological community, or its habitat.In addition, the concurrence of the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife has to beobtained before the final go-ahead can be givenfor activities in State forests.

Where an activity with the potential to damage thehabitat of threatened species is not regulatedunder any other regulatory system (for example,bush-rock removal on private land, assuming thatthis is not to be treated as a routine agriculturalactivity), it may require a licence directly from theNational Parks and Wildlife Service. In thesecircumstances, once again a species impactstatement will be required where the proposal islikely to significantly affect threatened species.

An 8 point test for determining whether there islikely to be a significant effect is set out in thelegislation.

Reforming institutional arrangements andlegislation

State laws relating both to production forests andthe management of forested areas for conservationpurposes can only be understood in terms of theirgradual evolution. This has seen layer built uponexisting layer, with no attempt to conduct anyfundamental re-evaluation. This situation makesfor an extremely complex system of legislativecontrol—one which is certainly not transparent tothe agencies responsible for administering theregulations. The expert working group foundexamples of situations where governmentagencies were not fully aware of their potentialresponsibilities or were reluctant to exercise theirfull range of powers.

Achieving ecologically sustainable forestmanagement requires that management giveconsideration to a range of ecological, economicand social issues, and that there be an effectiveregulatory environment to ensure goodmanagement. Currently there is no clear locus ofresponsibility for forest management or regulationof forest activities. The expert working groupbelieves that this situation needs to be addressedas a matter of urgency.


26 March 2001 10

Management responsibility for forests on publicland lies with State Forests, the National Parksand Wildlife Service and the Department of Landand Water Conservation. While the predecessorsof the Department of Land and WaterConservation have managed residual Crown landfor a wide range of purposes, includingconservation and recreation, historically theNational Parks and Wildlife Service and StateForests have been accorded distinctive roles.National Parks and Wildlife has managed forestreserved for nature conservation, and State Forestshas managed forest committed to woodproduction, including commercial timber onresidual Crown land. But State Forests has alwayshad a subsidiary brief for conservation, and this islikely to become more prominent after regionalforest agreements are negotiated. As a regulator,under threatened species legislation, of land underthe jurisdiction of State Forests, the NationalParks and Wildlife Service effectively alreadyshares conservation management responsibility inthese areas with State Forests. The nationallyagreed criteria for a CAR forest reserve system(JANIS 1997) make it clear that the CAR reservesystem will incorporate not only dedicatedreserves but also informal reserves on public land‘under other secure tenure or managementarrangements (for example, within approvedforest management plans)’.

While the National Parks and Wildlife Service isthe leading conservation agency in New SouthWales, in practice it has found itself underincreasing pressure to manage national parks forrecreational purposes. State Forests also has asubsidiary brief for recreation.

The simple dichotomy between natureconservation/recreation and wood production isno longer appropriate. Public forested land is nowbest seen in terms of a management continuum:from nature reserves at one end of the spectrum,through forest managed jointly for natureconservation/recreation and wood production, toforest managed intensively for wood production.The message which comes strongly out of theJANIS reserve criteria is that natural resourcemanagement must occur at the ‘landscape’ level.No longer is it appropriate for national park orState forest management plans to stop atboundaries that have little to do with naturalsystems.

Management of private forests has been left toprivate landholders, with limited support fromgovernment. The expert working group found thatlittle was known about the private forest estate,

including ownership patterns, the size ofindividual forest blocks, the productive conditionof the forest, and likely log yields.

Turning from management to regulation, theprincipal objective is to ensure:

■ agreed standards in relation to the protection ofspecies—especially threatened species andcommunities—protection of soil and watervalues and forest production; and

■ an agreed balance between conservation andproductive/consumptive uses in the assessmentof the allowable impact.

These regulatory responsibilities are currentlyshared by a number of agencies. State Forests is infact regulated by four different regulators: theEnvironment Protection Authority, primarilyconcerned with water pollution, but flowing fromthis, an inevitable interest in soils; the NationalParks and Wildlife Service, concerned withthreatened species; the Minister for Urban Affairsand Planning, whose brief extends to all aspects ofenvironmental impact, but is restricted tosituations where an environmental impactstatement has been prepared; and the Regulatoryand Public Information Committee—comprisingrepresentatives from the National Parks andWildlife Service, the Environment ProtectionAgency, the Soil Conservation Service and StateForests—which scrutinises proposed logging androading plans in situations where environmentalimpact statements have not yet been completed.

The State Labor Government’s forest policy(1995) provides for the appointment of a PrincipalForest Regulator to monitor the implementation offorest management plans in forests controlled byState Forests.

On private land, there are even more agenciesinvolved with regulation. Although theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation'srole as lead agency in the field of vegetationconservation has been confirmed and rationalisedby the Native Vegetation Conservation Act, itsprecise relationship with local councils operatingunder local environmental plans has yet to beworked out in practice. In addition, regulatoryinterventions can be made by both the Minister forUrban Affairs and Planning through special orderunder the Heritage Act, and by the Minister forthe Environment through special order under theNational Parks and Wildlife Act. TheEnvironment Protection Authority has aregulatory brief where activities in forests arelikely to result in water pollution.


26 March 2001 11

The most significant problem with multipleregulatory authorities having overlappingjurisdictions is that there is no clear locus ofresponsibility for particular incidents so thatenforcement action could be taken by any one of anumber of agencies under a variety of differentpieces of legislation. This is likely to lead to buck-passing.

Another tension arises in agencies, such as theNational Parks and Wildlife Service and theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation,where an extension/educational role must coexistwith a regulatory role. Regulatory responsibilitiescan lead to confrontation, which undermines theextension role. In the case of the National Parksand Wildlife Service, this tension could be leadingto a reluctance to implement its regulatoryresponsibilities.

The extension/educational role should be seen aspart of a private forest support function, which isan aspect of private forest management.

Improving forestry and conservation practices onprivate land will be a significant step towardsachieving ecologically sustainable management inNew South Wales’ forests. This goal would befurthered by the creation of a technical andsupport service for private forest management toencourage improved forest practices, both interms of production forestry and conservationmanagement. Steps should be taken to separateexisting forest regulatory and managementfunctions and improve the cost-effectiveness ofregulatory procedures.

The expert working group recognises there havebeen recent structural changes within the forestmanagement system in New South Wales and thatsome time is needed for consolidation. Giventhis, recommendations 2.2 - 2.4 are made:

Recommendation 2.2: In the short term, aninter-agency coordinating group involvingexisting regulatory agencies should be beestablished to:

• better coordinate planning in relation tocross-tenure issues;

• ensure consistency of plans with theregional forest agreement and otherhierarchical components of the planningstructure;

• coordinate the process of grantinglicences and approvals;

• coordinate independent audits ofprocesses and outcomes;

• ensure better implementation andenforcement of regulations;

• improve response to public concernsabout inadequate compliance withpolicies and codes; and

• effectively report to the public andgovernment of the findings from audits.

However, even in the short term, it isessential that the following functions aremanaged and approved by a single agency:

• responsibility for ensuring that forests-related plans address managementrequirements for ecological sustainabilityand specify ecologically sustainablemanagement targets (such plans include,for example, management area plans forpublic forests; regional vegetation andprivate forest management plans; andlocal and regional environmental plans);

• responsibility for establishing an effectivecode of forest practice system, includingthe approval of codes and methods fortheir implementation (seerecommendation 3.18)

• responsibility for ensuring thatmonitoring (by the forest manager) ofagreed ecologically sustainable forestmanagement outcomes is conducted (seerecommendation 6.1).

Within three years, the position of forestregulator should be established as a meansof more effectively performing the abovefunctions which are necessary for achievingecologically sustainable forest managementand to approve operations not adequatelyaddressed by codes of practice or approvedplans of management.

Recommendation 2.3: There is a need tostrengthen cooperation and coordinationbetween Government agencies so as toachieve integrated management forconservation, wood production and othervalues in both public and private forests.Specifically:

• active management across tenures of thecomprehensive, adequate andrepresentative (CAR) reserve system(formal and informal reserves and areasmanaged by prescription);

• complementary management of generalwood production zones within StateForest;

• effective threat abatement practices;

• an appropriate balance betweenrecreation and conservation;


26 March 2001 12

• more effective management and use ofresource information supportingecologically sustainable forestmanagement ;• more effective use of expertise;

• support for private native forestmanagement;

• better strategic management area plans;

• better coordination of research anddevelopment;

• more effective communication ofecologically sustainable forestmanagement outcomes.

In order to promote cultural change withinexisting forest agencies, the formation of aninterdepartmental coordinating committeemay provide some interim benefit. However,in the medium-term, a more effective optionwould be the formation of a NaturalResources Management Agency withmanagement responsibility for all publicforested land and a support function formanagers of private forested land (see figure1).

This recommendation is contingent upon thecreation and filling of the position of forestregulator in order to assist in maintaining abalance between forest uses. The proposednatural resources agency will be guided inbalancing conservation and wood productionobjectives by objectives specified in RFAs,requirements of the external regulator, andby other government policy.

A logical corollary of the proposals inRecommendations 2.2 and 2.3 will be toextend them so as to cover not only forestsbut all natural resources. However, this isoutside the expert working group’s terms ofreference.

Recommendation 2.4: Private forestmanagers should be given assistance withthe implementation of ecologicallysustainable forest management , including:

• technical assistance in the preparation ofconservation management plans, privateforest management plans and individualtimber harvesting plans;

• negotiation of conservation agreements;and

• the provision of advice and training inrelation to codes of practice.


Using provisions of the EPA Act as anintegrative mechanism

A process to develop legislation that will enablethese proposed institutional arrangements tofunction more efficiently needs to be set in train.The expert working group recommends that awhole-of-government process to developintegrated natural resources legislation should beput in place. In the first place, however, thepossibilities inherent in existing legislation withwhich the community and agencies are alreadyfamiliar, should be explored.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Actcontains broad umbrella provisions that have thepotential to address all elements of the first NSWprinciple for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

Part 3 of the Act provides for the making of‘environmental planning instruments’ such as—local and regional environmental plans and Stateenvironmental planning policies (SEPPs). Ofthese, regional environmental plans are potentiallya vehicle for the bioregional planning envisagedin the National Forest Policy Statement, theNational Strategy on the Conservation ofAustralia's Biological Diversity and the DraftNSW Biodiversity Strategy.

In the past, however, the main integrativemechanism has been Part 5 of the Act, whichsuperimposed environmental assessmentprovisions on existing segmented, sectoral naturalresources legislation. Although in recent years theDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning hasused Part 5 strategically, it was originally intendedas little more than a mop-up provision designed topick up and ensure the environmental assessmentof projects which at that stage, for a variety ofreasons, fell through the gaps of the developmentcontrol provisions of Part 4 of the Act butrequired approval under other legislation.

As the possibilities inherent in the plan-makingprovisions of Part 3 and the regulatory provisionsof Part 4 become increasingly apparent, and areused to manage and regulate projects, the role ofPart 5 and the sectoral natural resourceslegislation to which it relates needs to be carefullyscrutinised. Many activities covered by Part 5could be brought within the ambit of Parts 3 and4. This is in fact the approach which has beentaken in the Native Vegetation Conservation Act.

Environmental planning instruments can be madeunder Part 3 ‘for the purposes of achieving any of


26 March 2001 13

the objects’ of the Act. The objects are found insection 5. They are to encourage:

■ the proper management, development andconservation of natural and man-maderesources, including agricultural land, naturalareas, forests, minerals, water, cities, townsand villages for the purpose of promoting thesocial and economic welfare of the communityand a better environment;

■ the promotion and co-ordination of the orderlyand economic use and development of land;

■ the protection, provision and co-ordination ofcommunication and utility services;

■ the provision of land for public purposes;

■ the provision and co-ordination of communityservices and facilities;

■ the protection of the environment, includingthe protection and conservation of nativeanimals and plants, including threatenedspecies, populations and ecologicalcommunities, and their habitats; and

■ ecologically sustainable development.

In addition, the Act aims to

■ promote the sharing of the responsibility forenvironmental planning between the differentlevels of government in the State; and

■ provide increased opportunity for publicinvolvement and participation inenvironmental planning and assessment.

Under section 5(a)(1) the objectives of thelegislation are not restricted to traditional townand country planning concerns. They extend to themanagement and development of naturalresources, including forests. In addition, anothersection of the Act states that environmentalplanning instruments can provide for ‘protecting,improving or utilising, to the best advantage, theenvironment’. The Act defines ‘environment’ verybroadly to include ‘all aspects of the surroundingsof man, whether affecting him as an individual orin his social groupings’.

However, the fact that environmental planninginstruments can contain provisions going beyondthe traditional, limited concerns of ‘townplanning’ does not mean that they must branch outinto these areas. In practice, achieving thisdepends on:

■ the creativity of local councils and theirplanners, who have the initial responsibility fordeveloping local environmental plans;

■ the initiative of the Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning, which is primarilyresponsible for regional planning;

■ the supervision over drafting of instrumentsexercised by Parliamentary Counsel's Office,which vets environmental planning instrumentsand may stifle creative initiatives byconservative interpretations of the legislation;and

■ the leeway allowed to local councils and othergovernment agencies by the Minister for UrbanAffairs and Planning, who in practice hasbroad initiation powers over regionalenvironmental plans and State environmentalplanning policies, and veto powers over localenvironmental plans.

The Native Vegetation Conservation Act is asignificant example of the way in which theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act candeliver integrated resource managementlegislation. Under the Native VegetationConservation Act, proposed regional vegetationmanagement plans have the status ofenvironmental planning instruments, althoughthey will be signed off by the Minister for Landand Water Conservation rather than the Ministerfor Urban Affairs and Planning. Localenvironmental plans made under the older Act,which the relevant Minister (Land and WaterConservation) regards as satisfying vegetationconservation and management objectives, may betreated as being the equivalent of regionalvegetation management plans. In addition, whereapproval to clear native vegetation is requiredunder the Native Vegetation Conservation Act, itwill be processed as, and take the form of, adevelopment consent under the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act Part 4.

However, in practice the potential of Parts 3 and 4of the Environmental Planning and AssessmentAct has been restricted by its origins in town andcountry planning legislation. Although there are agrowing number of examples of innovative use ofenvironmental planning instruments, thereremains a heavy emphasis on zoningarrangements and regulatory controls overdevelopment. On the face of the legislation thereare significant opportunities for more proactiveapproaches. A significant example is the StateEnvironmental Planning Policy 44, Koala HabitatProtection, which not only contains provisionsdesigned to encourage local councils to map koalahabitat in advance of particular developmentproposals, but also requires a plan of management


26 March 2001 14

to be in place before consent is given todevelopment on land that has been identified ascore koala habitat.

One obvious limitation to the greater use of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act asan integrating mechanism is the fact that the solerepository of plan-making power under Part 3 isthe Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning.While other Government agencies can act asconsent authorities under Part 4 (for example theMinister for Land and Water Conservation underthe Native Vegetation Conservation Act), only theMinister for Urban Affairs and Planning can makeplans under Part 3.

Recent amendments to the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act (EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Amendment Act 1997),not yet in operation, recognise the increasinglyimportant role of the Act’s development controlsystem (under Part 4), and make some attempt tointegrate the system with regulatory systems setup under older natural resources legislation. Insituations where an approval in addition todevelopment consent is required under anotherregulatory system (specified in the legislation),the consent authority must, under Part 4 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act, firstseek from the regulatory agency ‘the generalterms of any approval proposed to be granted’. Inthis situation the regulatory agency retains theoption of refusing approval. However, if theagency fails to respond to the consent authority’srequest within a set time limit, the latter candetermine the application. If the consent authoritydecides to give consent, the regulatory agencymust also grant an approval, which must not beinconsistent with the terms of the developmentconsent. Where the development is classified asState significant development, the Minister forUrban Affairs and Planning is the consentauthority under Part 4 of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act. In this situation,where there is disagreement between the Ministerand the other agency, the dispute is to be referredto the Premier.

These integrating procedures will, however, onlyoperate where development consent under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act isrequired. One difficulty with these provisions isthat although some modifications have been madeto the older natural resource regulatory systems,they are still left substantially intact. Separateapprovals under different pieces of legislationmust still ultimately be obtained rather thanrelying on a single regulatory system with

common procedures and a single approval (that is,the Environmental Planning and Assessment ActPart 4).

Under the proposed amendments, regulatoryagencies will face the difficult task of having tomake a general binding determination of theirattitude towards a specific proposal, based on thedevelopment application under Part 4 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act,before they have received an application under theregulatory system they administer. Theexpectation is, however, that regulations currentlybeing developed will be made so as to allowagencies to ‘stop the clock’ on the time they havein which to provide the general terms of theirapproval by requesting further information.

An alternative approach would be to make moreliberal use of the concurrence procedure under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act Part4. A concurrence requirement is quite differentfrom a mere consultation requirement, as it allowsthe ‘concurring’ agency a right of veto. Instead ofhaving to decide whether to issue a separateapproval under separate procedures, an agencywith a specialist contribution to make to thedecision-making process would have to considerwhether or not to concur with a proposal before aPart 4 consent could be issued, and under whatconditions it would be prepared to concur. If theagency did not concur, consent under Part 4 couldnot be given. This would make the process a‘single decision’ process. This model has alreadybeen employed in the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995. The Government rejectedthe concurrence approach as a vehicle for theintegrated approvals process discussed above onthe grounds that the model ultimately chosenallowed greater ‘flexibility’ of assessment for boththe regulatory agencies and the applicant. Theunresolved concern is that such flexibility may beat the expense of transparency of process.

Recommendation 2.5: A whole ofgovernment process to develop naturalresources legislation should be put in place.Parts 3 and 4 of the Environmental Planningand Assessment Act 1995 should beconsidered as a potential vehicle forintegrating natural resource management inview of the following characteristics of thatlegislation:

• broad plan-making powers;

• a well-developed assessment proceduresand approvals process;


26 March 2001 15

• a well-understood system of communityparticipation including review by thecourts;

• potential to move beyond constraints onland use to active management;

• potential applicability to both public andprivate land.

In the short term, to reduce complexity at thelevel of operational regulation and as a movetowards a ‘one-stop shop’:

• there should be a review of separaterequirements for approvals underexisting legislation with a view toreplacing them with concurrenceprocedures.

Recommendation 2.6: The EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act should beamended so as to enable Ministers other thanthe Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning tomake environmental planning instruments.Appropriate arrangements should be made toensure consistency between instruments.

NATIVE VEGETATION CLEARANCE

Bioregional planning and the CAR reservesystem

The Native Vegetation Conservation Actrecognises the crucial role of strategic regionalplanning in identifying key conservation areas,and delimiting landholder expectations relating toland use well in advance of particulardevelopment proposals. The necessity for such aregional planning framework is confirmed by theexpert working group’s interpretation of theelements of the first New South Wales principleof ecologically sustainable forest management.This interpretation is that ecological sustainabilityis a precondition that must be satisfied beforeapprovals to carry out particular activities aregiven. In other words, economic benefits can onlybe pursued within the constraints of ecologicalsustainability.

In the context of economic development,ecological sustainability must necessarily beconsidered on a regional basis through a strategicplanning mechanism, with decisions on individualapplications being taken on the basis of theregional plan. Ecologically sustainable forestmanagement cannot be achieved through ad hoccase-by-case assessments, but only throughassessment of proposals in the context of a

planning framework designed to protectappropriate areas at a regional level.

While regional vegetation management plansmade under the Native Vegetation ConservationAct will not cover land in public ownership, suchas State forests and national parks, it is crucial thatinformation about the conservation status ofspecies and vegetation communities in thesepublicly managed areas inform the regionalvegetation planning process. This appears to becontemplated by section 27 of the Act.

The Native Vegetation Conservation Act will playa crucial role in protecting forest types on privateland that are identified as being part of the CARforest reserve system. The most recent version ofthe JANIS reserve criteria (JANIS 1997), makesit clear that the CAR reserve system willincorporate not only dedicated reserves andinformal reserves on public land, but also areas ofprivate land with forest types not adequatelyrepresented on public land:

Many of the most threatened forest speciesand ecosystems throughout Australia occuron private lands, especially in coastal areasand across agricultural lands. There is anurgent need for specific measures to addresstheir conservation in the development of theCAR reserve system as opportunities for theirconservation are rapidly foreclosing.

In this context, the provision of incentives is acrucial component of any regulatory strategy, andthis is recognised in the Native VegetationConservation Act with the establishment of anative vegetation management fund.

The Native Vegetation Conservation Act providesthat a region ‘may comprise any one or more localgovernment areas (or parts of local governmentareas) to generally reflect biogeographicboundaries’ (s 8).

The national strategy for biodiversity requires thatplanning must be carried out on a bioregionalbasis using natural boundaries such as vegetationtypes, catchments and climatic factors. The draftState strategy identifies as a priority to becompleted by 2000, the need to:

Develop and promote a model bioregionalplanning framework and process whichidentifies and develops mechanisms betweenall spheres of government, including LocalGovernment, to ensure cooperative andcoordinated land use planning involving fulland continued community participation ....

In light of the crucial role to be played by regionalvegetation management plans in protecting


26 March 2001 16

vegetation on private land under the CAR reservesystem, the limited role given to the NationalParks and Wildlife Service in relation to makingthose plans is surprising. Although the servicewill have a representative on each regionalvegetation committee, its Director-General isonly to be consulted by the committee regardingthreatened species and their habitats. The expertworking group considers that the Director-Generalshould have a broader consultative role, given theservice’s broad brief in the area of off-reservemanagement. However, this situation is addressedto some extent by allowing the Minister for theEnvironment to make recommendations to theMinister for Land and Water Conservation inrelation to all aspects of the plan. If the latterdecides not to follow any of theserecommendations, (s)he must provide reasons in areport.

Under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act,regional vegetation committees and theirauthorised officers are not provided with anypower to enter private land for the purpose ofcarrying out assessments prior to formulating draftregional vegetation management plans. This is asignificant obstacle in the way of effectivebioregional planning.

Recommendation 2.7 : Regional vegetationcommittees and authorised officers should havepowers of entry over private land for thepurposes of regional vegetation managementplanning.

Regional vegetation management plansand the CAR reserve system

While the Native Vegetation Conservation Actspecifically provides that regional vegetationmanagement plans can contain provisionsallowing native vegetation to be cleared with oreven without consent, depending on thecircumstances, there is no specific reference to thepossibility of consent to clearing being absolutelyprohibited. The expert working group isconcerned that regional vegetation managementplans will be no more than clearing plans whichdo not set any effective ground rules, indicatingareas of vegetation that should be retained andactively managed, particularly where such areasare needed as part of the CAR reserve system.There is not even any guarantee that proposals toclear areas of potentially significant nativevegetation will be subject to environmental impactassessment by the proposal being classified as‘designated development’ under the Environment

Planning and Assessment Act Part 4, although thisapproach would be possible for individual plans.However, the limited assessment provisions of theThreatened Species Conservation Act will apply.

It is clear that conservation of significant areas onprivate land cannot be achieved throughprohibition alone. Regulation of vegetationclearance must necessarily be combined with theprovision of management incentives tolandholders, through the conclusion of voluntaryproperty agreements, as provided for in the NativeVegetation Conservation Act. At the same time, itis crucial that there should be a commitment inregional vegetation management plans to theretention of these areas. Following theimplementation of regional forest agreements,regional vegetation management plans willcomprise the strategic vegetation plan for areas ofland in private ownership.

Recommendation 2.8 : Regional vegetationmanagement plans should clearly indicate theareas of private land necessary to complete theCAR (comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative) forest reserve system. Theforests should be protected throughprohibitions on clearing and the negotiation ofregistered property agreements withlandholders. These agreements should ensurelandholders receive attractive financialincentives to manage the land in a way that isconsistent with conservation objectives.

The exemption for residential land

The Native Vegetation Conservation Act does notapply to land zoned residential. This means thaturban subdivision will not be regulated under astrategic scheme with a regional perspective butwill be left to the initiative of individual localcouncils, many of which have very limitedexpertise.

In particular, the provisions of the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act are causing problemsfor councils. Councils considering developmentapplications for subdivisions must decide whethersuch development is likely to significantly affectthreatened species. If this is the case, a speciesimpact statement must be considered and theconcurrence of the Director General of NationalParks and Wildlife is required for thedevelopment. Some confusion has arisen as to therole of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.While local councils, for example, would like theService to be involved at an early stage in theprocess of deciding whether a proposal is likely to


26 March 2001 17

have a significant effect, the legislation clearlyplaces this initial onus on the councils. TheService equally wants to take a strategic approach,focusing on the incorporation of appropriateprovisions in environmental planning instrumentsrather than responding to proposals on an ad hocbasis. It could more easily do this through theregional vegetation planning process under theNative Vegetation Conservation Act.

It is increasingly clear that some threatenedspecies habitats and communities are located inforest remnants in coastal areas where thepressure of urban subdivision is greatest.Protection of these habitats and communities haslong been left to the discretion of local councilswith varying degrees of success.

Recommendation 2.9: Strategic andoperational planning decisions about theprotection of native vegetation fromsubdivision pressures should be brought withinthe Native Vegetation Conservation Act inorder to ensure that vegetation conservation isconsidered in a regional context.

The two-hectare exemption

Transitional arrangements under the NativeVegetation Conservation Act provide thatactivities that were exempt from the need toobtain development consent under Schedule 3 ofState Environmental Planning Policy 46 willcontinue to be exempt under the new regime untilthis situation is altered by regulation or thedevelopment of a regional vegetation managementplan.

Under these arrangements, the ‘clearing of up to 2hectares per annum for any contiguous landholding in the same ownership’ will continue tobe exempt from the need to obtain developmentconsent under the Native Vegetation ConservationAct. However, this exemption does not overridelocal tree preservation orders and provisions inlocal environmental plans that requiredevelopment consent to be obtained. Theseprovisions are only overridden where an activityhas been given development consent under theAct and not, apparently, where an exemptionapplies.

Once a regional vegetation management plan is inplace, it will override local regulatoryrequirements even in situations where clearingunder the plan is permitted without developmentconsent, unless the particular local governmentarea has been exempted from the provisions of theAct (see above).

Relationship with threatened specieslegislation

The overlay of the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995 will continue to applyunder the Native Vegetation Conservation Act,but a significant adjustment will be made to theprocedure which applied under StateEnvironmental Planning Policy 46. Theconcurrence of the Director-General of NationalParks and Wildlife will no longer be required insituations where a proposal is likely tosignificantly affect threatened species.

This is because, under the Native VegetationConservation Act, the consent authority under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act Part4 will be the Minister for Land and WaterConservation rather than the Director-General ofLand and Water Conservation, formerly theconsent authority under the State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy 46. Where the Minister is theconsent authority, then the only requirement underthe Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 isto consult with the Minister for the Environmentin relation to threatened species issues. There isno power of veto over the application in thesecircumstances.

FORESTRY ON LAND IN PRIVATEOWNERSHIP

Introduction

Even after the enactment of the Native VegetationConservation Act, there is no legislative regime inNew South Wales which specifically addressesthe question of forestry and timber production onprivate land, except in the case of plantationforestry (Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee)Act 1995). The general approach has been to treatforestry on private land as a variety of landclearing. Consequently, insofar as there has beenany regulation, it has focused on the final step inthe activity, that is, logging, rather than thebroader dimensions of sustainable forestmanagement. This includes the provision ofincentives to manage the land as forest rather thanconverting it permanently to agriculture. A crucialissue in any consideration of incentives is theextent to which those who manage land forsustainable forestry should be given guaranteesthat they will be able to harvest the timberresource at an appropriate time in the future.

In the past, the protected lands provisions of theSoil Conservation Act have been used as the


26 March 2001 18

primary mechanism for regulating private forestryin areas where they applied. This includedmapped areas of steeply sloping land and the areawithin 20 metres of the bed or bank of specifiedrivers and lakes. Under the State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy 46, which introduced clearingcontrols in much of the remainder of the State notcovered by the protected land provisions, therewas a specific exemption for Private NativeForestry from the general requirement to obtaindevelopment consent for the clearing of nativevegetation.

Following changes introduced by the NativeVegetation Conservation Act, this position isessentially preserved. Until a regional vegetationmanagement plan is in place, logging operationson protected land, now referred to as Stateprotected land, will still require approval, but thisnow will be in the shape of a development consentunder the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act Part 4, instead of an authorityunder the Soil Conservation Act (to which theenvironmental assessment provisions of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act Part5 applied). In other areas, the State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy 46 exemption for Private NativeForestry will continue to operate as a transitionalarrangement until a regional vegetationmanagement plan is in place.

Under the exemption, Private Native Forestry isdefined as:

The clearing of native vegetation in a nativeforest in the course of its being selectivelylogged on a sustainable basis or managed forforestry purposes (timber production).

This suggests that management for forestrypurposes is an alternative to selective logging on asustainable basis, and by implication does nothave to be sustainable. This suggestion is,however, dismissed in the 1997 amendment toState Environmental Planning Policy No 46 whichstates that ‘[m]anaged for forestry purposes istaken to be managing native forest on asustainable basis whilst allowing for timberproduction’ (p 19). At the same time, thisdocument makes it clear that the task of applyingthis definition lies with individual landholders.This is quite inappropriate given the ambiguity ofthe language and the variety of definitions ofsustainable forestry canvassed in the document.There is a compelling argument that this mattershould not be left with individual landholders, butshould be supervised by a Government agencythrough a regulatory process, which embodies a

compulsory code of practice (seeRecommendation 3.26).

There is in fact provision in the Native VegetationConservation Act for operations such as privateforestry to be regulated through native vegetationcodes of practice, although this does not apply toprotected land.

The exemption for private forestry conflicts withthe National Forest Policy Statement, whichindicates that existing codes of practice for woodproduction in public native forests are to be madeapplicable to private native forests. It is alsoinconsistent with the State Labor Government’sForest Policy which stated that a ‘compulsoryCode of Logging Practice will be established bystatute …… and will apply to both public andprivate lands. …… The Code of Practice willinclude third party enforcement and appeal rights’(p 6). Note, however, that this commitment is onlyto a code of logging practice, whereas the expertworking group would argue that there should be acode of practice for sustainable forestry whichwould be operationalised through private forestmanagement plans made by individuallandholders engaged in commercial forestryoperations.

Forestry Provisions in local environmentalplans

Logging activities in certain areas may becaptured within requirements in localenvironmental plans made under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act toobtain development consent for ‘clearing’. Treepreservation orders may regulate logging wherethey apply to rural areas. On rare occasions, theremay even be a specific requirement to obtaindevelopment consent for forestry, although ingeneral rural zones, this is generally permissiblewithout consent. Where development consent isrequired under such provisions, it will not beaffected by the private forestry exemption underthe Native Vegetation Conservation Act. Theselocal provisions are only overridden in situationswhere an activity has been given developmentconsent under the Act, not, apparently, where anexemption applies.

Once, however, a regional vegetationmanagement plan has been made, it will overridethese local regulatory requirements unless theparticular local government area has beenexempted from the provisions of the Act (seeabove).


26 March 2001 19

Erosion and Pollution Control

The private forestry exemption discussed aboveonly relates to development consent under Part 4of the Environmental Planning and AssessmentAct. The Soil Conservation Commissioner canstill regulate threats of soil erosion and landdegradation by issuing notices under section 15Aof the Soil Conservation Act 1938.

In addition, where soil disturbance is likely toresult in water pollution, this is a criminal offenceunder the pollution legislation (Clean WatersAct/Pollution Control Act, shortly to be replacedby the Protection of the Environment OperationsAct) unless a pollution control licence has beenobtained from the Environment ProtectionAuthority.

In practice, private forestry activities are notlicensed by the Environment Protection Authority.The position of the Environment ProtectionAuthority is that it will respond to licenceapplications received, and that in practice, it doesnot receive applications from those carrying outprivate forestry. Yet whether or not applicationsare made will depend substantially on howvigorous the Environment Protection Authority isin policing the pollution legislation. There is noevidence of any systematic audit of privateforestry activities by the Environment ProtectionAuthority. Historically, although the definition of‘pollution’ in the Clean Waters Act has beenbroad enough to include diffuse run-off, the focusof the State Pollution Control Commission, andsubsequently the Environment ProtectionAuthority, has been on the regulation of pointsource pollution. However, the EnvironmentProtection Authority now licences loggingactivities carried out on State forests, requiringland management practices designed to reduce therisk of polluting run-off. The Department of Landand Water Conservation has been involved in thedevelopment of pollution control licences forState Forests, based on its legal powers under theSoil Conservation Act. There is no reason why asimilar approach should not be taken to privateforestry operations. The first step would be for theEnvironment Protection Authority to make it clearthat it will be prepared to take legal proceedingsagainst private forestry operations which pollutewithout a licence.

The Protection of the Environment OperationsAct, when it comes into operation, will allow theMinister for the Environment to make Protectionof the Environment Policies (PEPs), prepared bythe Environment Protection Authority and made

available for public comment in draft form. APEP, for example, could be made to provideguidelines or standards relating to private forestrymanagement practices designed to prevent diffusewater pollution.

Threatened Species

There is considerable confusion as to the impactof the provisions of the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act on private forestry in light ofthe private native forestry exemption from theneed to obtain development consent in the NativeVegetation Conservation Act.

Where neither development consent nor any otherkind of approval is required for private logging, alicence from the National Parks and WildlifeService under Threatened Species ConservationAct Part 6 may be required to avoid conviction ofoffences under the National Parks and WildlifeAct of damaging critical habitat or knowinglydamaging the habitat of threatened species,populations or ecological communities. However,in theory, a licence to pollute waters should besought where there is diffuse run-off from loggingoperations. This would attract the operation ofEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act Part5, and compliance with this would avoid the needfor a licence under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act Part 6. However, in practice,pollution licensing of private forestry does notoccur. Therefore it would appear that where thereis likely to be a significant effect on threatenedspecies, populations or ecological communities, ortheir habitats, a licence would be required underthe Threatened Species Conservation Act Part 6.

Where private forestry is likely to significantlyaffect threatened species, populations orecological communities, or their habitats, aspecies impact statement will have to be prepared,whether the application is processed under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment ActParts 4 or 5 or the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act Part 6.

Plantations

The Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee) Act1995 deals with harvesting operations onplantations accredited by the Director-General ofUrban Affairs and Planning. In essence, itsubstantially deregulates ‘harvesting operations’by exempting them from specified regulatoryrequirements (for example, those relating tothreatened species) while insisting that they arecarried out in accordance with timber plantation


26 March 2001 20

(environment protection) harvesting codes. Notall regulatory requirements are excluded.Pollution licensing requirements still apply.

Harvesting operations include on-goingmanagement of the plantation and the provision ofaccess roads, but exclude initial establishment,such as the clearing of natural forests.

Accreditation of a timber plantation can becancelled where necessary to protect unique orspecial wildlife values. Compensation must bepaid.

The Timber Plantations (Environment Protection)Harvesting Code 1997 has now been adopted(Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee)Regulation 1997). It requires the preparation of aharvesting plan, as well as specific provisionsrelating to the protection of soil and water. Factorsto be considered in preparing a harvesting planinclude the ecological values of wetlands and theprotection of their function as filters, and theexistence of relics. There is no requirement toconsider biodiversity values in the plan itself, butthere is a general requirement to notify ‘anyaspect of plantation operations that has an impacton unique or special wildlife values’, definednarrowly to cover only certain species listed asendangered (not vulnerable) in the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act. Thus, for example,invertebrates are not covered. Plantationoperations covered would include silviculturalpractices. Once notified, the Director-General ofUrban Affairs and Planning must decide whetherto suspend (including permanent suspension) ormodify harvesting operations. Compensation isavailable.

The legislation has nothing to say about theestablishment of plantations. Whether or not theclearing of native vegetation to establish aplantation is regulated will depend on theprovisions of the Native Vegetation ConservationAct and, in the longer term, regional vegetationmanagement plans. The significant transitionalexemption is that which permits the clearing ofregrowth of less than 10 years without the need toobtain development consent. One approach beingconsidered is the development of a code ofpractice under the Act, dealing with plantationestablishment. The expert working group stronglysupports this initiative.

Conclusion

It would be a significant understatement toconclude that the law and policy relating to

private forestry is complex, confused andinconsistent. At present, private forestry is treatedas a specialised form of land clearing operationand, in practice, it is generally exempt from anyregulatory requirements, except where it takesplace on protected lands.

Regional vegetation management plans shouldidentify those areas where private native forestry,as distinct from land clearing, is not an acceptableform of land use within the broad parameters setby the commitment in the National Forest PolicyStatement to put in place a CAR reserve systemand to provide for sympathetic off-reservemanagement. It is clear that, within theseconstraints, even sustainable forestry will not bean acceptable land use in some areas.

A necessary prerequisite for identification of theseareas is the implementation of a system ofassessment of conservation resources on land inprivate ownership. Potential impact on valuesmust be assessed at an appropriate scale whichmay be larger or smaller than the area of theregional vegetation management plan.

Strategic regional planning based on adequateinformation will significantly reduce the need forenvironmental and species impact assessment atthe operational level.

Because private native forestry is a fundamentallydifferent activity from land clearing foragricultural and residential purposes, anexemption for sustainable private native forestryfrom regulatory requirements concerned with landclearing is quite appropriate. However, at thesame time, it is quite inappropriate to leaveassessments of what constitutes sustainableforestry to those who wish to engage in theseactivities. Those engaged in private native forestryoperations should be required to conduct theiroperations in accordance with a private forestmanagement plan, setting minimum standards forthe achievement of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in relation to the whole forestryoperation, including the silvicultural regime to beapplied, the rotation, and provision forregeneration following harvesting. ManagementPlans should be based on a Code of Practice forPrivate Forestry (see, for example, the TasmanianForest Practices Code (January 1993)).Operational timber harvesting plans should alsobe required, and should incorporate a conditionfor a pre-logging species survey. These proposalsare developed in Chapter 3, and appropriaterecommendations are made.


26 March 2001 21

One possibility could be the provision of someelement of security of access to the resource inreturn for management in accordance with theplan. The Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee)Act should be considered as a possible model.

CODES OF PRACTICE

The expert working group believes that greateruse of codes of practice could be a way of settingout enforceable expectations relating toecologically sustainable forest management. Somecodes of practice already exist but, with theexception of the Timber Plantations(Environmental Protection) Harvesting Code1997, discussed above, these are substantiallyconfined to activities on State forests. Codes ofpractice are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

INTERNAL POLICY STATEMENTS:STATE FORESTS OF NEW SOUTHWALES AND NATIONAL PARKS ANDWILDLIFE SERVICE

Legislation establishing an Agency’s role oractivities may be supported by a series of policystatements which express, in a general way, theAgency’s principal objectives, and ways in whichits roles and activities will be addressed. ThisSection briefly reviews internal policies of the twoAgencies responsible for the public forests ofNew South Wales, that is, State Forests of NewSouth Wales and National Parks and WildlifeService.

STATE FORESTS OF NEW SOUTHWALES POLICY STATEMENTS

The historical review of management practice(Chapter 1) shows that while the IndigenousForest Policy - with its emphasis on wood supply- dominated forest practice from the mid-1970s,there has been a growing appreciation since thistime of the greater emphasis that must be placedon environmental conservation in forestmanagement.

A change in social perceptions of the values androles of public forests has been common to allAustralian States. As pressures grew nationally toformulate more socially acceptable policies andpractices, the Standing Committee of theAustralian Forestry Council (1991) prepared aStatement on wood production to which all Stateswere committed. The statement cites as one of theprinciples of environmental care the ‘ecologicallyand silviculturally sound reforestation principles

within native forests’. However, the Statementdoes not define this in more specific terms, nordoes it commit the States to formulating thestrategies, management plans and practicesneeded to implement the policy. It thereforecannot be said to have delivered, or to havecontributed to the delivery of, ecologicallysustainable forest management.

Forest management in New South Wales was tochange appreciably from 1992 following thechallenge to harvesting under the National Parksand Wildlife Service Act, and a raft of newlegislation extending the preparation ofenvironmental impact statements and imposingregulatory procedures through external agencies.Subsequently, a number of policies have beenformulated by the New South Wales Governmentand State Forests of New South Wales, placingforest management in a modern environmentalcontext.

The State Labor Government’s Forest Policyrefers to a regulatory and operational structurethat will ensure ‘ecologically sustainabledevelopment’. A more specific policy along theselines is that within the State Forests of New SouthWales Corporate Plan of 1995. The CorporatePlan sets out a ‘Vision’ (to be recognised as thenation’s leading forestry agency throughexcellence in progressive and responsive forestmanagement), and a ‘Mission’ (to manage forestsin an environmentally responsible manner, supplyproducts and services to meet customerexpectations and achieve a commercial return).The Plan seeks to demonstrate sustainability inforest management through ‘world’s bestenvironmental practice’, and by defining ‘theforest resource available for long term sustainableforest management’. This is to be achievedthrough Regional Forest Agreements, withauditing of standards and external certification.These policies have the potential to deliverecologically sustainable forest management,notably through the RFA process.

Similarly, the Environment Policy Statement of1996 commits State Forests to adopting ‘bestpractice’ in sustainable management. However,there is no interpretation of just what constitutesbest practice. If best practice entails acommitment to ecologically sustainablesilvicultural practice, and ecologically sustainablelevels of wood harvest, then the Policy ispotentially capable of delivering ecologicallysustainable forest management.


26 March 2001 22

The expert working group suggests that both theCorporate Plan and the Environmental Policycould well be supported by more specific policystatements, for example, on conservation, floraand fauna, water and soil management, andsilvicultural practice. State Forests of New SouthWales appreciates the need for a modernsilvicultural policy. While the Indigenous ForestPolicy no longer underpins silvicultural practice,it has not been superseded by any alternativepolicy. State Forests of New South Wales held aworkshop in May 1997 to consider the content ofa silvicultural policy based on a betterappreciation of ecological principles, and able todeliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. However, the formulation of thepolicy was not completed in time for the RFAprocess.

State Forests of New South Wales have a numberof current policy statements covering other forestuses and practices, mainly prepared during the1980s. These include policies relating to nativeforest preservation, recreation, grazing, huntingand materials extraction. Some of these will needto be updated in the light of the ecologicallysustainable forest management criteria.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENPOLICIES, STRATEGIC ANDOPERATIONAL PLANS AND OTHERDOCUMENTS

State Forests of New South Wales recognisesthere are problems in its policy/planning structure.For example, in some cases management elementsoverlap, while in others the management processis not obvious. The management elements used byState Forests suffer from a number of apparentdeficiencies which arise from the way in whichinstructions are written (from ‘Overview ofmanagement elements used by State Forests ofNew South Wales for public forests in NSW inrelation to ecologically sustainable forestmanagement/environment management system’).

This has allowed the development of protocolsand codes of practice at a functional, regionaland/or district level which do not necessarily meetthe requirements of the ecologically sustainableforest management criteria or the intent of theCorporate Plan, but may reflect a practicalinterpretation of what is required at district level.

Moreover, the expert working group sees a lack ofunderstanding of the common hierarchy oflegislation, corporate and other policies,strategies, operational and other processes, audit

and review. Consequently, there is inadequateappreciation of the links between thesecomponents in complying with the organisation’senvironmental policies and, through them, thelegislation. Thus documents produced in goodfaith have frequently been developed in theabsence of clear policies, and these may reflectcurrent practice rather than a response to ‘bestpractice’.

This problem has now been recognised by seniormanagement and plans are being made tostrengthen the link between the Governmentpolicy and the corporate plan. In addition, theabsence of common core policies and strategieson a range of environmental and other issues hasalso been recognised, and actions commenced torectify the problem. The State Forests of NewSouth Wales ‘Overview of managementelements..’ notes that:

Policy is now vested in one corporate group inState Forests’ Forest Policy and ProgramsDivision with the intent to permeate all futurepolicies and strategic directions with ecologicallysustainable forest management principles...

Recommendation 2.10:

In order to reinforce the importance of StateForests of New South Wales's commitment tothe policy objectives, the expert working grouprecommends that State Forests of New SouthWales:

• commits itself to the development of thosegeneral and specific policies necessary toimplement national and state Governmentenvironment and forest policies, and theorganisation's corporate objectives;

• documents for staff a clear linkage betweenlegislation, corporate and other policies,strategic plans, operational and otherprocesses, and audit and review processes;and, more specifically, the importance of thehierarchy in delivering ecologicallysustainable forest management principles;and

• develops a policy which, among otherthings, recognises the ecological andsilvicultural principles upon whichsilvicultural practice must be based, therange of values for which forests are nowmanaged, the need to integrate woodproduction and environmental objectivesthrough silvicultural practice, and thediversity in silvicultural practice needed toachieve multiple-use objectives.


26 March 2001 23

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFESERVICE POLICY STATEMENTS

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has botha managerial and regulatory role under thelegislation which it administers. The NationalParks and Wildlife Service has responded to theseresponsibilities by developing a mission statementwhich is:

Working with the community to conserveand foster appreciation of nature, Aboriginalheritage and historic heritage in New SouthWales.

The mission is being implemented through thedevelopment of a corporate plan which has fivekey program areas:

■ Conservation policy, assessment and planning

■ Protection of conservation assets

■ Promotion of conservation

■ Regional park management

■ Service wide support and development.

These key programs are supported by some 57lower order objectives and targets. With respect toecologically sustainable forest management theseinclude:

■ Implement the National Biodiversity Strategythrough the development of a StateBiodiversity Strategy;

■ Provide Service input into the development ofmodel forestry management plans to assist inachieving ecologically sustainable forestmanagement;

■ Identify in consultation with other agencies,ways in which the Service can pursue anecosystem management approach inenvironmental planning and management; and

■ Develop and coordinate a state wideendangered species conservation program,including recovery planning and necessaryresearch and survey.

The content of the corporate plan is, in part,supported by a policy framework defined in aseries of documents - including documentsproviding guidance on the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act; ThreatenedSpecies Management Circulars and an internalThreatened Species Management ProceduresManual; and manuals dealing with Wilderness,Law Enforcement and Public Enquiries, andConcessions and Leases. There are also many

internally focused manuals dealing with safetyand administrative matters.

Perusal of these manuals indicates that, during thelate 80s to early 90s, there was a strong focus onpolicy development related initially to staffmanagement and associated issues. Laterdocuments reflect environmental issues such aswilderness, vertebrate control, threatened species,and so on. However, a number of the manualsdated between 1989-1993 may be out of date inthat they may not reflect policy changes.

THE BALANCE BETWEEN WOODPRODUCTION AND CONSERVATIONIN LAND USE PLANNING

The achievement of a socially acceptable balancebetween wood production and environmentalconservation is at the heart of the RFA process.The principles underpinning this balance are setout in the National Forest Policy and the Report ofthe Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National ForestPolicy Statement Implementation Sub-committee(JANIS) Report).

The National Forest Policy is essentially about‘balanced development’. It provides both forprotection of the full range of forest ecosystemsand other environmental values; and, ‘as one of itsprincipal objectives’, the sustainable economicuse of native forests and plantations.

The conservation objectives of the National ForestPolicy are to be achieved through a CAR reservesystem incorporating four elements:

■ the Dedicated Reserve system on public land;

■ conservation zones within State forestsdesignated in approved forest managementplans;

■ designated areas on State forests managed byprescription to achieve specified conservationtargets; and

■ conservation zones on private land protectedthrough covenants that bind successors in title.

The expert working group accepts that the JANISconservation criteria should be achieved withinDedicated Reserves wherever ‘practical andpracticable’. However, there are circumstanceswhere greater emphasis should be placed on theother elements of the CAR reserve system.

There can be no simple formula for determiningthe balance between the CAR reserve systemelements in achieving the JANIS objectives. Thismust be done on a region by region and forest by


26 March 2001 24

forest basis. The Group accepts that where it isnecessary, on socio-economic ground, to considera number of CAR elements in meeting the JANIScriteria (for example, in balancing economic andenvironmental objectives), harvests will remainwithin ecologically sustainable limits, and accounttaken in land use planning of the following:

■ Where specified forest types are more thanadequately represented within the presentDedicated Reserve system, some transfer offorest from national park to state forest mightbe considered. Reallocation at a whole forestlevel is not envisaged. Rather, land transfermight be done by adjusting national park-stateforest boundaries, and placing the transferredland in some ‘special management’ category(Chapter 4).

■ Where specified biotypes are only moderatelyrepresented within Dedicated Reserves, andany increase in that representation wouldunduly jeopardise regional industry prospects,land use determination might take account ofthe present forest condition and its futureecologically sustainable forest managementmanagement. For example, rather than transferan unduly large area of forest to national park,part of that forest might be managed forcontinuing wood production as a specialmanagement area. The joint management ofPine Creek State Forest for conservation ofkoalas and wood production is a good case inpoint.

This theme is further developed in Section 3.3.7where a key recommendation (number 3.43) ismade.


26 March 2001 25

Figure 1 - Proposed institutional framework for forest management in New South Wales

STATEGOVERNMENT

Forest Regulator– all forested land

ResourceInformation

Unit

ResearchUnit

Park ManagementUnit

(Parks & Reserve)

Private ForestrySupport Unit

(All Private Forest)

Public ForestryUnit

(State Forest)

Crown Land Unit(Leasehold & Other

Crown)

Threat Abatement&

Support Unit

Natural ResourcesManagement

Agency

26 March 2001 1

PLANNING

This chapter examines current information systems,planning and management systems and processes inState Forests of New South Wales and National Parksand Wildlife Service, and the potential of thosesystems and processes to deliver ecologicallysustainable forest management.

The delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement will be possible only where there isaccess to comprehensive, up-to-date and low-costinformation for planning and management ofbiodiversity, soils, water and economic values at theregional scale and across all tenure boundaries; andwhere strategic and operational planning andmanagement systems and processes are responsive toan agency's corporate plan and other policies relevantto the delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

ESFM INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

Comprehensive, up-to-date and low-cost informationsystems for the planning and management ofbiodiversity, soil, water, cultural heritage andeconomic values at the regional scale across alltenure boundaries are fundamental to the approvaland implementation of models by which ecologicallysustainable forest management could be delivered onprivate and public lands through a combination ofdedicated reserves, managed public forests andregional vegetation management plans. There are asyet no such information systems in New SouthWales in an integrated format.

While the collation, analysis, communication anddissemination of information for the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management in NewSouth Wales is currently in disarray, there areproposals to coordinate the exchange of informationbetween separate agencies. From the discussion ofthe needs and problems of departments, however, theexpert working group does not consider that thesearrangements will be effective. This is because themajor individual departments regard theirinformation bases as strategic and tradeable assetsand it is likely that various departments will

perpetuate incompatible information managementsystems. No single department is responsible forcreating, digitising and disseminating environmentaldata. Different departments and agencies areresponsible for separate portions of the totalinformation base. There are substantial gaps in State-wide and regional coverage and there is no freeexchange of data between departments or betweengovernment and the public. In addition, not allenvironmental layers required for biodiversityplanning have been digitised and governmentagencies use different and incompatible data storagesystems and methods of classification and mapping.Vegetation community mapping has been undertakenby State Forests of New South Wales in State forests,by the Department of Land and Water Conservationin the Western Division, by the National Parks andWildlife Service in some agricultural areas, and bylocal councils on some private lands. Substantial gapsin information about private and public lands,including national parks and crown lands, remain.Vegetation mapping and the modelling of vegetationoccurrence pre-1750 is also being undertaken in theRFA process. It is essential to overcome informationmanagement and exchange problems and to pool allavailable mapped and digital environmental data soas to identify gaps in current knowledge, to ensureconsistency in standards, to plan and prioritise futureinformation surveys and inventories and to deliverecologically sustainable forest management onregional and State-wide scales.

Recommendation 3.1: Information collation,analysis, communication and dissemination fordelivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in New South Wales should beimproved by:

• storing, analysing and disseminating State-wide information required for deliveringecologically sustainable forest management,including all existing digital, biophysical,socio-economic and cultural heritage data;

• developing protocols for data collection;

• maintaining standards of data quality,storage and transfer;


26 March 20012

• identifying gaps in current knowledge;

• guidance on data ‘capture’ (collection) andinventory activities;

• better training and advice to staff byagencies

• facilitating the free exchange of data betweengovernment agencies and making dataavailable to stakeholders, local councils, andthe public; and

• provision of existing information tointerested parties for the cost of dataretrieval and handling.

A single forest resource information unit shouldbe created within the New South WalesGovernment to take responsibility forinformation management.

Instead of pooling available information to facilitateregional and State-wide planning, some agencies arewithholding and copyrighting portions of theavailable database under their control as a means ofincreasing power and revenue. The National Parksand Wildlife Service has entered into a data-sharingagreement with State Forests of New South Wales,the Australian Museum and the Royal BotanicGardens, to the exclusion of other governmentdepartments, the general public, councils andenvironmental practitioners. This anti-competitivemonopoly is contrary to the basic principles ofdemocratic government, subjects project planners andmanagers to unnecessary cost and uncertainty,constrains the introduction of regional biodiversityplanning, and drains public and private funds byunnecessary duplication and reduced efficiency.

Lack of co-operation between agencies andexorbitant charging causes:

■ imposition of costs that hinder the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management;

■ unnecessary duplication of information systems;

■ the proliferation of different and incompatiblegeographic information systems;

■ constraints on cross-tenure regional planning; and

■ delay in movement away from project-basedassessment to regional planning as a tool for thedelivery of ecologially sustainable forestmanagement.

These problems are particularly apparent in thecapture, storage and dissemination of the locationrecords of threatened species. Specifically:

■ several separate databases are operated bydifferent government and non-government

agencies over the same geographic regions (forexample, the State Forests of New South Walesdatabase, the Australian Museum, the NationalParks and Wildlife Service Wildlife Atlas, theRare or Threatened Australian Plant database, theRoyal Australian Ornithologists Union (RAOU)bird database, and regional museum, council andherbarium databases), all of which may hold thesame or distinct data in inconsistent formats);

■ many biological records held in the NationalParks and Wildlife Service Wildlife Atlas are notbeing released to the public because they are thesubject of restrictive agreements with individualdonors and agencies (for example, AustralianMuseum records are not available through theWildlife Atlas) although these restricted recordsmay be used against private developers bygovernment during the planning (concurrence)process;

■ some government agencies are selling wildliferecords for profit and restricting their repeated useor the transfer of their data to third parties;

■ government claims of copyright over specieslocation records may not be legally supportable,especially as many of these records were initiallycollected by public and private consultants andvolunteers;

■ there is no consistency in standards of data qualitycontrol and the same records may duplicated indifferent databases;

■ government departments can and do quar-antinesome species records from public access withouttransparent or adequate reason or explanation.

Recommendation 3.2: That the New South WalesGovernment take legal advice on the right tocopyright and trade biodiversity records.Departments should only accept records into theirdatabases on condition that they be available forplacement in the public domain. Some recordsmay be quarantined from general public accesswhere it can be shown that release would pose asignificant threat to population survival (forexample, location of species subject to wildlifetrade).

Deficiencies in information management within theNew South Wales Government are widely recognisedand some progress has been made towardsimprovement. The National Parks and WildlifeService has prepared a draft action plan under theNew South Wales Biodiversity Strategy known as theNew South Wales Biodiversity Survey Program todeal with many deficiencies in the inventory, surveyand monitoring of biodiversity information. This plan


26 March 2001 3

aims to provide leadership in the gathering,analysing, collating, coordination, communicationand dissemination of the information needed tomanage the biological diversity of New South Wales.The plan also aims to foster the free exchange of databetween participants, the development of uniformstandards, the carrying out and funding of regionalsurveys, and the communication of information viathe internet. These goals require some modificationto ensure that information is also transferred rapidlyand at low cost to end users in the private sector.Private individuals and bodies lack access to data thatare available to public institutions. To be involved inthe delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, private indivuals must have access tothe information databases that cover public tenures.Such free flow of data is essential for thetransparency of decisions and processes as well as forthe achievement of innovation and best practiceplanning.

Recommendation 3.3: That the New South WalesBiodiversity Survey Program be implemented as amatter of urgency, subject to modification toimprove and guarantee low-cost delivery ofinformation to stakeholders and private andpublic planners and managers.

A move in the this direction has been initiated by theDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning. Thedepartment has insisted on the release of vegetationcommunity mapping and classification datagenerated during the RFA process. This initiativeshould be extended to include the release of all rareand threatened species records and habitat maps, andof the models generated and held by governmentafter completion of RFA’s. While much of thisinformation will have limited use in the period priorto signing RFAs, it will be invaluable in generatingregional vegetation management plans and propertymanagement plans, and in the period followingsigning for the purposes of wide-ranging planningand assessment processes on private land.

Recommendation 3.4: That all environmental data(including vegetation community maps,threatened species distribution maps and models,and threatened species records) generated andheld by government after the completion of RFA’sbe made available to the general public,stakeholders and planners at no more than thecost of data retrieval and handling.

After the completion of the RFA process, allavailable information on the distribution of forestcommunities, the modelled habitats of more commonthreatened species, and the known location records ofthreatened species will have been compiled for each

RFA region. This database will, however, fall shortof providing all the requirements for regional levelplanning of a comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative reserve system and the protection ofthreatened species habitats. This is because data willstill be lacking on the distribution of rare and poorlyknown species. Current knowledge about thedistribution and abundance of rare and threatenedspecies in New South Wales is patchy andincomplete. Survey intensity in the State forests ofnorth-east New South Wales, (amongst the mostintensively surveyed in the state), is estimated to beabout 0.1 percent (one hectare in every thousand).Coverage on private lands is substantially lower. Thismeans that most populations of rare and threatenedspecies, especially plants, have yet to be discovered.This problem cannot be solved by habitat modellingbecause there are too few location records for rareand poorly known species. This means that thedelivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement solely by protection of forests inreserves and by regional planning (for examplethrough the preparation of regional vegetationmanagement plans under the Native VegetationConservation Act 1997) is not possible at present.The protection of rare species and communities inareas of public and private forest that are not part ofthe reservation system will depend on thecontinuation of project-based assessments. Animportant requirement will be the continuation ofpre-development surveys of fauna and flora requiredunder the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995and Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1974.This will be the case until sufficient resources areavailable to conduct comprehensive regional surveysof all remnant forests.

Data collected in pre-development surveys should becompiled into a database by the forest informationagency so that it can be used, for example, in thedevelopment of regional vegetation managementplans. At present, the information from individualprojects has not been integrated to form a database.

Similar comments apply to surveys for, andprotection of cultural heritage and indigenoustraditional values.

MANAGEMENT PLANNING

State Forests of New South Wales: Forestplanning procedures

The agency’s forest planning process has undergonenumerous changes since forests were first listed andmaintained as an asset under the Forestry Act 1916.These changes have been introduced to meet both


26 March 20014

organisational (internal) and legal or political(external) needs. The current planning processesderive from a mix of internal and external factors andcan broadly be defined as occurring at two levels:

■ Strategic management, which includes:

− Area management plans: prepared under theForestry Act 1916 and other ForestCommission policies during the mid to late1980s to manage the 67 forest areas into whichthe State was divided. They had an initial lifeof 10 years; and

− a map-based forest classification schemewhich set the preferred management priorityfor use, or laid special emphasis on particularforest areas, and that overlaid the areamanagement plans.

■ Tactical (operational) management, which couldbe subdivided into:

− Environmental impact statements orassessments, which were mostly required byexternal legislation to identify potential andactual environmental impacts resulting fromproposed forest (harvesting) activities, andwhich lasted for a defined number of years;

− Flora reserve working plans, Aboriginal placeplans and other plans which centred onconservation management;

− infrastructure plans associated with thedevelopment and management of roads andrecreational facilities;

− fire planning, which dealt primarily with fireprevention and suppression;

− annual plans of operations (order of working)for identified compartments within amanagement area scheduled for logging; and

− harvesting plans to manage and controlharvesting operations in a compartment.

Strategic plans. Within the agency, the forestmanagement plan, incorporating a ‘preferredmanagement priority classification’ (PMP), hasprovided the key link between expressions of forestpolicy and forest operations.

From about 1990, the strong focus on preparingenvironmental impact statements and the need torespond to the regulatory agencies disrupted the well-ordered process of management plan preparation andreview. Thus the management plans available forperusal reflect the timber management orientation ofthe 1980s and in particular the thrust of theIndigenous Forest Policy. Many of these plans still

apply – at least in terms of wood productionmanagement.

Fire planning within the agency is based on a 1997policy which is concerned primarily with protectinglife and property, providing barriers to high-intensitywildfires, reducing the fire hazards created byharvesting and other activities, and producingseedbeds Nevertheless, it also refers to the use of fireto ‘... maintain specific ecological values’. The fuelmanagement policy is based on defining specific fuelmanagement zones and fire regimes designed toachieve protection as well as ‘ecologically sustainedforest management’.

Fire management arrangements at the strategic andoperational levels are made in cooperation with BushFire Management Committees set up under the RuralFires Act 1997 on a local government area basis.Bushfire risk management plans and operations plansare prepared for each area, covering all land tenures.The bushfire risk management plan seeks a balancebetween the protection of life and property and theconservation of environmental values. It is a balancewhich takes account of ecologically sustainabledevelopment principles and ultimately, but notexclusively, provides the best possible protection tolife, property and assets from devastating wildfires.

State Forests prepares an annual fuel managementprogram which is submitted to the relevant Bush FireManagement Committee with respect to itscommunity fire protection and management burningcomponent. Operational fuel management plans areprepared internally by State Forests in relation to fuelmanagement operations in order to provide theinformation needed to undertake the operationaccording to the guidelines, and to provide a recordof the operations and information for the future.

The agency has a fire manual designed to collate anddisplay policies, instructions and guidelines on firemanagement; guidelines for the conduct of fuelreduction and post-harvest burns; a coordinatedsystem for reporting fire incidents; and a fuelmanagement database on hazard reduction burningand wildfire. The agency requires periodicDistrict/Regional reporting on fire use, and conductsburning studies and other research into fire.

Grazing within forests is described elsewhere as athreat to biodiversity conservation. However, theagency has long recognised commercial grazing as alegitimate use of public forests. There is a 1984grazing policy, but this is primarily concerned withthe administration of grazing permits and licences.The grazing regime is normally prescribed broadly inthe management plan, including the type and


26 March 2001 5

intensity of grazing and the amount of capitalimprovement needed for grazing management.

Environmental Impact Statements. Following themore rigorous implementation of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act in 1992, acomprehensive assessment and review of thepotential and actual impacts of forest operations wasundertaken for 14 management areas where loggingwas scheduled to occur. The process was managed bya team of State Forests personnel supported byexternal consultants. However, the process used inthe assessments does not appear to be welldocumented, and no procedures are evident todetermine how the work was done or to assess howeffective the review process was so as to confirm thecredibility of the outcome.

At the time it was introduced, the requirement thatenvironmental impact statements be prepared for allactivities that had a significant effect on theenvironment was seen by many as an environmentalpanacea for many of the State’s environmentalproblems. However, the process was not designed todeliver ecologically sustainable forest managementas it is now understood. For example, theenvironmental impact statement cannot, and has notbeen designed to, deliver ecologically sustainableforest management in terms of ecologicallysustainable silvicultural practice.

Operational plans. Within State Forests of NewSouth Wales’ management system, forest policiesand strategic management plans are deliveredthrough numerous types and forms of operationalplans, forest practices codes, operational guidelines,circulars, and regional and district instructions whichcover the more detailed planning of individualoperations or types of operation.

Harvesting plans have been an integral part of theharvesting process for two decades. Because of thefailure to update strategic plans in recent years,harvesting plans have assumed a more significantrole in management objectives and priorities. Theharvest planning process has been refined and nowincorporates the requirements of other agencieswhich have a role in regulating forest operations.

As an adjunct to harvesting plan, the New SouthWales Government has recently created harvestingadvisory boards to advise State Forests on how tomeet supply commitments, and on the environmentalconsiderations for timber harvesting within statutoryconstraints consistent with government policy. Theboards could provide a co-operative forum withinwhich the principal interest groups, other governmentagencies and the broader community can contributeto the management of State forests.

Harvest plans are developed in accordance withOperational Circular 95/1 which refers to the relevantlegislation and the environmental impact statementfor the compartment to be harvested. Harvest plansrefer to the relevant operating codes of practice, thelicence conditions such as those associated withpollution control, and any other special requirements.The current circular does not refer to the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act but does provide areference to previous similar legislation. The circularis comprehensive and calls for a mandatory fieldinspection to verify and refine the data. Harvest plansare also subject to the Regulatory and PublicInformation Committee and to endorsement from theEnvironment Protection Authority and the NationalParks and Wildlife Service before implementation.

National Parks and Wildlife Service: Planningprocedures

The National Parks and Wildlife Service hasdeveloped management plans for the assets for whichit is responsible. These plans vary in content. Themore modern plans include references tobiodiversity, heritage values, soil erosion and waterquality, and threatened species in the context ofecologically sustainable forest management. Theprocess for the development of a park or reserve planis documented and made available on request towhoever is developing the plan. The content of theplan is based on a ‘model plan’ which is intended toprovide consistency in the plan development process.

The plans of management include implementationobjectives and are accompanied by a financial impactstatement which contains details of the cost ofimplementing the plan in terms of capital andrecurrent expenditure. Implementation is fundedthrough district annual programs and is subject to theavailability of funding and staff.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service hascommenced a review of the current planning processwith a view to its improvement. The elements of thereview are wide-ranging and include suchrequirements as benchmarking current practices inother States, public involvement in plan preparation,assessing the effectiveness of the public exhibitionprocess, and a review of the content of the plan.

Department of Land and Water Conservation:Planning procedures

The Department of Land and Water Conservation isresponsible for managing the Crown Estate whichconstitutes 55 per cent of New South Wales lands.This estate includes lands reserved or dedicated for apublic purpose such as recreation or travelling stock,


26 March 20016

and unreserved lands which may be leased, licensedor left vacant. The Department of Land and WaterConservation is also responsible for commonsmanaged under the Commons Management Act 1989.

Before Crown lands can be allocated for use, theMinister administering the Crown Lands Act 1989must be satisfied that the land has been assessedunder Part 3 of the Act to determine its physicalcapabilities, suitable uses and, where applicable,preferred uses. The allocation of lands under theWestern Lands Act 1901 is not subject to a land-assessment process.

Although the Department of Land and WaterConservation has policies on the use of Crown lands,these do not relate specifically to the management offorests. The management of forests on Crown Landsis therefore based on the Acts or associated Whitepapers. Formal management plans are only preparedfor Crown reserves, not unreserved Crown lands.While there is a standard clause in leases and licenceswhich precludes the taking of timber from unreservedCrown lands, there are currently no policy documentsrelating to these lands.

The expert working group proposes a new approachto forest planning in New South Wales. This issummarised in Figure 2 and is discussed in detailbelow.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING AGAINSTTHE NSW ESFM PRINCIPLES

Principle 1A: Biodiversity

Assessment for the protection of biodiversity onpublic lands is currently regulated by the provisionsof the Threatened Species Conservation Act(threatened species and communities) and theEnvironment Planning and Assessment Act (generalenvironmental values).

Assessment has three essential components:

■ description of forest values (for example,biodiversity, cultural heritage) in areas subject to adevelopment proposal or activity;

■ assessment of the impacts of proposed activitieson forest values; and

■ testing the significance of predicted impacts bycomparison with the targets of ecologicallysustainable forest management.

Exemption from assessmentSome Government agencies believe that assessmentof the impacts of proposed activities on forest values

is no longer necessary in some cases, and that thepreparation and role of environmental impactstatements should be reduced. It is considered thatthe cost and complexity of impact assessment couldbe reduced by specifying the exemptions andcircumstances under which an assessment is notrequired. This may apply to biodiversity valueswhen:

■ a comprehensive survey and a description offorest values (for example, threatened species andcommunities) have been completed on therelevant site and the information is available;

■ the impacts of proposed development activities onforest values are known and accepted by thescientific community;

■ standard prescriptions specified in codes ofpractice (for example conservation protocols)have been developed and will be adopted toprevent any significant impact on rare andthreatened species and communities;

■ effective monitoring and enforcement proceduresare in place to ensure that standard prescriptionsare applied.

In the post-RFA environment, it is likely thatstandard prescriptions and codes of practice will beavailable and that monitoring and enforcementprocedures will have been planned or implemented inpublic forests, but it is highly unlikely thatcomprehensive and adequate surveys of threatenedspecies and other forest values (for example,indigenous traditional values) will have beencompleted. In practice, it is highly unlikely thatsufficient information will be available to foregoassessment in most forest habitats. Environmentalimpact statements should only be abandoned forpublic forests where pre-logging surveys are amandatory component of codes of practice(conservation protocols), where monitoring ismandatory and where enforceable, and ameliorationmeasures have been shown to be effective.Environmental impact statements should be retainedfor proposed activities which require a significantchange in silvicultural practice (for example, gap andcluster felling in dry sclerophyll forest) and for whichno scientifically conclusive long-term monitoring orimpact data is available. On other tenures, impactassessment in some form (environmental impactstatement, species impact statements) will continue tobe essential for the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management in the circumstanceswhere:

■ land zoning allows the possibility of some level ofbiodiversity conservation;


26 March 2001 7

■ no previous comprehensive biodiversity surveyhas been undertaken;

■ impacts of proposed activities are uncertain; or

■ standard prescriptions or conservation protocols(codes of practice) have not been developed or,where standard prescriptions are available, buthave not been adopted under the proposedactivity.

Recommendation 3.5: Development proposalsfor forests should be exempt from requirementsto undertake 8 point tests and environmentalimpact statements where:

• they are within specified zones identified onproposed regional vegetation managementplans and are incorporated into localenvironmental plans and regionalenvironmental plans;

• comprehensive regional environmentalsurveys have been undertaken;

• impacts of activities are known with a highlevel of scientific certainty;

• approved codes of practice have beenadopted for the proposed activities; and

• effective monitoring and enforcementprocedures are in place.

Exemption from environmental impact statementsand species impact statements could be consideredwhere comprehensive regional environmental surveyand planning (including the survey and mapping ofthreatened species) has been completed and codes ofpractices for the amelioration of impacts have beenformulated for the preparation of regional vegetationmanagement plans, property management plans andrevised local environment plans or regionalenvironment plans. National Parks and WildlifeService has the legislative authority to exempt privateand public land from licence requirements under theThreatened Species Conservation Act by licensingproperty management plans prepared in co-operationwith the proposed regulatory unit. This mechanismappears to offer the greatest scope for the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management outsideof reserves, with planning based on previouscomprehensive fauna and flora surveys or mandatorypre-logging surveys.

Private native forestry is, at least in the short term,exempt from the requirements of the NativeVegetation Conservation Act 1997 when operationsare considered to be ecologically sustainable (seeChapter 2). Operationally, the Department of Landand Water Conservation considers private forestry tobe sustainable if it complies with the standard

mitigation prescriptions (codes of practice) applied toforestry operations on Protected Lands. Theseprotocols are similar to those developed for publicforests (see Codes of practice) but are moreprecautionary in that they restrict logging to lowintensity practice (more than 50 per cent canopyretention).

8 point testsUnder the Threatened Species Conservation Act,proponents must carry out an 8 point test to assess themagnitude and importance of any impacts on listedthreatened species, population and communities.Where a significant impact is likely, a species impactstatement must be prepared and submitted toNational Parks and Wildlife Service or a Minister forapproval. The preparation of an 8 point test in mostcases requires almost as much commitment of timeand resources as a species impact statement.

Loopholes in the 8 point test process which cancircumvent the objects of the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act and preclude effective delivery ofecologically sustainable forest managementbiodiversity values, include the following:

■ lack of minimum standards for conducting pre-development surveys of threatened species andcommunities;

■ lack of requirements for approval of 8 point testsby an independent regulatory (biodiversity)authority;

■ lack of clear guildelines for distinguishingsignificant and non-significant impacts;

■ carrying out of 8 point tests by consent authoritieswhich may have an interest in the outcome;

■ carrying out of 8 point tests where the proponentis itself the consent authority;

■ 8 point tests apply only to changes in activity;

■ 8 point tests only consider impacts on threatenedspecies, communities and populations.

There is currently no legislation requiringassessments and surveys for 8 point tests to beundertaken to specified minimum standards or byaccredited operators. Inadequate surveys that fail todetect threatened species may lead to falseconclusions about the significance and level ofimpact. It is common for 8 point test surveys todetect only a portion of the threatened speciesactually present on development sites. Consentauthorities are responsible for the accuracy of 8 pointtests. They include local councils for mostdevelopments on private land and governmentagencies for activities on the public lands which they


26 March 20018

manage. Consent authorities often lack thebiodiversity expertise to assess the accuracy of 8point tests, and may have a vested interest in theoutcome. It is also common for consultants to comeunder pressure to carry out limited surveys, and toconclude that impacts will not be significant, so as toavoid the need to involve the National Parks andWildlife Service. Thus, an 8 point tests should beconsidered the ‘proponents case’ and treated asimperfect until evaluated by an independentbiodiversity authority.

Recommendation 3.6: That the 8 point test in theThreatened Species Conservation Act be revisedto:

■ better reflect regional criteria and targets usedfor the monitoring and delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management;

■ specify minimum standards for biodiversitysurvey and impact assessment;

■ specify exemptions from the 8 point testprocess (for example, where proponents adhereto approved codes of practice, undertakeactivities under approved preferredmanagment priorities and vegetationmanagement plans or within exclusion zonesdesignated under regional planninginstruments (regional environment plans, localenvironment plans, property managementplans and proposed vegetation managementplans).

Under the Threatened Species Conservation Act thereis no legal requirement for the assessment of 8 pointtests by an independent biodiversity authority such asthe National Parks and Wildlife Service. There are noexisting guidelines to assist proponents to conduct 8point tests or to recognise the difference between asignificant and non-significant impact. Similarly,consent authorities lack clear and transparent targetsfor maintaining regional ecologically sustainableforest management values which can be used todetermine the significance of impacts under the 8point test. The National Parks and Wildlife Servicehas provided little guidance in this matter, leavingdecisions on the significance of impacts to consentauthorities that may have little biodiversity expertise.

Recommendation 3.7: the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act be modified to require approvalof 8 point tests by the National Parks and WildlifeService or an independent regulatory agency withappropriate biodiversity expertise.

This recommendation is already substantiallyfulfilled through the independent assessment ofclearing proposals by the Department of Land and

Water Conservation on agricultural land. Itsextension to forest remnants on residential landrequires only small additional allocation of resources,especially if this extension were facilitated by the useof decision support systems.

While National Parks and Wildlife Service claims tobe unwilling to become an approval authority for 8point tests because of the increased resourcerequirement, it is already actively involved in the 8point test process through consultation with councilsand developers. Consequently, it appears that theadditional step of approval could be achieved withlittle extra commitment of time and resources.

Information provided to consent or regulatoryauthorities must be comprehensive, accurate andreliable. It is therefore essential that consentauthorities either carry out their own assessments orensure that assessments by proponents are undertakento specified minimum standards. The Department ofLand and Water Conservation undertakes its own 8point tests and environmental assessments forprocessing clearing and forestry applications onprivate lands. This provides a check on theproponent’s case and ensures the maintenance ofconsistent standards. The cost of assessment has beenreduced by preparing in-house guidelines and expert(decisions support) systems for the assessment ofclearing and forestry impacts in different regions andtenures. Proponents are required to consult with theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation at anearly stage in the development process and areencouraged to adopt standard amelioration measureswhich will prevent significant impacts and avoid theneed for a species impact statement. This approachhas been successfully tested and implemented overmany years and serves as a model for other regionsand tenures, particularly residential land.

Recommendation 3.8: That the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act be amended to requireproponents to consult with the Forest Regulatorearly in the assessment process to maximise theopportunity for the modification of activities andproposals to avoid significant impacts wherepossible.

The Department of Land and Water Conservationcommissioned the development of expert anddecision support systems to provide a consistent andsystematic approach to the assessment and mitigationof clearing and private forestry impacts on threatenedfauna and fauna habitats. The earliest systems (basedon rapid habitat description, prediction of threatenedspecies occurrence, comparison of impacts withspecified minimum limits to determine significance,and adoption of precautionary standardised clearing


26 March 2001 9

codes and conservation protocols to mitigatesignificant impacts) have been operating successfullysince 1993. All Department of Land and WaterConservation field officers have been trained to usethe systems at a series of State-wide workshops andrefresher courses. The result has been a significantincrease in standards of environmental care andprotection over large areas of private forest. Thesesystems are being modified to meet the changingrequirements of the Threatened Species ConservationAct. The extension of this approach to other tenures,particularly bushland remnants in residential andurban land, would overcome many of the problemsand inconsistencies experienced by councils andNational Parks and Wildlife Service in interpretingand applying the Threatened Species ConservationAct.

Recommendation 3.9: Local government councilsand regulators develop and implement decisionsupport systems for all major land uses tofacilitate the cost-effective assessment of impactson threatened species habitats and the delivery ofconsistent and transparent significance tests.

Use of a modified and updated version of theDepartment of Land and Water Conservationdecision support system would provide immediatesavings in facilitating the preparation of harvestingplans in public forests by:

■ cost-effective identification of threatened species'habitats

■ identification of species which should be thesubject of pre-logging surveys; and

■ development of relevant codes of practice(conservation protocols) to be applied to particularareas of forest.

Recommendation 3.10: Guidelines be preparedfor determining when activites have a significantimpact under the 8 point test, based on regionaltargets for the delivery of ecologically sustainableforest management and other biodiversityconservation criteria.

The 8 point test currently considers impacts on listedthreatened species, communities and populationsonly. While there is provision under existinglegislation and policy to consider impacts onprotected fauna and representative communities,there is little evidence of any effective use of thislegislation for the protection of non-threatenedspecies’ ecologically sustainable forest managementvalues. In most cases, the protection of threatenedspecies has an umbrella effect on non-threatenedspecies. There will be cases, however, where faunaand flora populations and communities on private

land are not adequately protected. Protection of thesecommunities will be important when they contributeto off-reserve management targets (for example, 15per cent reserve targets). The best long-term solutionto this problem lies in regional biodiversity surveyand re-zoning—for example, through regionalvegetation management plans, to protect identifiedareas of high conservation value. In the interim, theThreatened Species Conservation Act allows forsome protection of such populations andcommunities where they are listed as threatenedpopulations and communities.

Recommendation 3.11: All ecological communitieson private land which are inadequatelyrepresented in the CAR reserve system should beconsidered for listing as endangered ecologicalcommunities under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act to facilitate protection frompotential clearing and degradation.

Current assessment processes under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act andThreatened Species Conservation Act are generallyonly triggered by a change in land use. Pre-existingactivities and processes which may affect threatenedspecies and biodiversity values may escaperegulation and consideration in the assessmentprocesses. Uses which commonly affect biodiversityinclude frequent burning, predation by foxes andcats, disturbance by other feral animals, grazing onpublic lands, weed invasion, and private forestry.While some control of feral animals is achieved onagricultural land under existing provisions, this doesnot extend to most public and private forest. Themost appropriate mechanism for dealing with theseproblems is that of listing these activities asthreatening processes under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act.

Biodiversity targets for ecologically sustainableforest managementTargets for these and other indicators are expected tobe set at state and regional scales under the RFAprocess. Under this process, initial biodiversitytargets will be established on the basis of objectivescientific criteria, while final targets may be set bycompromise between conservation and socio-economic values determined by stakeholderconsensus (see Chapter 1, section 1.7). While theexpert working group recognises that some flexibilityin setting regional biodiversity targets is desirableand that this can be consistent with the notion ofecologically sustainable forest management, itconsiders it essential that minimum lower limits forbiodiversity targets are set on the basis of the best


26 March 200110

available scientific knowledge and the precautionaryprinciple.

Scientific procedures for establishing precautionaryminimum targets for regional biodiversity indicatorshave been explored in the Eden Response toDisturbance project as part of the Eden RFA process.Under this process, minimum limits for thereservation of threatened species’ habitat wereinitially determined by population viability analysis.The resulting models generally aimed to preservesufficient habitat to sustain populations ranging from300-4000 individuals. Predictably, it was found thatsome targets required the preservation of most wood-production areas in Eden as well as existing reserves.Similarly, minimum targets for wood production setby the timber industry left little scope for theintroduction of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement practices in wood-production areas. Theresult of such a process is likely to be a largernational park system and a smaller but moreintensively managed wood-production system. It isthe opinion of the expert working group that thisapproach is not consistent with the intent or practiceof ecologically sustainable forest management. Thegroup considers that procedures for establishingminimum limits for biodiversity conservation andtimber production in RFA regions should allowgreater flexibility for the introduction of ecologicallysustainable silvicultural practices. This could beachieved in a variety of ways, including themodification of regional boundaries to considercross-border timber yields and habitat areas incalculation of population viability analysis andproductivity targets; and increased recognition andconsideration of the role played by ecologicallysustainable management of forests outside of reservesin the maintenance and protection of biodiversityvalues.

Threat abatementThreat abatement is essential for :

■ eliminating and managing pre-existing threateningprocesses not regulated under the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act or ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act;

■ protecting biodiversity values on nature reservesand national parks threatened by exotic animals,frequent fire, grazing and weeds;

■ effectively implementing recovery plans for themajority of threatened fauna and flora acrosspublic and private forest tenures.

A small number of major threatening processesaccount for most of the decline in biodiversity inNew South Wales. These are:

■ fox and cat predation on all tenures;

■ habitat clearing on private land, including thefragmentation and isolation of habitat remnants;

■ the loss of understorey through frequentprescribed burning in public and private forests(flora and fauna);

■ the loss of tree hollows and old-growth habitatcomponents in public and private forests; and

■ grazing by domestic stock, rabbits, goats and feralanimals.

The delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement requires the elimination or control ofthese and other threatening processes on public andprivate tenures.

Fox and cat predation affects all tenures includingnational parks, but it is most severe in cleared andsemi-cleared agricultural lands where there arerabbits, the interfaces between cleared agriculturalland and national parks, and open forests in nationalparks and State forests with a sparse understorey (dueto frequent burning and grazing) with low cover frompredators.

Australia has lost more species of mammal than anyother continent and this decline is due largely topredation by foxes and cats. Historically, mammaldecline and extinction in Australia has beenattributed to a wide range of other causes includinghabitat clearing, disease, grazing, desertification andaltered fire regimes, but none of these theories hasbeen widely accepted or withstood the test of time.The role of fox and cat predation has been confirmedin recent years by a combination of pattern analysis,experiment, and monitoring. Pattern analyses haveshown that extinction and decline are highest wherethere are large populations of foxes and cats,sustained by introduced rabbits or mice, and lowestin areas where foxes and cats are scarce or absent (forexample, offshore islands and dense, wet forest) anddingos are abundant (regardless of grazing history,desertification and other land uses). Most recentattempts to re-introduce mammals to parts of theirformer range in mainland Australia have failedspectacularly because of fox and cat predation. It isnow clear that any attempts to re-introducethreatened mammals will be costly failures unlessaccompanied by effective fox and cat control.

The Western Australian Government had sufficientconfidence in predictions that fox predation is theprimary cause of mammal decline to initiate


26 March 2001 11

widespread fox baiting in south-west WesternAustralia. This has led to an increase in thepopulation of threatened mammals and appears tohave rescued the numbat from the brink of extinction.Fox control is likely to be more difficult and costly ineastern Australia because widespread aerial 1080baiting cannot be used. It can poison native quollsand other carnivores and in time foxes may learn toavoid the baits. However, alternative methods areavailable and it is time that the importance of astrategic approach to fox and cat control in NewSouth Wales was recognised and acted on, regardlessof the difficulty and assumed expense.

Clearing is a major threat to rare and poorly knownspecies, particularly plants and fragmentedpopulations in urban and agricultural remnants. It isalso probably the most significant threat to rare plantsand a threat to forest remnants in agricultural lands.Up until 1995 clearing in Queensland and New SouthWales removed about 200,000 ha of woodland/forestper annum, or 2 per cent of the remaining area.Australia is estimated to be the eighth largest clearerof native vegetation in the world.

Loss of tree hollows and old-growth componentsrequired by a large proportion of native fauna iscaused by timber harvesting on short rotations. Treehollows are required by approximately 70 species ofvertebrates in north-east New South Wales forestsincluding 92 per cent of arboreal mammals, 24 percent of birds, 62 per cent of bats and 14 per cent ofreptiles. The aftermath of recent wildfires has shownthat even species such as the koala, thought not todepend on tree hollows, may use and depend on themto survive hot fires. Loss of tree hollows is relativelyeasily controlled by retaining large old trees withhollows (habitat trees) and a proportion of old growthin logged forests, but even this control measure is notguaranteed, under current management systems, onprivate forest or agricultural land.

Grazing by domestic stock, rabbits and other feralanimals poses a direct threat to some populations ofrare plants and compounds the adverse effects offrequent burning and predation by foxes and cats onpublic and private lands. Frequent burning reducesthe forest understorey cover and complexity. Thisincreases the risk of predation and threatens rareplants which depend on infrequent, hot, fire regimes.The diversity of birds which inhabit the forestunderstorey may be two to three times lower infrequently burnt forest. In the selectively loggedforests of north-east New South Wales (those withenough retained tree hollows) it has been estimatedthat the adverse effects of grazing and frequentburning on biodiversity are up to 15 times higherthan the effects of timber harvesting.

Threat abatement has been under-emphasised andunderrated in New South Wales policy, legislationand practice. Only one of the five recognised majorthreatening processes (loss of habitat trees in loggedforest) is well controlled under current legislation,and this only on public land. Clearing impacts onthreatened species are moderately well regulated onagricultural land through the provisions of the NativeVegetation Conservation Act 1997 and the RuralLands Protection Act, but control on privateresidential land is weakened by the limitations of the8 point test process under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act. Fox and cat predation is by far themain threat in all public forest tenures in New SouthWales, yet there are no effective, broad-area,mandatory requirements for fox and cat control innational parks or other public lands. Rural LandsProtection Boards (comprising rural ratepayers) maymake submissions to the Minister to have foxes andcats declared pests in particular areas under the RuralLands Protection Act. However, the Rural LandsProtection Act is generally an inappropriate vehiclefor controlling foxes and cats in public and mostprivate forests. The Act is primarily intended tocontrol pest animals which adversely affectagricultural values on rural lands. It is of little use forlisting animals which adversely affect the localenvironment. Cats are not designated pests under theAct and foxes are only listed in the Moss Vale districtto facilitate a National Parks and Wildlife Servicebrush-tailed rock wallaby recovery program. Inpublic and private forests, the Act has primarily beenused to control dingos and wild dogs when they are athreat to sheep and cattle on adjacent clearedagricultural land. The levels of fox, cat and rabbitcontrol implemented by Rural Land ProtectionBoards to sustain agricultural production are notadequate to deliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in public or private forests. Protectionof biodiversity values requires much higher levels offox and rabbit control and population reduction(preferably eradication) and the reduction orcessation of dingo control. It also requires theestablishment of barriers between public forest andcleared agricultural land to prevent constant forestinvasion by surplus foxes and cats which multiply onagricultural land.

Fox and cat predation are listed as key threateningprocesses under the Commonwealth EndangeredSpecies Conservation Act 1992. A draftCommonwealth Threat Abatement Plan has beenprepared to reduce predation by feral cats, but this isdifficult to enforce outside Commonwealth lands.There is a mechanism for listing key threateningprocesses under the Threatened Species ConservationAct which places an obligation on National Parks and


26 March 200112

Wildlife Service to prepare Threat Abatement Plans.To date, no threatening processes have been listedunder the Act but nominations have been received forfox predation, invasion by bitou bush, high frequencyfire, lantana invasion and rabbit grazing. There isjustification for making threat abatement the primaryvehicle for managing the recovery of threatenedspecies and maintaining ecologically sustainableforest management.

Recommendation 3.12: Fox and cat predation belisted as a threatening process under theThreatened Species Conservation Act and thatthreat abatement plans should be prepared toreduce the extent and impact of fox and catpredation, particularly on public lands whereconservation is a priority.

A variety of mechanisms are available to reduce thethreat from cats and foxes including:

■ initiating ongoing, State-wide fox, rabbit and catcontrol programs in public forests, particluarly onboundaries with agricultural land and inmanageable areas of high conservation value;

■ identifying and protecting in reserves, refugeareas which are free of or have a low density offoxes, cats and other exotic pests;

■ increase dingo populations in public forest toactively reduce the abundance of foxes and cats inpriority areas, and slow or prevent the invasion offorests by foxes, cats and rabbits from agriculturalland.

■ facilitate dingo population increase by use of suchmethods as: exclusion fencing instead of baitingto control dingos in high risk areas on theboundary between public forest and clearedprivate agricultural land; restricting baiting andtrapping to local areas of sustained stock attack; orstopping control and compensating landholdersfor any loss;

■ manipulating habitat by minimising frequentburning in national parks and reducing the extentof frequent burning in state forest reserves so as toreduce their suitability for cats, foxes and rabbits;

■ eradicating cats, rabbits and foxes from islands;

■ continuous trapping and baiting of cats in keythreatened species’ habitats.

Some fox control is carried out by National Parks andWildlife Service, State Forests of New South Walesand Rural Lands Protection Boards, but no singlegovernment agency is responsible across all tenuresfor controlling foxes and cats. The National Parksand Wildlife Service lacks the resources for blanket

fox control and so limits control activities to specialprojects areas. The National Parks and WildlifeService has localised feral animal and weed controlprograms which cover the control of foxes, rabbits,cats, wild dogs, feral pigs, feral goats, deer, bitoubush and other weeds. However, the overall scale ofoperation is small compared with the magnitude ofthe problem and there appears to be little or nomonitoring of the effectiveness of control measuresand changes in the extent of the problem.

1080 baits, particularly aerial baits, are used to killdingos in and on the boundary of national parks andpublic forests even though this practice is known tokill non-target fauna including the threatened TigerQuoll. Removal of dingos is also thought have adetrimental effect on threatened species by allowingexotic predators such as foxes and cats to increase innumber. Surveys have shown that threatened speciesvulnerable to fox predation survive best in nativeforests with an abundance of dingos. Underecologically sustainable forest management, allpossible steps should be taken to sustain naturaldensities of dingos (and dingos which havehybridised with wild dogs) in public forest, especiallywhere they are currently low, to assist with thecontrol of exotic predators and pests (for example,goats).

The Rural Lands Protection Act may conflict with theobjectives of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement and the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act in requiring landholders tosuppress and destroy wild dogs, including dingos, inpublic forest. This fails to recognise the importantecological role played by dingos in the maintenanceof forest ecosystems and biodiversity. Dingopopulations are common in the forests of north-eastNew South Wales where their presence has beenattributed to the suppression of foxes, cats and goats,resulting in indirect protection for a range ofthreatened species. This phenomenon is recognised inthe Commonwealth Draft Threat Abatement Plan forpredation by feral cats, although that plan fails tonote the possible conflict with the objectives of theRural Lands Protection Act and to recommend waysof rectifying that problem.

The overall aim of pest management in forests shouldbe to sustain dingo populations at natural densities.The north-east forests are the most biodiverse in NewSouth Wales and the only public and private forestswith a pristine or near pristine (pre-European) fauna.That has been attributed to the presence of dingosand the scarcity of foxes and cats. Any reduction indingo populations in northern forests through furtherwild dog control and agricultural expansion couldlead to the decline and even extinction of this


26 March 2001 13

regionally endemic mammal species. Similarly, therecovery of dingo populations in south-east forestsand any concomitant decline in foxes and cats mayfacilitate the recovery of species such as the Long-footed Potoroo. If the maintenance and enhancementof dingo populations is found to facilitate theprotection and recovery of threatened species bycontrolling foxes and cats, this approach could be oneof the most cost-effective methods of fox, cat andgoat control.

Recommendation 3.13. The potential conflictbetween the objects of the Rural Lands ProtectionAct and ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principle 1 be removed to ensure theprotection and maintenance of dingo populationsin public forests.

This could be achieved by exempting public forestsfrom the requirements of the Rural Lands ProtectionAct within a specified distance from their boundarieswith cleared agricultural land. Future regionalvegetation management plans should identify theinterface between cleared agricultural land and publicforest as a zone requiring special management for thecontrol of vertebrate pest species.

State Forests of New South Wales has initiatedroutine fox baiting and cat trapping (as requiredunder the Conservation Protocols) in the Eden RFAregion which is funded by income fromwoodchipping. Rural Lands Protection Boards maycarry out some fox control on agricultural land, theboundary of public forests and some national parksunder contract to the National Parks and WildlifeService. However, the overall scope of fox control isfar short of what is necessary to achieve widespreadrecovery of threatened fauna.

It is recommended that a single threat abatement unitbe created to develop and implement regional cross-tenure threat-abatement plans and to implementthreatened species Recovery Plans. A single threatabatement unit is necessary to:

■ ensure consistency in resources for the control ofintroduced pests and other threatening processesacross tenures;

■ develop and coordinate approaches to theprotection and management of threatened species,populations and communities on private lands;

■ coordinate cross-tenure approaches to mitigatingcumulative impacts and to monitor threateningprocesses and the effectiveness of controlmeasures on a regional basis.

It is envisaged that the threat abatement unit wouldinclude and expand many of the functions currently

undertaken by National Parks and Wildlife Servicezone teams.

Recommendation 3.14: A Threat Abatement Unitshould be created to develop regional cross-tenure threat abatement plans (to countersignificant threatening processes) and toimplement Recovery Plans for threatenedspecies.

Emphasis should be on greatly improved resourcesfor the control of foxes, cats, other feral animals andweeds, grazing, inappropriate burning regimes andother threatening processes. The Threat AbatementSupport Unit should also provide assistance andadvice to private landholders in the control ofthreatening processes and the implementation ofspecies Recovery Plans on private land. Regional foxand cat control can lead to improvement in threatenedspecies abundance, as shown in Western Australia,but only with a greatly increased commitment ofresources.

Recommendation 3.15: Current resourcing forthreat abatement, particularly fox and cat control,be increased substantially (for example, by anorder of magnitude).

Many threatened species vulnerable to fox and catpredation are now confined to ‘refuge’ areas wherethe risk of predation is low. These areas include themoist escarpment forests with a dense understoreyscattered along the escarpment of the Great Divide,the coastal heaths and most of the areas of north-eastNew South Wales that have a natural forest cover.The areas are also distant from large expanses ofcleared agricultural land and support good dingopopulations. Current proposals to deliverecologically sustainable forest management througha representative CAR reserve system andcomplementary off-reserve management cannotguarantee effectiveness because refuge areas maynot be adequately protected in the CAR reserveselection process and there is no mandatory on-reserve or off-reserve control of foxes and cats.Emphasis on achieving 15 per cent targets for allcommunities in the CAR reserves may increase therepresentation of drier forest types, which aregenerally infested with foxes and cats, at the expenseof moist productive old growth which generally hasfew foxes and cats and abundant diversity ofthreatened species. The current CAR reserveselection processes do not appear to give sufficientconsideration to off-reserve conservation and on-reserve threats from processes such as predation andfire. Modelling and mapping refuge areas where therisk of predation by foxes and cats is low should be a


26 March 200114

priority for the proposed State-wide threat abatementunit.

The adverse effects of fox and cat predation areaggravated by the frequent control burning ofunderstorey in State forests and national parks toreduce the risk of wildfire. Wildfire is a naturalprocess in Australian forests. It sustains fire-dependent plants, controls insect pests and diseases,and initiates the natural seral changes favoured bysome native fauna and flora. Graziers’ burningpractices in State forests and the frequent controlburning in State forests and on private lands,substantially conflict with the objectives of theThreatened Species Conservation Act and maypreclude the delivery of ecologically sustainableforest management. The Rural Fires Act 1997requires that consideration be given to threatenedfauna requirements, but fear of prosecution fromneighbours combined with the desire to excludewildfire from wood production forests ensures that ahigh proportion of public and private forest issubject to inappropriate fire regimes. The frequencyof unregulated fire could be lessened by revokinggrazing licences (where possible) in public forestsexcept where approved grazing management plansare in place. As well as promoting frequent burning,(to produce green pick for cattle) forest grazing hasthe added disadvantage of being more constant,uniform and widespread in effect than fire and ofaffecting forest understorey in moist gullies andrefuge areas which normally have some naturalprotection from frequent fire.

National Parks and Wildlife Service has a statutoryresponsibility under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act to prepare recovery plans forapproximately 40 species per year over the nextthree years. The obligation to produce a largenumber of species recovery plans in a very shortperiod is detracting from the real task of controllingthreatening processes. Effective control of thesewould eliminate the need for most individual speciesrecovery plans. The majority of species at risk arethreatened by a small number of factors includingferal animals, clearing on private land, and frequentburning and grazing.

Until effective procedures for dealing with theseproblems have been resolved and implementedacross all public and private tenures, the preparationof individual recovery plans will involveconsiderable duplication and expenditure ofresources with little or no improvement in speciesconservation status above the current levels.

Recovery Plans risk becoming little more thanexpensive summaries of current knowledge attached

to funding wish-lists, with little guarantee ofdelivering improvements in threatened species’status. The effectiveness of Recovery Plans isblunted by the lack of political will to enforceprotection measures on private lands and in NationalParks and Wildlife Service’s lack of authority byimposing management constraints on other publicland-management authorities without approval orinvolvement of stakeholders in a process ofconsensus. At present, officers of National Parks andWildlife Service have no authority to enter privateland for the purpose of threatened species surveyand management. This is a significant impediment tothe recovery of threatened species on private land.

Recommendation 3.16: That current legislation bemodified to enable officers of National Parks andWildlife Service to enter private land for thepurpose of threatened species' survey andmanagement.

As most threatened species are distributed across awide range of tenures, cross-tenure managementissues are a key factor in recovery management.Recovery plans are only as effective as the currentlegislation and the policy on clearing, predation,frequent burning, loss of habitat trees and otherthreatening processes.

Recommendation 3.17: Threat abatement plansmust be prepared for all recognised majorthreatening processes (including fox and catpredation, clearing on private land, loss of treehollows, grazing, frequent burning, weedinvasion and disturbance by exotic animals) asa matter of urgency (within three years). Theseplans should be prepared prior to orconcurrently with recovery plans prepared forindividual threatened species significantlyaffected by these processes. Recovery plansshould be prepared for groups of threatenedspecies affected by common threateningprocesses and prioritised according toextinction risk. Consideration should be given toextending completion dates for individualrecovery plans for threatened species at lowrisk.

In the short term, while threat abatement plans are inpreparation, it would be appropriate to focus onarranging threatened species into groups affected bycommon processes and prioritising them andindividual species according to risk and recoveryopportunity. Instead of preparing 120 individualrecovery plans, it would be more appropriate toprepare a greatly reduced number of plans for largegroups of species threatened by common processessuch as fox predation, cat predation, clearing, loss of


26 March 2001 15

tree hollows and old growth in State forests, grazing,and frequent burning.

Codes of practice

Codes of operational practice provide an importantelement supporting the achievement of ecologicallysustainable forest management. The expert workinggroup did not formally review the scientific basisof codes of practice and related protocolsoperating in New South Wales forests. Rather, itconsidered the effectiveness of the systemsused to implement these codes and theircoverage.

Departmental roles and responsibilitiesThe National Forest Policy Statement includes ageneral requirement for the development of codes ofpractice to protect environmental values byregulating the level and type of disturbanceacceptable in particular forests. Apart from this, thereis no statutory process or obligation to develop codesbut all land management agencies should beencouraged to develop their own codes of practice inconsultation with National Parks and WildlifeService to achieve effective compliance with policyand legislation processes.

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning,when determining state forest environmental impactstatements, takes guidance from the National Parksand Wildlife Service and independent experts to setthe conditions for minimising impacts. TheDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning hasalso recently developed, in cooperation withother departments, a Code of Practice forprivate plantations (Timber Plantations‘Environment Protection’ Harvesting Code 1997).Owners who wish to bring their plantationsunder the provisions of the Timber Plantation(Harvest Guarantee) Act 1995, must obtainaccreditation and subsequently manageaccording to this Harvesting Code.

The Environment Protection Authority is responsiblefor regulating pollution in streams and rivers acrossall tenures by issuing licences to pollute, but theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation isresponsible for water quality monitoring andlicensing water offtake. The Department of Land andWater Conservation issues licences that limit waterofftake below the 90th percentile of the lowest flow,leaving some water for environmental flows. TheEnvironment Protection Authority is moving towardspollution prevention rather than control, by guidingrather than prosecuting and by using performance

objectives in licences rather than strict prescriptions.The Environment Protection Authority can directother agencies to apply best practice management tominimise impacts on other values, includingbiodiversity, soil, air and water, but its current effortis largely confined to pollution control.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service hasdeveloped agreed ‘conservation protocols’ for theregulation of forestry activities in public forests, butthese have not been extended to the regulation oftimber harvesting in private forests. The NationalParks and Wildlife Service collaborated with theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation indeveloping clearing guidelines for the WesternDivision but has not developed clearing guidelinesfor other regions or activities on private land.

State Forests of New South Wales havedeveloped codes of practice to provide guidanceto employees and contractors working in Stateforests and rules and procedures to be followedto minimise environmental impacts. The codes,published in four parts, cover operations innative and plantation forests, road and trackmaintenance, and plantation establishment.Requirements to observe the codes arecontained in several operating licences held byState Forests of New South Wales (for example,Pollution Control Licence). The agency hasdeveloped internal procedures for assessingcompliance including an internal audit function(discussed in Appendix A). State Forests of NewSouth Wales have also developed andimplemented accredited training courses foroperators, supervisors and forest planners inrelation to the soil and water protectionprocedures contained in these codes andlicences.

The Department of Land and Water Conservation hasdeveloped codes of practice for clearing and forestryon Protected Lands but not for activities affectingcrown land. These lands, including road reserves andtravelling stock routes, have an importantconservation role in the Central Division. TheDepartment of Land and Water Conservation forestryprotocols differ from those of the National Parks andWildlife Service in not requiring pre-logging surveysfor threatened and sensitive flora and fauna, butcompensate for this by restricting harvesting intensityto lower levels than in public forests. However, sincecurrent Department of Land and Water Conservationprotocols do not specify minimum rotation times,landholders may circumvent the intent of the


26 March 200116

harvesting intensity protocols by re-logging the forestafter a short time.

Assessment of Requirements for EffectiveCodes of Practice systems

Codes of practice contain the methods and practicesnecessary to ensure that environmental impactscaused by workplace activities are minimised oreliminated. They are usually written to guideoperational activities rather than for long-termplanning or other activities. They are usefullysupported by more detailed information in the formof field guides and manuals. Codes usually contain arequirement to monitor particular activities andoutcomes and are themselves subject to an audit toensure that they are complied with. Aspects thatcontribute to the success of codes of practice includethe following:

■ Since codes relate primarily to field activity, theyshould be written in a style suitable for theirprimary audience, (forest workers and operators),rather than in a legal style aimed at supportingenforcement.

■ Guidelines for activities must be sufficientlydetailed to provide clear guidance on methods andpractices (for example, for site assessment) and insome cases may refer to associated managementprescriptions, field guides or manuals that providerelevant instructions.

■ Codes require an extensive process of educationand/or training when they are introduced. Thereis also a need for ongoing practical involvementand periodic refresher training for those whoimplement the codes.

■ There is a trade-off between the complexity ofprocedures and the degree of success inimplementation procedures. Many importantoperational decisions must be made on the spot byoperators in situations where a subsequent follow-up is not readily possible. Recognition that codesare part of a system involving procedures,operators, supervisors, and auditors and notsimply a stand-alone document is important.There must be a high degree of support andownership of procedures by operators.Procedures and processes must therefore bepractical and capable of ready implementation.

■ Acceptance also depends on competent andconsistent supervision and audit for compliance,clear procedures for handling non-compliance, orcomplaints; and, where necessary imposition ofsanctions.

■ Codes require regular updating because of newknowledge or because of continual improvementin the operational capability of equipment.

■ There is also a need for ongoing research to verifythe effectiveness of the best management practicesapplied in achieving environmental protection.This can be achieved by a combination ofmonitoring environmental outcomes and targetedresearch which is often more cost-effective.Because most Code systems are still new, manyprocedures were developed to be precautionary.Research can play a vital role in refining morecost-effective procedures.

State Forests of New South Wales have alreadydeveloped several important codes for the harvestingand management of public production forests. Thesecodes meet many of the criteria listed above. Aparallel code and support system should bedeveloped for those aspects of the operations of theNational Parks and Wildlife Service that affect theenvironment, such as fire management and road andtrack construction and maintenance.

These is an urgent need to develop a functional codesystem to support the improvement of forestoperations (including clearing) on private land.

Significant resources must also be allocated to thedevelopment of codes and their effectiveimplementation on the ground.

Recommendation 3.18: Application of effectivecodes of practice to guide planning andoperations is critical to achieving ecologicallysustainable forest management, but currentlycodes are only applied in a significant way inpublic wood production forests.

The role of codes of practice in supporting theimplementation of ecologicallly sustainableforest management in New South Wales shouldbe expanded by:

• developing and approving legally bindingcodes to address all important activitiesacross all land tenures in New South Walesforests, including wood production,conservation reserve management, grazing,pest management and clearing.

• ensuring that such codes contain sufficientdetail to guide protection of environmentalvalues at appropriate scales;

• providing adequate resources to expedite thedevelopment of such codes and theireffective implementation in forested areas;

• implementing codes within the framework ofan environmental management system inpublic forests to facilitate:


26 March 2001 17

- agencies and organisations implementingcodes to demonstrate compliance with codesthrough independent means;

- regular public review processes to ensure thatcodes reflect continual improvement and best-practice concepts.

Biodiversity CodesDevelopment and specification of ameliorationmeasures for mitigating biodiversity impacts is aroutine step in the process of impact assessment. Forcertain classes of major activity, where impacts arerelatively well understood as a result of extensiveprior impact assessment (for example in publicforestry), it is possible to develop standardisedamelioration measures (referred to as conservationprotocols in public forestry) which can be routinelyapplied to prevent significant impacts and thusprovide a mechanism for reducing the duration andcost of development approval.

In order to be effective in the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management, codes should:

■ include pre-development survey for species ofrare flora and fauna that require specialamelioration measures if present;

■ include precautionary protection measures for allindividual threatened species or groups of speciesthat could be present and that are known to besensitive to the development;

■ aim to maintain biodiversity and environmentalvalues at specified target levels (which may be atsustainable but lower than natural levels);

■ be monitored to ensure compliance andeffectiveness.

Recommendation 3.19: As some codes of practiceand conservation protocols are necessarilyprecautionary at the present time, codes should besubject to ongoing fine tuning and regionalmodification on the basis of independent expertadvice and the results of new research. Anychanges to codes of practice should flow throughto Conditions of Consent for approved activitiesand this should be the preferred mechanism forprogressive refinement and modification ofenvironmental protection standards rather thanundertaking new environmental impactstatements and species impact statements atregular intervals.

Codes of practice for the regulation and planning ofhabitat clearing should be quite separate from thosedesigned to regulate habitat modification (for

example, by forestry). Habitat clearing requiresgreater attention to corridors and links, minimumtargets for the size of remnants, edge management,and partial clearing trade-offs as a solution tocompensation for financial loss. Minimum clearingconstraints on private land are an inescapablerequirement for the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management in the CentralDivision of New South Wales because public land forconservation is scarce.

Recommendation 3.20: A code of practice bedeveloped for the regulation of clearing on alltenures including residential lands, and the codesspecify minimum levels of vegetation retentionand provide guidelines for the maintenance ofcorridors and links.

The basic principle underlying clearing protocolsshould be a reversal of past clearing patterns. Insteadof clearing leading to create vegetation fragments in amatrix of cleared land, codes should ensure thecreation of fragments of cleared land in a matrix ofcontinuous natural vegetation through a combinationof retention and restoration where possible. A set ofbasic clearing design rules should be developed toensure that there is no fragmentation and isolation ofremnants and that retained vegetation is contiguousacross property boundaries.

The use of performance measures for licensingpollution rather than applying minimumprescriptions (for example, vegetation buffers forprotection of streams in logged forests) is relativelyuntested and potentially costly and difficult toimplement and enforce, because performance criteriawill be site-specific whereas prescriptions can bemore generic. It would be more appropriate to havean iterative combination of the two approaches in thefollowing sequence:

■ application of precautionary minimumprescriptions;

■ monitoring of performance in relation to targets;

■ correlation of prescriptions and outcomes; and

■ review of precautionary prescriptions.

This approach would require the cooperation of allwater management agencies (Department of Landand Water Conservation, Environment ProtectionAuthority and Department of Fisheries) or thecreation of a single freshwater management agency.

Problems in delivery of ecologically sustainableforest managementForest managers (notably State Forests of NewSouth Wales) working with regulatory agencies,


26 March 200118

have implemented a number of licences,protocols and codes of practice together withcompliance and audit procedures for fieldforestry operations in New South Wales. Mostof these have well-developed support systems(see Appendix A).

However, some important deficiencies andproblems remain, including the following:

■ The coverage of codes of practice is incomplete.Further codes are needed, for example, for reservemanagement, private forestry, clearing etc.

■ There are clear inconsistencies in the applicationof codes, licences and protocols between publicand private tenures.

■ There are overlapping or multiple responsibilitiesfor the regulation of performance in relation tosome ecologically sustainable forest managementprinciples, and regulatory requirements replace oroverlap conditions in codes. This can lead toconfusion in application of codes and proceduresrequired to conform to regulations by fieldpersonnel.

■ There is a lack of guidance for those developingcodes, as to the appropriate degree ofenvironmental protection required. Codes,licences and protocols typically focus on aspecific component of ecologically sustainableforest management. However, the proposed rulesor procedures usually affect a number of suchprinciples. Improved procedures are required toensure that all relevant aspects of ecologicallysustainable forest management are considered,particularly where there are clear interactionsbetween values such as in the selection of 'bestpractice' procedures.

■ The current focus of many of the codes is State-wide, although some of the licences and protocolsare regional or location-specific. There is a needto introduce further mechanisms for localadaptation of State-wide codes, to ensure localeffectiveness and to avoid the consequences ofover-precautionary guidelines set to cover 'worstcase' scenarios. A greater reliance on monitoringand analysis of environmental results, and directfeedback to improve prescriptions should lead tomore flexibility and reduced emphasis on State-wide rules.

Too many agencies are involved in the regulationof environmental impacts and the developmentof conservation protocols. Four governmentdepartments have been involved in developingconservation protocols for State Forest land and

two separate regulatory processes affect theapplication of stream protection buffers in Stateforests.

Lack of guidance in determining the balancebetween conservation and development goalsfor public forestry is the fundamental cause ofconflict with the conservation movement.Management of public forestry is now largelyregulated by decisions of the National Parks andWildlife Service, the Environment ProtectionAuthority, Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning, and decisions from the Land andEnvironment Court. While some of the largerissues should be resolved through the RFAprocesses, there will be an ongoing need toresolve questions about the relative weighting ofecologically sustainable forest managementvalues in the assessment of the potential impactof practices, and the drafting of codes. It isrecommended that codes and relatedprescriptions should be approved by a forestregulator, that would ensure a balance isachieved according to ecologically sustainableforest management principles.

Current state forest conservation protocols aregeneric and designed to provide a precautionaryapproach to conservation. They may beunnecessarily precautionary at some regionaland local scales. There is a need andopportunity for greater fine tuning ofprescriptions (for example, habitat tree retentionprescriptions) to accommodate local sitevariation. This could be achieved by developingexpert systems to direct the modification ofprescriptions under particular regionalcircumstances, much as has been proposed for thesoil erosion hazard prediction components of thePollution Control Licences. There are alsosignificant advantages in the application of anapproach by the managing agency, with agreater emphasis on environmental monitoring,analysis and direct feedback to revision ofprocedures. There is less need for extensive,externally regulated codes of practice whereeffective environmental management can bedemonstrated.

Bioregional planning for ESFMBioregional planning for ecologically sustainableforest management involves the following:

■ survey, classification and mapping of naturalcommunities, species' habitats and populations;


26 March 2001 19

■ assessment of the conservation status of remnantcommunities by consideration of such matters ascondition, size, location, connectivity, refuge fromfire and predators, and representation in existingreserves;

■ regional zoning for a range of uses including thefollowing:

− conservation reserves

− retained areas off-reserve

− sustainable forestry

− clearing or modification with developmentconsent

− clearing or modification without developmentconsent

A prerequisite for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement is the delivery of a State-wide,comprehensive, adequate and representativeconservation reserve system. A comprehensive andrepresentative reserve system is one which protectsexamples of all forest communities in New SouthWales. An adequate reserve system is one withfeatures such as good condition, security fromthreatening processes, large size, replication andconnectivity. These will help to ensure the long-termviability of representative communities.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has astatutory responsibility under the National Parks andWildlife Act 1974 to investigate and acquire newareas for inclusion in parks and reserves. Althoughthere is no specific requirement under this act todeliver a ‘comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative’ reserve system, this goal isunderstood within the Service’s overall responsibilityfor nature conservation throughout New SouthWales. Historically, acquisition of new areas fornational park in New South Wales has largely beenconfined to leftover public land because of the lackof financial resources to buy areas of highconservation value on private land. The principalproblem facing government in the delivery of areserve system is how to protect and maintain highconservation value areas on private land until theycan be acquired for the public reserve estate.

Under the Environmental Planning and AssessmentAct, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has astatutory consultative role to advise the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning on matters relating to the zoning forprotection of biodiversity during the preparation ofstate environmental planning policies (SEPPs) andregional environment plans (REPs); and to advise

local councils in the preparation of local environmentplans (LEPS) and local environmental studies (if, inthe opinion of the council, threatened species may beaffected by such plans or studies). This mechanismoffers the greatest potential for off-reservebioregional planning and the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management goals. Regional orstrategic approaches to land-use planning overcomethe problem of cumulative habitat loss (the tyranny ofsmall decisions) that arises when developmentapplications are considered on an individual projectbasis (as under the assessment provisions of theThreatened Species Conservation Act). Regionalplanning can also reduce the cost of compliance byconfining environmental assessments to those areas(zones) where they are most needed. This approach isadopted by some map-based State environmentalplanning policies (for example, wetlands and littoralrainforest). There is scope for the development of anew map-based SEPP for regulating the clearing anddevelopment of forest remnants on urban andresidential land. The current SEPP 19 for protectingBushland in Urban Areas is designed to protect urbanbushland remnants zoned as open space. It does notguarantee the delivery of ecologically sustainableforest management because it is not based on mappedareas of conservation significance and does notinclude minimum regional targets for bushlandretention. Some Local Government Areas have treepreservation orders or local environment plans whichinclude provision for the retention and managementof trees and which could be adapted to deliverecologically sustainable forest managementbiodiversity goals in urban areas.

Clearing in residential areas is not covered by theNative Vegetation Conservation Act but can beregulated by local environment plans and is regulatedon a project basis by the provisions of the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act. Over the long term, itwould be more appropriate to replace project-basedassessment with bioregional conservation planningthrough progressive survey, mapping andclassification of all forest and natural vegetationremnants in residential areas, and by re-zoning underregional vegetation management plans and localenvironment plans, to provide appropriate protectionto areas of conservation significance, corridors andlinks. Current legislation under the National Parksand Wildlife Act allows powers of entry to anypremises for the purposes of ‘identifying andmapping critical habitat, and... investigating thepresence or condition of threatened species,populations or ecological communities and theirhabitats’. These powers do not permit more generalsurveys for effective bioregional planning and mayneed to be broadened to allow access by officers of


26 March 200120

the Department of Land and water Conservation andthe National Parks and Wildlife Service to carry outbioregional surveys on private land for conservationplanning purposes. In the interim, it will be necessaryto retain the 8 point test and to modify theinterpretation of it to give more emphasis to theassessment of cumulative impacts and themaintenance of regional reservation targets.

Cumulative habitat loss is a major problem notadequately covered by current project-based planningand assessment. This leaves the door open forprogressive approval of many small developments,each too small to be significant in their own right butwhich collectively may remove entire communitiesor habitat remnants. This is a particular problem inprivate agricultural and urban lands. A two-hectareinterim exemption on agricultural land under theNative Vegetation Conservation Act leaves scope forprogressive habitat clearing at the property scale.

Recommendation 3.21: The 8 point test bemodified to include provision for assessment ofcumulative impacts and consideration of regionaltargets for vegetation retention.

Cumulative impacts can be overcome by either:

■ comprehensive regional biodiversity survey andplanning which identifies and protects allsignificant areas by zoning (for example, underregional vegetation management plans, localenvironment plans and regional environmentplans); or

■ setting maximum allowable limits for cumulativecommunity or habitat loss where developmentsare assessed on an individual or piecemeal basis.

At present there are no private and few public regionswith set targets for vegetation retention. TheDepartment of Land and Water Conservation has setmaximum allowable limits (targets) for the removalof particular communities by clearing anddevelopment on public lands in the Western Divisionof New South Wales. These limits take into accountland suitability (mainly grazing of natural pasture),regional variation in the conservation significance ofdifferent communities, and the degree of previousclearing of these communities elsewhere in NewSouth Wales. A maximum clearing limit of 5 per centapplies to Bimble Box Pine Lands because this typehas been extensively cleared in the adjacent CentralDivision of New South Wales. Similar maximumallowable cumulative targets are required for urbanbushland remnants and agricultural remnants onfreehold lands.

This modification may only be necessary as aninterim measure before the completion of State-wide

regional vegetation management plans. Strategicplanning is the best long-term solution to themanagement of cumulative impact but, in the interim,some modification of the project-based assessmentand approval mechanism is necessary. To date,regional planning approaches to the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management off-reserve have been constrained by:

■ a lack of comprehensive regional environmental(bio-physical, cultural heritage) survey data;

■ a lack of guidelines and standards or targets forinterpreting biodiversity patterns, mapping zonesof conservation significance, and for achievingecologically sustainable forest management goals;

■ a lack of resources for revising existing localenvironment plans and regional environmentplans; and

■ a lack of clear legislative responsibility for settingreservation targets.

Detailed information on vegetation communitiesneeds to be prepared by the National Parks andWildlife Service or the proposed new forestinformation unit. In the first instance, materialgenerated through the CRA process should becaptured. Further work will be required to improvethe coverage of information on private land.Additional scientific and technical expertise may alsobe required for the effective working of thesecommittees. This role should be fulfilled by theproposed information and research units (see keyrecommendations 1 and 11).

Recommendation 3.22: The current system ofproject-based assessment and approval forprivate forests should be replaced by one basedon:

• regional (cross-tenure) land use planning (forexample, regional vegetation managementplans);

• preparation of a private forest managementplan;

• use of codes of practice for all significantactivities within each planning zone;

• preparing private forestry managementplans, where forestry is proposed on specificsites;

• enhanced monitoring by the forest manager;and

• periodic review of the private forestmanagement plan and its outcomes in termsof ecological sustainability, undertaken bythe forest regulator.


26 March 2001 21

Existing national parks and reserves are highlyfragmented and isolated by cleared land, or dispersedin a matrix of variously modified private and publicforest. Little consideration has been given to theplanning and management of corridors betweenparks, reserves and retained areas on a State-widescale to facilitate flora and fauna dispersal andgenetic exchange. The failure to considerecologically sustainable forest managementconnectivity goals on a State-wide basis can beattributed to the fact that there is no singlegovernment agency charged with the responsibilityfor coordinating land-use across all tenures in NewSouth Wales. At present no agency can compelanother to adopt contiguous and sympathetic zoningacross tenure boundaries. There is scope for thededication of corridors and links between nationalparks and reserves where they are connected bypublic lands such as state forest, crown land and roadreserves. The Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning has, for example, through its statutorypowers to determine state forest environmentalimpact statements, recommended the establishmentof a retained habitat link between coastal and inlandnational parks in the Eden region where timberharvesting will be modified to facilitate themovement and dispersal of fauna. This conceptshould be extended to all land tenures.

Recommendation 3.23: Coordinated cross- tenureplans for habitat corridors and links across allprivate and public tenures should be develolped.

Plans should be prepared according to strictguidelines which include the points made inrecommendations 3.24, 3.25 and 3.26.

Recommendation 3.24: The development of aregional approach to private forest managementbased on regional vegetation management plansand private forest management plans should beexpedited. Improved vegetation managementplans should use information derived fromcomprehensive regional environmental surveysthat take into account the conservation status offorest ecosystems across all tenures andconsider such elements as biodiversity, soil,water and cultural heritage. The vegetationplans must also acknowledge the fundamentaldistinction between clearing for agricultural andresidential purposes and sustainable nativeforest management.

Committees preparing regional vegetationmanagement plans must possess adequatetechnical expertise in relation to thescience/practices involved in ecologicallysustainable forest management. Processes toeffectively capture relevant information need tobe developed.

In terms of the forest resource, regionalvegetation management plans must:

• assess effects of management practices onindividual forest values at an appropriatescale, which may be larger or smaller thanthe area covered by the plan, when settingzone boundaries;

• include minimum targets consistent withregional determination of thecomprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR) reserve system for retention of forestcover;

• indicate specific zones and proceduresessential to meet CAR reservation targets forforest communities that are inadequatelyprotected on public land;

• maintain or increase the values realted toecologically sustainable forest managementabove regional targets;

• identify areas of forest suitable forrestoration;

• contain a requirement for monitoringcompliance with plans;

• include coordinated cross-tenure plans forhabitat corridors and links in and betweenforests across all tenures; and

• involve landholders at an early stage in theplanning process.


• include systematic vegetation, habitat andfauna surveys as a foundation for planning;

• implement standardised ‘clearing codes’ tomaintain forest connectivity across tenures;

• maximise opportunities for developmenttrade-offs in urban areas as an incentive forconservation.

Recommendation 3.25: Private forestmanagement plans and threat abatement plansshould be prepared to an approved standardand and approved by the forest regulator.

Recommendation 3.26: Compulsory codes ofpractice designed to achieve sustainablemanagement of private native forests must beput in place. An appropriate vehicle would be aState environmental planning policy.


26 March 200122

Principles 1B and 1C: Ecologicalsustainability of forest ecosystems

Ecologically sustainable forest managementPrinciples 1B and 1C seek in an integrated way tomaintain productive, healthy and dynamicecosystems. While of particular relevance to thedelivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement within the wood-production forest, theprinciples will also be important in the managementof nature reserves where these are affected byhistorical disturbances (logging, fire) and requiresome level of restoration.

Ecologically sustainable forest management Principle1B will be achieved where there is optimum siteproduction. This requires that account be taken ofecosystem processes which (i) maintain the healthand productivity of the forest, for example, throughdisturbances which help to maintain a stratum ofunderstorey species able to contribute to soilimprovement and fauna habitat; (ii) maintain full siteregeneration following harvesting – often dependenton seedbeds created by fire or mechanical soildisturbance; and (iii) maintain the dynamic growthof trees to maturity – requiring an appreciation of theeffect of site factors on the competitive ability ofspecies, the need for the periodic creation of canopygaps of appropriate size, and where necessary,periodic release of regrowth from over-woodcompetition.

Ecologically sustainable forest management Principle1C places constraints on the level or intensity ofactivities within the forest in pursuing optimum siteproduction. For any given ecosystem it will benecessary to have some appreciation of that pointbeyond which disturbance to the ecosystem willbegin to have adverse effects on forest productivity,health and vitality and its susceptibility to pests anddiseases. For example:

■ Given the sensitive relationship between speciesand community patterns on the one hand, and theavailability of site resources on the other, themaintenance of natural species mixtures andstructures could be important in ensuring ahealthy balance between those resources and thedemand the forest makes on them. This could beparticularly important where site resources(notably water and nutrients) are limited.

■ Loss of ecosystem nutrients following an intenseslash fire may not be balanced by nutrient inputsduring the subsequent rotation or logging cycle,particularly on sites of low to moderate quality. Inthis case the need to conserve nutrients mayrestrict silvicultural and harvesting regimes.

■ Threats to ecosystems from pests and diseasesoften, though not always, arise where speciespatterns, stand structures and ecological processesare no longer in balance with site resources. Theachievement of ecologially sustainable forestmanagement may depend on the restoration of theappropriate suite of attributes where the forest hasbeen degraded, and its productivity, health andvitality have been adversely affected.

A detailed discussion of ecologically sustainablesilviculture is beyond the scope of a report focusingon management systems and processes. However, theconcepts bearing on sustainable silviculture arediscussed in Ecology and Silviculture of the EucalyptForests (Florence 1996), and particularly in Chapter14 (pp. 343-377). This explores the effects ofharvesting on species and community patterns andecosystem processes, the effect of harvesting and fireon forest soils (focusing particularly on soilnutrients), the susceptibility of forest and woodlandtrees to stand stagnation and dieback, insectpredation, and the conservation of wildlife within thewood production forest. The Group accepts that theprinciples of ecologically sustainable silvicultureexamined in this work should be considered indeveloping silvicultural strategies and practices forthe native forests.

The New South Wales forests are in a variablecondition. At one end of the spectrum, the forestretains natural species and community patterns, andis near fully stocked and dynamic. At the other end,the forest is generally run down and in a poorlyproductive condition, and regrowth forest may be in amore or less stagnant condition or may exhibit somelevel of tree decline and dieback.

Parts of the wet sclerophyll component of the foresthave failed to respond adequately to past harvests;there may be inadequate eucalypt regrowth, a denseunderstorey of wet sclerophyll and rainforest elementshrubs, and a serious incursion of exotic species,notably the prolific lantana. Attempts at biologicalcontrol of lantanas have not succeeded, and siterestoration will now depend on progressive siteclearing and enrichment planting of species native tothe site. This will be an expensive operation and maybe planned over several cutting cycles.

The incidence of conspicuous tree decline, orreduction in wood quality, is not widespread in NewSouth Wales forests, but it is serious enough where itoccurs (for example, the widespread dieback anddeath of Sydney blue gum caused by a psyllid andassociated pathogens, and the impact of a wood-boring beetle on blackbutt wood quality). In theseand other cases, there is a tendency to focus on


26 March 2001 23

specific causal agents (for example, a fungal diseaseor insect predators), rather than to explore thephenomenon in terms of historical disturbances thatmay have upset some sensitive community-environment balance and increased the susceptibilityof trees to pathogenic organisms or insect predation(see Florence 1996, chapter 14).

There are a number of ways in which this mighthappen in eucalypt forests. Changes in the frequencyof species within mixed species communities (as aconsequence of fire, harvesting or cultural activities)may, on specific sites, predispose Monocalyptusspecies to soil pathogens, or Symphyomyrtus speciesto insect predation. Changes in natural fire regimes(notably lengthy fire-free periods) may affect normalnutrient mineralisation processes or alter the balancebetween favourable and harmful organisms. Andreduction in the vegetational or structural complexityof forests can affect the ecosystem ‘checks andbalances’ which help to maintain the productivity,health and vitality of communities.

The expert working group believes that State Forestsof New South Wales must not only maintain aneffective research response to any forest dieback, butalso develop a facility to evaluate possible causes interms of site and ecosystem functions, and, as far aspossible, take remedial action to restore communitiesto a more or less natural condition.

Despite these comments, the expert working groupaccepts that, given the ecological and growthattributes of eucalypts for most sites andcommunities, there can be considerable opportunityto work in harmony with nature. That is, no singlesilvicultural prescription or set of prescriptions willbe solely applicable to any given forest or forest type.Rather, within the bounds set by ecologicalprinciples, silvicultural practices may be determinedthat can deliver different management objectives andpriorities, including the balance between woodproduction and environmental conservation asprescribed in the strategic plan. Given theincorporation of ‘long term social and economicbenefits’ within the ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principles, the trade-off between woodproduction and environmental values will be one ofthe critical factors influencing silvicultural decisions.

An evaluation of the extent to which currentmanagement systems and processes are able todeliver ecologically sustainable silvicultural practice,must take into account the provisions within strategicand operational plans, current silvicultural and otherforest use strategies, and their likely effects on theproductivity and ecological stability of forestecosystems.

Ecologically sustainable yieldsEcologically sustainable forest management Principle1B requires that the rate of removal of any forestproduct be consistent with ecologically sustainablelevels. This is taken to mean the derivation of yieldstaking account of all ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principles in forest management,including the precautionary principle. For example,constraints would be placed on commercial woodproduction on resource-limited sites.

Reasonable confidence in the ability to predict futureforest growth at spatial points in the landscape aswell as saw-log quality (for example, incidence ofdefect, size of log for individual species), isfundamental to achieving ecologically sustainableforest management. Capacity to do this is currentlylow in some New South Wales forests. The forestmay be characterised by complex species andcommunity patterns, considerable structural andgrowing stock diversity, and wide variations in thetree growth condition. Earlier policies did not pursuesustained yield harvesting (Chapter 1) and theassociated failure to invest in an adequateinformation base has also contributed to this problem.

These issues are being considered in detail throughthe assessment of sustainable yield forecasts andmethods being undertaken as part of CRA processes.

Recommendation 3.27: The current program offorest inventory, growth plot measurement, andgrowth modelling should be maintained andimproved post-RFA. This is essential in order toachieve the key objective of sustainable woodproduction. External peer review of systems, andthe use of expertise outside State Forests of NewSouth Wales need to be part of ongoing efforts toimprove spatial prediction of forest growth,including the effects of contrasting silviculturalpractices on long-term forest production.

Area Management Plan and PreferredManagement PrioritiesThe pre-1990s Management Plan was primarilydesigned to regulate wood production. Regulation ofgrowing stock was based on determination of asustainable harvest – though the information base forthis was often limited, and the process was stillinfluenced by historical levels of cut andcommitments to dependent industries. Harvestingtended to be based on a standard silviculturalprescription designed to eke out supply to industry,and little account was taken of the ecologicalattributes of species, species and community patterns,and structural diversity throughout the forest. Whilethere was an awareness of important ecological,


26 March 200124

silvicultural and management concepts relevant toecologically sustainable practice (as illustrated in theForestry Commission’s ‘Silvicultural Notes’), itcannot be said that the Commission was managing‘forest ecosystems’ and determining ecologicallysustainable yields as required in the ecologicallysustainable forest management principles.

A number of more positive approaches toconservation were recorded in management plansfrom the late 1980s. For example, the 1998Management Plan for the Kempsey ManagementArea lists Flora Reserves and Forest Preserves, areaszoned for protection or special management underthe preferred management priority system, and plantsand animals of particular conservation significance.However, there is no provision to maintain ormanage habitat for specified plants and animals, forexample, through more specialised silviculturalregimes. Rather, the plan simply argues that, giventhe prescribed silvicultural practices, the recovery ofhabitat values is likely to be rapid after logging.

Special Management Areas prescribed within thepreferred management priority classification willhave most relevance in delivering ecologicallysustainable forest management principles where theyrelate to the conservation of biodiversity andprotection of soils and water. However, these areasalso offer a special challenge in terms of the criteriafor ecologically sustainable silviculture. For example,within Special Emphasis Flora and Fauna zones, theconservation of wildlife habitat may require aparticular focus on the residual tree speciescomposition, for both shelter and food, ensuring thatthe scale and intensity of activities are controlled andbenign and, where necessary, maintaining andrestoring the attributes of degraded forest.

It may be necessary in delivering ecologicallysustainable forest management to prepare specialmanagement plans for forest of particularenvironmental significance. A good example of sucha plan is that developed to conserve the koala in PineCreek State Forest. The plan was drawn up by ascientific committee and the process overseen by anadvisory committee representing the regionalstakeholders. The plan is concerned with maintainingor improving the productive capacity andsustainability of forest ecosystems in order tooptimise both koala conservation and woodproduction. The plan nominates six zones based onvegetational and environmental attributes, and theirpotential as koala habitat. One of these zones is fullyprotected from logging. A number of silviculturalmethods (from conservative selection logging topatch cutting and clearfelling), each with emphasison the conservation of koala food-source trees, are

nominated for the other zones in order to achieve,overall, a balance between wood production andkoala conservation. This recognises that managementsystems for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement must be capable of generating diversityin silvicultural practice consistent with the ecologicalattributes of the forest, the objectives of managementand the circumstances of each operation.

Silvicultural StrategiesAn account of silvicultural practice, and the rationalefor that practice, are normally given in themanagement plan. Silvicultural practice within theeast coast forests has been based principally on amanagement system designed to eke out supply toindustry by retaining those trees and species with thegreater production potential, and ensuring they haveroom to grow; and within the Eden ManagementArea, through a system of ‘clearfelling with retentionof prescribed stand components’.

These management systems will not necessarily havedelivered the ecologically sustainable forestmanagement criteria relating to the maintenance ofnatural community patterns and ecological processes,the maintenance of productive and healthy forests,the restoration of degraded ecosystems, andecologically sustainable harvests.

The Group notes in particular that the failure overseveral decades to provide for the regular recruitmentof new age/size classes within the uneven-agedforests may be jeopardising the achievement ofecologically sustainable product yields for quite sometime. This deficiency was recognised by State Forestsof New South Wales in 1994 in their introduction ofthe ‘Gaps and Clusters’ technique to the forests. Thiswas designed to create regeneration openings at eachharvest, and the progressive recruitment of new ageclasses. However, there was community opposition tothe proposal and the early implementation standards,and the practice was discontinued. Canopy openingswere subsequently limited by the Government to 50mwidth – a blanket prescription which is notnecessarily consistent with the ecologicallysustainable forest management criteria, and needs tobe amended in formulating new silvicultural policiesand strategies for the forests.

The future delivery of ecologically sustainablesilviculture requires that a strategic silvicultural planbe prepared for New South Wales forests – consistentwith the statement of silvicultural policy. StateForests of New South Wales recognise this in their‘Overview of management elements.’:

At the present time, silviculture, the dynamicprinciple at the heart of forest management, is in


26 March 2001 25

a policy limbo. The range of appropriatesilvicultural systems and practices available forapplication to both native forests and plantationsneeds to be fully described at all levels in anyecologically sustainable forestmanagement/EMS framework.

A silvicultural strategy might deal with, for eachforest type:

■ the environmental relationships of the forest type(helping to appreciate limits to disturbance andchange in forest ecosystems);

■ the principles of ecologically sustainablesilviculture applying to the type;

■ the ecological and silvicultural attributes of thespecies influencing stand regeneration and standdynamic processes;

■ the potential values and roles of the forest otherthan wood production;

■ the range of silvicultural methods and intensitiesof disturbance consistent with ecologicallysustainable practice;

■ ways in which the different silvicultural methodsmight be used to achieve different objectives andpriorities; for example, primary emphasis onwood production in parts of the type, and primaryemphasis on wildlife in others;

■ the periodic establishment of regeneration withinthe uneven-aged forests and progressiverecruitment of new size classes; and

■ practices to restore forest degraded by pastpractice.

The strategy might apply not only to the forest typesas currently designated, but also to significantvegetational and structural variations within thetypes. For example, the ‘Dry Blackbutt’ type may bea near-blackbutt monoculture at one end of itsvegetational spectrum, and a complex mixture ofspecies with different attributes at the other.Silvicultural solutions may differ appreciably atdifferent points within the spectrum. For example,canopy openings may be considerably greater withingood quality forest comprised mainly of blackbutt,and more variable but generally smaller within themixed species forest.

The expert working group sees silviculture in termsof practices which respond to planning at the widerlandscape level, delivering a number of objectives inan integrated way. This will require a high level ofexpertise and field experience in a number ofdisciplines, and a good sense of professionalism inseeking the appropriate balance between wood

production and environmental conservation. StateForests of New South Wales will need to look to thedevelopment of these attributes in its professionalstaff, or adopt a team-based approach to silviculturalplanning and implementation.

Because the delivery of ecologically sustainablesilvicultural practice will be monitored, it will benecessary to prepare a silvicultural plan defining theobjectives and priorities for each planning area (forexample, several compartments), and showing, inbroad outline, the silvicultural regimes which mightbe applied to the units of the forest that havedifferent vegetational and structural attributes.

Recommendation 3.28: A silvicultural strategyshould be prepared for New South Wales forests.This should be based on an analysis of the presentforest condition and, for each forest type, dealwith:

• the environmental relationships of the foresttypes – and the relevance of this to silviculturalpractice;

• the ecological and silvicultural attributes ofspecies and stand dynamic processes;

• ways of achieving full site regeneration;

• the environmental and economic values ofspecies and communities;

• an appropriate mix of silvicultural methodswhich can be used to achieve a set ofmanagement objectives;

• practices to restore degraded forest in anenvironmentally sensitive way.

Recommendation 3.29: State Forests of NewSouth Wales consider the need to develop withinthe native forests the range of size classes (each ina dynamic condition) required to deliverecologically sustainable product yields.

Recommendation 3.30: State Forests of NewSouth Wales ensure that the ecological andsilvicultural expertise which its professional staffwill need in order to achieve managementobjectives and maintain ecologically sustainableecosystems is enhanced through appropriatetraining and education programs.

Fire management strategiesWildfires, post-harvest burns, and regular fuelreduction or prescribed burns have positive andnegative impacts on forest ecosystems. The positiveeffects of moderately intense fire include the partialsterilisation of soil, enhanced nutrient availability, amore favourable soil biological environment for root


26 March 200126

growth, and establishment of a soil-improving shrubstratum which also serves as a food source for somearboreal animals. As a consequence of these positiveeffects, the crown and diameter growth of recoveringtrees may be stimulated (Florence 1996, Chapter 8).The negative effects of moderate to high intensity fireare largely the damage caused to tree boles and woodquality and accelerated losses of soil and litternutrients. There are also positive and negative effectswhere fire of relatively low intensity is used regularlyto reduce fuel accumulation and wildfire hazard(positive benefits). Some of the negative effects ofprescribed burning are discussed in Florence (1996).It is not surprising that fire in forests is acontroversial topic, making it difficult to assess theconsistency of fire management systems withecologically sustainable forest managementprinciples.

The recently enacted Rural Fires Act seeks to achievea balance between the protection of life and propertyfrom wildfire, and environmental issues. It placesgreater emphasis on environmental conservation inbushfire management. The Act requires that certainactivities for mitigating and suppressing bushfires(and other fires), coordinating bushfire fighting, andprotecting people and property be carried out withrespect for the principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment.

A bushfire risk management plan sets outarrangements for the reduction of bushfire hazard inrural fire districts. On the one hand, the use of firemay be prohibited in all or specified circumstances –because of the effects on flora or fauna or culturalheritage values; and on the other hand, a localauthority may require a private land owner oroccupier to carry out specified hazard reductionwork. Another important feature of the Act is that,for the first time, there is provision for publicparticipation in the preparation of bushfire riskmanagement plans and, for landowners, the right toobject to or appeal against local authority notices.

A fire system might contribute to the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management wherethe policies, strategies and fire management practicesare designed to achieve a socially acceptable balancebetween:

■ the periodic use of low-intensity fire to reduce thefuel accumulation and protect the forest againsthighly damaging wildfires;

■ complete protection of forest from fire in order toprotect soils and water and conserve biodiversityand environmentally significant communities; and

■ the use of managed fire (of nominated intensity)to help maintain fire-dependent ecosystemprocesses, elements of faunal habitat, seedlingregeneration and stand productivity.

The appropriate balance may be achieved wherethere is a mosaic of protected forest areas, and areaswhich are burned at different frequencies andintensities; and where the mosaic pattern has beendefined using all available scientific and technicalknowledge. This should now be consideredseparately under the Rural Fires Act. Fire planning inthis way requires comprehensive information onforest biodiversity and the effects of fire on thatbiodiversity. In their response to the EdenManagement Area Environmental Impact Statement,the National Parks and Wildlife Service expressedconcern that, in preparing fuel management plans forareas, inadequate account was taken of listedthreatened species, rare or threatened Australianplants species, and vegetation communities ofconservation significance. State Forests of NewSouth Wales may need to take greater account of thisin preparing these plans, and delivering ecologicallysustainable forest management.

In order to ensure that appropriate fuel managementis carried out on all tenures, access to all databases,particularly those held by government agencies,should be made available to State Forests, other landand fire management agencies and local BushfireCommittees.

Recommendation 3.31: That State Forests of NewSouth Wales incorporate within its firemanagement strategy the principle that allavailable social, cultural, scientific and technicalknowledge be used in determining a sociallyacceptable balance between resource protection,conservation, and cultural and productionobjectives.

Grazing management strategiesGiven the recognition of forest grazing as a‘threatening process’, it is necessary to questionwhether grazing should retain a place in public forestmanagement based on ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principles. In revising its grazing policy,State Forests of New South Wales must balance thethreat posed by grazing against its socio-economicvalue to local people.

Recommendation 3.32 That permission to graze inpublic forests be conditional on the preparation ofplans which deal with the protection ofbiodiversity values and the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management through


26 March 2001 27

mechanisms such as fencing and stock exclusionfrom environmentally sensitive areas.

Harvesting plansAs they relate to silvicultural decisions, State Forestsof New South Wales guidelines for harvesting plansrequire documentation of forest types by standcondition and other parameters, and any localvariations to the standard forest types. Silviculturalprescriptions are normally presented in terms of theobjectives of tree marking for both uneven-agedforests and regrowth forest thinning, and any‘gapping’ rules applying to the forest. For example,the Harvesting Plan for Compartment 233 GladstoneS.F. requires the retention of trees capable ofincreasing in value, and the removal of the occasionalgroup of mature trees to create favourable conditionsfor the establishment and growth of regeneration –groups so created to have a maximum diameter of50m randomly distributed over the harvest area.

As for the strategic management plan, thesilvicultural decision-making processes as expressedin current harvesting plans are not consistent with thedelivery of ecologically sustainable silviculturalpractice or ecologically sustainable product yields.

The present practice of submitting harvesting plans tothe regulatory agencies and Regulatory and PublicInformation Committee for each compartment orgroup of compartments is a time-consuming andexpensive procedure. The expert working groupbelieves that State Forests of New South Walesprofessional staff would be far more effectivelyemployed in a range of field activities designed toachieve a better balance between wood productionand environmental objectives – as designated in thestrategic management area plan.

The Environmental Impact StatementWhile the environmental impact statement has helpedto bridge the gap between timber-orientedmanagement of the past and management based onecologically sustainable forest managementprinciples through prescriptions for protecting floraand fauna, requirements for State Forests of NewSouth Wales to set levels of timber production,protection of cultural heritage, including Aboriginalsites, and prescriptions to protect soil and watervalues, it remains largely a descriptive documentwhich presents an account of current practices andstandards, and justifies them in terms ofenvironmental impacts and safeguards. The expertworking group recognises that the environmentalimpact statement process has extended anappreciation of environmental management withinState Forests of New South Wales and the matters

which must be taken into account in formulatingmanagement strategies. Moreover, manyenvironmental impacts have been mitigated throughthe environmental impact statement process and theconditions for approval by the Minister for UrbanAffairs and Planning. While the EnvironmentProtection Authority regulations prescribe thecontents of an environmental impact statement,including consideration of ecologically sustainabledevelopment and the analysis of options, theenvironmental impact statement as developed hasprovided only limited scope for lateral thinking aboutobjectives, practices and standards, or for exploringthe ecological underpinning of those practices andstandards, and it offers little scope for taking accountof vegetational and structural diversity at the site-specific level. This is illustrated in the application ofa single silvicultural system across the EdenManagement Area in a way which cannot respond tothe area’s inherent site, vegetational and structuraldiversity, and hence may not fully meet theprovisions of the ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principles, particularly Principles 1Band 1C.

The Group believes that the preparation of anenvironmental impact statement will be unnecessarywhere a more comprehensive planning andmonitoring process is in place. That process mightprovide for:

■ land-use determinations, as made through theRFA process;

■ incorporation in strategic management area plansof all wildlife protocols, pollution controlprovisions and the codes of practice needed todeliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement;

■ a greater appreciation of ecological diversity andits management significance, principles ofecological sustainability, and the need for greaterdiversity in silvicultural practice to achievemanagement objectives;

■ provision for assessment of the environmentalimpacts of activities, ongoing refinement ofpractices to ameliorate impacts and, wherewarranted, site-specific environmental analysis.

In addition to duplicating much of the content of astrategic management area plan, the preparation of anenvironmental impact statement would consumeresources better spent on field supervision andmonitoring operations.


26 March 200128

Principle 1D: Conservation of soil and waterresources

The values include the maintenance of soil conditionsimportant for forest growth and biodiversity, soilcarbon storage and changes in water yield andquality.

The current approach in New South Wales to theprotection of soil and water resources has thefollowing main elements:

■ the development of catchment management plansthat include a range of strategies for the protectionof soil and water values (largely underdevelopment) – these have no power to protectsoil values per se, but deal more with watersupply and use;.

■ the use of the preferred management priorityclassification for state forest land to list areaswhere the special management emphasis iscatchment protection – these are areas that formcatchments for domestic water supplies orenvironmentally sensitive aquatic ecosystems;

■ the use of a ‘protected’ land classification systemon private land that is currently administered bythe Department of Land and Water Conservation,and the application of the Soil Erosion MitigationGuidelines for Logging (Standard ErosionMitigation Guidelines for Logging) to harvestingoperations on private land;

■ planning and management activities conducted bythe National Parks and Wildlife Service onconservation lands;

■ the specification of goals and guidelines for soiland water protection in forest practices codes; and

■ the application of conditions specified in aPollution Control Licence granted by theEnvironment Protection Authority for harvestingin a State Forest.

Catchment Management PlanningThe New South Wales Government announced majorwater reforms in August 1997 that focuses onimproving the health of rivers and groundwater, andimproving the security of water-supply to users.

Under the reforms, unregulated coastal rivers (asdistinct from those rivers regulated by a head storage,primarily westward flowing) with forestedcatchments were to be classified by early 1998 asstressed, unstressed or of high conservation value.The classification will determine the priority to begiven to the development of a management plan bycommunity-based river management committees.River Management Plans (river flow and water

quality management plans) will be developed forstressed rivers and those of high conservation valuethrough a local water management committee. Riverflow management plans will ‘define water accessrights and put in place measures to fix the watersharing rules for a five year resource secure period’.Water quality action plans will focus on ‘pollutionreduction strategies from point source pollution andbroad scale catchment land use strategies for diffusepollution’ (Water Reforms: Information for WaterUsers, Department of Land and Water Conservation,September 1997).

The argument concerning coastal streams is that themain factor affecting river health is not the totalamount of water taken but the timing of it. Water isgenerally taken from streams during low flowperiods, which correspond to dry conditions.

The focus of the reforms in terms of river flow is onwater taken out of the river rather than on activity inthe catchment that determines the flow into the river.References to the broader catchment context seem tostem from a concern with pollution rather than withwater yield. The effects of forest management onlocal water use deserves more emphasis. The failureto consider water yield issues in the context of in-stream flows may be because the agenda has beendetermined by problems associated with regulatedinland rivers rather than coastal rivers. Eighty percent of water use occurs in inland New South Wales(20 per cent in coastal New South Wales) where only25 per cent of the run-off occurs.

Total catchment management under the CatchmentManagement Act 1989 is currently under review. Aconsultant’s report was to be assessed by members ofthe State Catchment Management CoordinatingCommittee by the end of 1997 (Water Reforms:Information for Water Users, Department of Landand Water Conservation, September 1997). Earlyindications are that fundamental changes will not bemade. Current government policy is to create newcommittees (for example, regional vegetationmanagement committees and river managementcommittees) rather than to use existing catchmentmanagement committees, which must comprise amajority of landholders and in some cases areperceived to be unrepresentative of all stakeholders.

Catchment planning for the protection of soil andwater and other values is considered important in theNational Forest Policy Statement, but still relativelyunderdeveloped in New South Wales. Correcting thissituation will require a major effort as well aseffective public participation. Broad land-useplanning is required to deal effectively with watervalues. The forest practices code deals mainly with


26 March 2001 29

local scales and provides little guidance on wateryield. Effective codes of practice for agriculture aswell as for forestry will be needed to achieve waterobjectives in catchments where both land-uses areimportant.

Recommendation 3.33: Catchment managementplanning that incorporates the role of forestmanagement on water yield and quality needs tobe strengthened and expedited. Such planningmust be linked closely to the development ofregional vegetation management plans that havebiodiversity as a primary focus, but which clearlyhave consequences for other catchment values.There is a need to clarify how CatchmentManagement Committees and RegionalVegetation Committees can effectively worktogether. Effective catchment management willrequire the development and implementation ofcodes of practice for major tenures and land-uses.The effectiveness of guidelines forming codes, andof other protocols (for example, the PollutionControl Licence) in protecting water values needsto be evaluated, as a matter of high priority,utilising research and monitoring.

Preferred management priority classification forState forestsThe mapping of areas of State forest where the majormanagement intent is catchment protection is distinctfrom, but complementary to forest Area ManagementPlans. The preferred management priorityclassification is broad in its prescription, spatiallydetailed and subject to continuous revision.

Catchment protection areas may require thedevelopment and application of stringentmanagement prescriptions and the imposition ofappropriate wet-weather logging controls to maintainwater quality and catchment stability, and to preventaccelerated soil erosion.

Initial classifications are made by the DistrictForester, reviewed by the Regional PlanningManager and approved by the Regional GeneralManager. Certified maps are held in local StateForests of New South Wales offices. Review isinternal and on-going as a part of district planning.

There are no documented criteria on why forestedland should be classified in this way (for example,soil type, erodibility, slope class, stream categoryetc.). This effectively makes it impossible to ensureconsistent classification within or between regions.Documentation of the reason for classification isextremely brief (for example, need to maintain wateryield and quality within a catchment), and there areno links to specification of prescriptions needed to

achieve protection. While prescriptions are specifiedin more tactical (for example, harvesting) plans, abasis for why they need to be modified to givespecial protection to catchments is needed but doesnot exist (for example, in codes of Practice,application of Standard Erosion MitigationGuidelines for Logging etc.).

Maps are available for inspection by the public indistrict State Forests offices, but there appears to beno process for public input into decisions on theclassification of particular areas. Review ofclassifications and approval of change are entirelyinternal processes.

The preferred management priority classification hassome value in protecting soil and water values, but itrequires better documentation of the process andreasons for classification of specific forest areas.Experts and the public need to be better involved indecision making and periodic review.

Recommendation 3.34: Existing classificationsused by State Forests of New South Wales shouldbe reviewed as part of the preparation/revision ofArea Management Plans following completion ofthe RFA process. Improvements would resultfrom:

■ providing documented guidelines to aid moreconsistency in allocations

■ better documenting the reasons forclassifications

■ directly linking the requirements for specialmansagement prescriptions to the source of, oras a guide to, those prescriptions (for example,codes of practice, management manual,conservation protocol etc.)

■ better involving ‘experts’ and the public indecisions.

Management of protected lands‘Protected lands’ are areas of private land that havebeen mapped as requiring assessment and specialmanagement in relation to any proposed use. Theselands include steep (>18º) country, riparian zoneswithin 20m of a stream, and other environmentallysensitive areas. Applications to use any such areasare made to the Department of Land and WaterConservation, which assesses impacts on soil andwater (and other) values before approval (sometimeswith conditions) or rejection of the application. TheStandard Erosion Mitigation Guidelines for Loggingapply where the application is to harvest privateforest. The guidelines cover roading and snig tracks,ground water management, filter and protection


26 March 200130

strips, felling, snigging and timber extraction tracksand log dumps.

Issues are:

■ Some areas of sensitive land may not have beenmapped as protected lands initially.

■ The existence of systematic processes to checkthat private land owners are complying with therequirements.

■ Whether conditions are attached to permission touse protected lands actually achieve protection ofsoil and water values.

There are currently no formal processes to ensure theprotection of soil and water values on other (non-protected) private land. The Department of Land andWater Conservation has the power to make a SoilProtection Order where practices are consideredunsustainable. Likewise, the Environment ProtectionAuthority will investigate complaints of activitiesthat threaten water quality. In practice however,neither of the procedures is widely used.

Recommendation 3.35: The adequacy of theprotected lands classification in relation toerosion, and of mechanisms for ensuringcompliance with it, should be reviewed by a panelexternal to the Department of Land and WaterConservation. Riparian areas in farmland shouldbe maintain and improved.

Management of Other Private ForestsOn private land, clearing of native vegetation forplantation establishment is covered by provisions inthe Native Vegetation Conservation Act, which aredescribed and evaluated in Chapter 2. The ForestPractices Code Part Three (Plantation establishmentand maintenance) provides adequate guidance for theprotection of soil and water values on private land.

A major gap in coverage by codes of practice, appliesto harvesting native forest on non-protected privateland. Currently there are no effective guidelines forprotecting soil and water values that can be applied inmore than a voluntary manner. A code of practicethat applies to all forested land needs to bedeveloped.

Recommendation 3.36: Mechanisms need to bedeveloped to ensure effective protection of soil andwater values on other private forested land. Thesemechanisms are best specified in a code ofpractice that applies to all private forest.

Planning and management by the National Parksand Wildlife ServiceThe National Parks and Wildlife Service has anobligation to protect water quality under the CleanWaters Act 1970. The Environment ProtectionAuthority does not require the National Parks andWildlife Service to undertake any specific action toachieve this (equivalent, for example, to adherence tothe Standard Erosion Mitigation Guidelines forLogging for forest harvesting).

The Environment Protection Authority caninvestigate complaints, but rarely does so.

Currently there appear to be no consolidatedguidelines for National Parks and Wildlife Serviceactivities that give emphasis to protection of soil andwater values at regional landscape or local scales. Forexample, prescribed burning activities will increasethe threat to soil erosion and water quality inparticular parts of the landscape. No specificplanning appears to currently be in place to assessthese risks, and to mitigate potential impacts. TheNational Parks and Wildlife Service FireManagement Manual does not consider soil andwater values in any systematic way. Guidelines forthe construction and maintenance of roads and tracksdo not exist.

Recommendation 3.37: The National Parks andWildlife Service needs to develop systematicprocedures for assessing threats to soil and watervalues, and guidelines for mitigating such threats.These elements should form part of a code ofpractice for management of conservation areas.

Use and development of Forest Practices Codes onState Forests of New South Wales landA code of forest practice outlining goals andguidelines for the protection of soil and water valueshas been developed for harvesting in State forests,and for the establishment, management and harvestof accredited plantations on public and private land(Timber Plantations ‘Environment Protection’Harvesting Code 1997).

A draft (Part 4) of the Code, dealing with forest roadand fire trail construction and use, has also beenprepared. The sections of the codes dealing with soiland water protection must be read in conjunctionwith the Pollution Control Licence, and the StandardErosion Mitigation Guidelines for Logging.Together, these provide a comprehensive set ofguidelines for harvesting operations. As the scientificbasis for many of the guidelines is still meagre,monitoring of their effectiveness in achievingprotection of soil and water values is essential to on-going improvement of them.


26 March 2001 31

One area where evaluation of effectiveness isespecially critical is the prescriptions for stream filterand buffer strips (also specified in the PollutionControl Licence, and Conservation Protocols). Thescientific underpinning for these is minimal. There isa need to protect headwater streams and to adopt aprecautionary approach. Drainage depressions(ephemeral streams) are currently protected by bufferstrips (where trees are harvested but where machinedisturbance is not permitted) but the adequacy ofthese on soils of low permeability is unknown.

Recommendation 3.38: Further research, andtargeted monitoring of water quality is needed toevaluate the effectiveness of currently prescribedriparian buffer and filter strips. Further researchis urgently needed to refine the local application ofguidelines for protecting water quality andaquatic habitat under a range of environmentalconditions.

Use of a Water Pollution Control LicenceHarvesting activities in State forests are regulated bya Harvesting Plan (an approved and legal document)that includes guidelines and mandatory prescriptionsabout the Pollution Control Licence granted by theEnvironment Protection Authority, or compliancewith the Standard Erosion Mitigation Guidelines forLogging.

Currently State Forests of New South Wales operateunder a Pollution Control Licence which effectivelysubsumes the Standard Erosion MitigationGuidelines for Logging . The Pollution ControlLicence contains schedules dealing withharvesting/roading planning, assessment of waterpollution hazard and specification of associatedmanagement conditions, specification ofmanagement practices to mitigate pollution risk, andauditing and monitoring requirements. A range ofconcerns about the practicability and reliability ofcurrent methods (as used in the September 1996Pollution Control Licence) to estimate erosion riskand water pollution hazard based on the SOILOSSmodel and individual coupe assessments, has led toproposals to develop improved systems.

State Forests of New South Wales and theEnvironment Protection Authority signed aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) in April1997 agreeing to develop improved systems (bothregulatory and forest management) for theconservation of soil and water values as part offorestry operations in New South Wales. Keyelements include: development of a new hazardassessment system; definition of field survey needs,mitigation protocols and Best Management Practice;

annual licensing of State Forests of New South Walesactivities together with self-audit; EnvironmentProtection Authority audit on a selection ofcompartments; monitoring of water quality toconfirm adequacy of protocols; and provision ofbetter training and field guides. The MOU specified atimetable of implementation that would culminate ina new licence by July 1997.

The expert working group understand that the newlicence will not be implemented before early 1998.The detail of documents underpinning the newsystem were not available to the expert workinggroup (for example, field survey needed to conductthe assessment, management protocols to mitigaterisk, processes for monitoring effectiveness andrefining the system). The level of detail presented inthe document ‘Soil erosion and water pollutionhazard assessment for logging operations’(Environment Protection Authority, State Forests ofNew South Wales Department of Land and WaterConservation, August 1997) is sketchy in relation tothese issues, and raises many unanswered questions.The expert working group concludes that validationof the new system is essential. This requires a goodsystem of ground observations and monitoring ofwater quality. Priority must be given to consideringthese issues soon after implementing the new licence.This is more important than, and must be givenauditing priority over, the implementation of asystem that may not be effective. Monitoring ofeffectiveness, combined with enhanced research anddevelopment in this area to progress the developmentof improved systems is an urgent requirement.

Recommendation 3.39: Testing of theeffectiveness of the new Pollution Control Licenceprotocols for assessing soil erosion and waterpollution hazard, based on ground observationand monitoring of water quality, should beinitiated immediately. Such testing must be givenat least equal weight as is given to auditing ofcompliance with the new system.

Principle 1E: Positive contribution of foreststo global geochemical cycles

The expert working group has confined analysis tochange in carbon (C) cycles because forestmanagement can have a major impact on these, andsuch impacts are much more predictable than changein other elemental cycles.

The current approach to maintaining the contributionof forests to global carbon cycles has four mainelements:


26 March 200132

■ planning to maintain as much forest cover aspossible in New South Wales, including someconversion of agricultural land to plantations;

■ expecting that conversion of mature native forestto regrowth stands will have a minimal effect onforest carbon storage;

■ expecting that over time the scales of a forestrotation or longer carbon release frommanagement burns will be equivalent to that fromdecomposition plus wildfires; and

■ a judgement by land management agencies thattheir current activities do not have a major impacton carbon budgets.

Planning to maintain forest coverPlanning at a number of levels aims to maintainforest cover in the long term. No public land is beingcleared for conversion to plantations. A significantarea of forest is being cleared on private land; only asmall part of this land is being converted toplantations, with the remainder going to non-forestuses. Plantation areas are being expanded at a rate ofabout 10,000 hectares per year, mostly on ex-agricultural land.

The current rate of agricultural land clearance isuncertain in New South Wales, but is thought to besignificant (~100,000 hectares per year). This willresult in a large release of carbon from woodybiomass and soil per hectare in the short term. Thedegree of loss in the longer term is unknown but isstill likely to be large, even where plantations areestablished, because they will be harvested onrelatively short rotations before a large accumulationof C in biomass occurs. Plantation wood will also inmany cases have a short residence time beforesequestered carbon is released as carbon dioxide.

There is a strong need to raise awareness of theeconomic and other benefits of maintaining aproductive forest cover on the large areas of privatenative forest in New South Wales.

Carbon storageMost current harvesting of native forest in NewSouth Wales is of mature stands and a considerablearea is harvested annually. This will continue foranother 20 to 30 years, in association with aprogressively increasing reliance on regrowth forests.Thinning of regrowth will progressively increase.

Little information is available to accurately model thescale of changes in carbon storage associated withforest harvesting and regeneration. The progressiveconversion of mature stands to regrowth will lowerthe storage of carbon in standing biomass (i.e. reduce

C density). The pre-harvest quantity of sequesteredcarbon is unlikely to be re-accumulated in theregrowth stands where smaller and younger (<100years old) trees will be harvested. The areas ofgreatest uncertainty are the pattern of carbon re-accumulation in forest biomass, the effects ofharvesting and fire regimes on changes in the soilcarbon store, and the residence time of carbon inharvested forest products. The expectation thatconversion of mature native forest to regrowth standswill have minimal effect on carbon storage isunlikely to prove correct.

Carbon balancePrescribed fire is used for regeneration and hazardreduction purposes.

Current fire regimes are very different from thoseoccurring in nature, and their effects on ecosystemcarbon budgets is uncertain. The main unknown isthe effect of management burning and wildfire onforest productivity and long-term soil carbon storage.Carbon storage in forest litter and residues is unlikelyto be affected by management burning in the longerterm. Further study will be needed to reduce theseuncertainties and to clarify whether the expectationsare likely to prove correct.

Carbon budgetsAt present no explicit attempt is made to manage forcarbon retention.

To date, other management objectives have beengiven priority because the effects of management oncarbon budgets have been considered small. Researchis required to determine the validity of thisassumption. A process of data collection andmodelling should be initiated to enable the effects ofmanagement on the carbon budget of New SouthWales forests to be reliably estimated. Specificmatters to be investigated are forest clearing,plantation establishment, change in the age-classdistribution of native forests, the effects of firemanagement, and the residence time of carbon inforest products. Although changes in the forestcarbon budget need to be calculated for New SouthWales, they need to be interpreted from both Stateand national perspectives. For this reason, theapproach used in New South Wales needs to becompatible with any national effort to quantify theeffects of forestry activities on the carbon budget.The development of a joint State-Commonwealthapproach to this matter is urgent, so that collection ofobviously important data in New South Wales canbegin as soon as possible.


26 March 2001 33

Recommendation 3.40: Data collection andmodelling should be initiated to enable the effectsof management on the carbon budget of the totalNew South Wales forest estate to be reliablyestimated. The approach adopted must provideinformation that can be interpreted by New SouthWales and within a national perspective; it is thusa joint New South Wales-Commonwealthresponsibility.

Principle 1F: Long term social and economicbenefits

There are many socio-economic benefits to bederived from the native forests, including the supplyof clean water, the harvesting of a range of forestproducts, recreational use of the forest, grazing, bee-keeping, supply of extractive materials (rock, gravel)and others. There are also intangible social welfarebenefits. People may value the aesthetic attributes ofa forest, its tranquillity, its biological complexity andstructural diversity, the spiritual uplift it provides, orsimply knowing that it is there. Forests may bemanaged for use which involves disturbance (forexample, wood production, grazing, some aspects ofrecreation) yet retain much of their intangible value.

A critical role for forest planning is to maximise netsocio-economic benefit by striking the best balancebetween uses. This requires:

■ access to adequate economic and otherinformation about the possibilities for supply ofvalues from the region’s forests, and society'sdemands for these various values;

■ the use of a comprehensive planning frameworkthat effectively incorporates consideration of allvalues;

■ minimisation of distortion of markets for forestoutputs, particularly in the pricing of products orservices; and

■ the adoption of a planning process that is ongoing,rather than 'once off', which continues to monitorperformance in relation to implementation and theeconomic and other information that underpins theplan and adaptation to the changes.

Economic informationThe availability of economic information is poor formany forest values. The collection of economic dataabout forest use is most complete with regard tothose products traded openly in markets (log supply),while for other values (recreation, water, intangibles)little is known. Some critical areas whereinformation is lacking include the responsiveness ofsupply and demand to changes in price (for example,

log supply, recreation), and the demand forintangibles.

While considerable efforts are being made toovercome these deficiencies during the RFA process,and the new data will be most valuable to decisionmakers, it will be incomplete because in some caseseffective data collection and analysis require moretime, and in others, effective methodologies are yet tobe developed.

It is important to recognise that the ability to achievethe highest possible socio-economic benefits in boththe RFA and the Strategic Area Plans of State Forestsof New South Wales and the National Parks andWildlife Service are affected by the incompletenessof the economic data. Continuation of economicresearch and data collection for a considerable periodare required to refine the basis of future plans.

Recommendation 3.41: There is an urgent needfor further development of economic researchcapability in the agencies responsible for forestmanagement and for the collection and analysis ofeconomic information on forest uses. Theformation of a social and economic researchgroup within the proposed Forest Research Unitto serve all agencies would achieve considerablebenefit through economy of scale and a broaderperspective on the issues.

PlanningThe absence of critical economic data makes the taskof forest use planning for both production forest andnational park difficult. In the absence of soundlybased economic information, increased reliance mustbe placed on the effective participation of a widerange of stakeholders as a proxy for society’seconomic and social viewpoint. The development ofplanning processes for complex natural resourcemanagement is also in a comparatively early stage ofdevelopment. Important issues include the ability topresent diverse information effectively to planners,ensuring representativeness for all stakeholdergroups, and the management of group processes toensure participative planning.

Recent developments in computer technology,particularly in Geographic Information Systemstechnology and in environmental systems modellingare providing important support tools for presentingthe information on the biophysical systems, but theusefulness of these is constrained by the adequacy ofinput data. There is an even greater deficiency in theabsence of similar representations of thecorresponding regional socio-economic systems.


26 March 200134

Distortion in the pricing and supply of forestvaluesSeveral players exercise a large influence in themarkets of some forest values (for example, StateForests of New South Wales and several largesawmill groups for log supply; National Parks andWildlife Service and State Forests of New SouthWales in the area of forest based recreation). Pricesetting in the market for these forest uses is a difficultissue, particularly in the case of log supplyagreements where there is no competition, and supplylevels are constrained by physical availability andpolicy direction. Setting prices at too low a levelencourages demand, but can also encourage theconversion of logs to low-value products and theresultant higher harvest levels can have increaseddetrimental effects on other values. Setting high logprices reduces the demand and can restrict processingoptions to higher-value products, but can reduce thetotal socio-economic output where processingindustries become uneconomic.

State Forests of New South Wales has recentlydeveloped a new approach to setting hardwood logroyalties. This places greater recognition on inherentlog qualities and market opportunities for logprocessors. It has resulted in a greater range of logprices, with considerable increases for some high-value species. In general, higher-value speciespresent greater opportunity for value-addingprocessing. The higher market prices send a signal togrowers that should encourage investment insilviculture to increase the future supply of morevaluable logs. Prices established by State Forests ofNew South Wales have a considerable influence onthe prices received by other growers. The furtherdevelopment of a more competitive log market isencouraged.

Maintaining ecologically sustainable forestmanagementThe contribution of regional forests to socio-economic values cannot be optimised or fixed at asingle point in time. Over time there are (a) changesin the level of demand and willingness to pay, (b)changes in the physical possibilities for supply, and(c) changes in the cost of supply. All three factorsare usually interrelated. These changes willinevitably continue after the completion of the RFA,and ongoing attention to the planning framework isrequired.

These unplanned-for changes in demand arisethrough the development of new industry, increasesin population and/or wealth, and the development ofrecreational facilities and the balance in recreationaldemand between National Parks and other forests.

Unplanned changes in supply arise from fire, thewillingness of private owners to supply and, in thelonger term, from improved access and harvestingtechnologies and improved silvicultural practice, andrecognition of the need to curtail recreational use inareas of high conservation value. There are alsoopportunities for planned changes in supply.Increased investment is possible in the public forests.Little is known about the private forest resource inNew South Wales and its potential to contribute tolong-term social and economic benefits. It isprobably appropriate to say that much of the resourcehas been subject to ‘logger’s selection’ and is nowwell below optimum condition. It should be possibleto improve that condition progressively, enhancingthe social and economic benefits from the sector.

Recommendation 3.42: That there be a survey ofthe private forest resource potential and economicprospects for its management. This functionshould be allocated to the Private ForestrySupport Unit.

Achieving a balance between wood productionand environmental conservationThe balance of supply of conservation and socio-economic benefits and the actual forest managementunits supplying these can usefully be adjusted overtime. Greater flexibility in land-use decisions, andgreater emphasis on the complementary managementof State forests in meeting conservation targets, couldlead to a higher level of conservation and socio-economic benefit. It should also be possible in landallocation to ensure social and economic benefits aremaintained for the short term while working tofurther expand value-adding processing, improve theproductivity of the public and private native forests,and build up an alternative hardwood plantationresource. It is envisaged that where forest hasimportant environmental attributes, it might beplaced temporarily in some special management(wood production) category and transferred tonational park tenure as circumstances permit. Insummary, key areas of particular short-termimportance (for example, for sawlog, habitat, orrecreational opportunity) can be moved into and outof the production area over time.

Recommendation 3.43: Consistent with theintent of the National Forest Policy Statementand the nationally agreed JANIS conservationcriteria for forests, conservation targets shouldbe met through a combination of dedicatedforest reserves, areas protected within Stateforests, and areas zoned for management byspecial prescription. Increased consideration


26 March 2001 35

should be given to the capacity of forest areasoutside national parks and reserves, oftenreferred to as ‘non-dedicated’ or ‘off-reserve’forest, to contribute to meetingconservation targets, because in somecircumstances this ‘off-reserve’ component canresult in enhanced and more balancedecologically sustainable forest managementoutcomes. Resources should be committed toquantifying the potential of carefully managedprivate native forests to contribute toconservation objectives.

While establishment of a comprehensive,adequate and representative system of forestreserves represents a significant step inachieving protection of conservation values,active on-going management of the reservesystem is also crucial. Increased emphasis mustbe given to managing the biological resource forspecified objectives, taking into account thecontribution of all tenures.

The factor of greatest importance to net socio-economic outcomes is often the unpredictable changein the cost of providing the supply of forest values(for example, logs, recreation). Reductions in costarise from technological improvement (for example,in harvesting or transport) while increasedoperational costs to forestry and park managementarise from factors such as changes to codes ofpractice and conservation protocols. In recent years,significant operational changes were implemented inresponse to inter-organisational factors, and many ofthese were not adequately evaluated in terms ofsocial costs and benefits. The ability to do thisrequires a capacity to predict and model costs andbenefits at the planning stage, accurate monitoring ofcosts and benefits during implementation, and a closelink between the operational and longer-termplanning systems to ensure that the principles ofadaptive management can be effectively deployed.This latter phase is of particular importance, becausethe procedures and protocols are often interim, orexperimental in nature. They require ongoing finetuning in response to careful study of their efficiencyand effectiveness. These abilities appear not to bewell developed at present and have been limited bythe separation of responsibilities between agencies.

Recommendation 3.44: Improved mechanismsare needed for collecting and utilisinginformation to enable cost-effective decisionmaking. Accounting practices that allow fullcosting of all inputs to forest managementshould be developed. Without efficient costingof management efforts, the delivery ofecologially sustainable forest managementcomponents (environmental, social andeconomic) is at risk, and opportunities todevelop more cost-effective procedures couldbe lost. Systematic trials to assess the cost-

effectiveness of alternative operationalprescriptions should be undertaken. Inparticular, ‘impact costing’ should be used toensure stakeholders fully appreciate the costimplications of their expectations.

Principle 1G: Heritage

The expert working group made no assessment of theecological sustainability of management of culturalheritage values, including Aboriginal culturalheritage values contained within Principle 1G.Cultural heritage values are currently being assessedby the NSW Cultural Heritage Working Groupthrough the project, ‘Protecting Cultural HeritageValues and Places in NSW Forests’.

MANAGEMENT PLANNING FORECOLOGIALLY SUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT: A SYNTHESIS

Regional planning: the Regional ForestAgreementThe following planning hierarchy is proposed:

Effective delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement requires planning at a number of levels.The highest level (regional planning) will berepresented by the RFA process, and conductedacross all forests (public and private) to assess theregional capability to produce/deliver the variousforest outputs demanded by the community, to reachconsensus about the targets for each value, torepresent a regional consensus about the trade-offsbetween values needed to achieve a balancedecologically sustainable forest management outcome,and (for public forest at least) to allocate areas offorest to their respective uses.

While the regional plan might be expected to standfor the period of the RFA, progress reports should bemade at five-year intervals. Moreover, as there isinevitably continuous change in all aspects of theforest, and in the community and industrial demandfor forest goods and services, it will be desirable todevelop structures to permit re-examination andupdating of the regional plan at periodic (say ten-year) intervals.

The overall aim of restructuring management systemsand processes for private lands should be thereplacement of project-based approval andmanagement arrangements with regional land-usezoning, codes of practice, monitoring and regulation.It is envisaged that development approvals will beexempted from requirements to undertake 8 pointtests and environmental impact statements within


26 March 200136

specified zones identified on regional vegetationmanagement plans – and incorporated in localenvironment plans and regional environment plans -where (i) comprehensive regional biodiversitysurveys have been undertaken, (ii) approved codes ofpractice are available and will be adopted for theproposed activities, and (iii) effective monitoring andenforcement procedures are in place.

Similarly, the overall aim of restructuringmanagement systems and processes for State forestsshould be the formulation of a more sociallyacceptable balance between conservation andproduction functions of the forest – through enhancedprotection of forest ecosystems in nature reserves,complementary ‘off-reserve’ management, thepreparation of comprehensive strategic andoperational plans with the potential to deliver allecologically sustainable forest managementprinciples, updated codes of practice to reflect bestpractice, and more effective reporting, monitoringand audit of activities.

Strategic Management Area Plans

Plans for private forests:It is envisaged that the preparation of a private forestmanagement plan will be required for each propertybefore commercial operations are conducted. Thesemight be brief documents, but will require detailssuch as an area map and forest description,consideration of the status of the forest types inrelation to a regional vegetation management plan orother conservation status information and, possibly,soil and terrain in relation to slope stability anderosion hazard. An approved forest management plancould be used to establish forest areas as being undersustainable management, and might provideexemption from the imposition of zoning restrictionsunder local environment plans. An approval processmight be developed whereby professionals withappropriate training can be accredited as forestplanners by the Forest Regulator. Beyond thisplanning level, a separate activity plan would berequired for each major management activity.

Recommendation 3.45`: The preparation of aPrivate Forest Management Plan should berequired for each property and approved by theForest Regulator before commercial operationsare conducted.

Plans for public forests:The strategic Management Area Plan holds the key toecologically sustainable management within Stateforests and national parks, and requires the ongoingdevelopment of planning processes. Planning for

ecologically sustainable management will be acomplex activity because of large forest areas,environmental and vegetational diversity, and theinterests of multiple stakeholders.

There is a view that the RFA (regional plan) will alsoconstitute the strategic Management Area Plan forState forests. This may be appropriate for someregions such as the Eden region. However, the expertworking group has some concern about the level ofdetail within the RFA, particularly where a region isdivided, for management control purposes, into threeor more management areas. These management areasmay have different environmental and vegetationalattributes, service different industries with differentproduct emphasis, and have their own localstakeholders wishing to contribute to managementdecisions.

Thus, the expert working group sees the hierarchicalplanning process based on the RFA (regional plan),one or more strategic Management Area Plans forState forests and individual plans for national parks,and tactical (operational) plans, with follow-up auditand monitoring (see Figure 3).

The strategic Management Area Plan will:

■ provide for public participation at a number ofstages in the plan preparation, includingrepresentatives of Aboriginal communities asdetermined by those communities;

■ reference legislation, all policies and other plans,codes of practice and other operational documentswhich might be called upon in implementing thePlan;

■ give an account of all forest attributes which willbe critical in achieving ecologially sustainableforest management, including the species andcommunity patterns and their environmentalrelationships, a historical appreciation of thestructural attributes and productive condition ofeach forest type, forest wildlife and wildlifehabitat, sites of environmental, cultural andheritage significance, and so on;

■ state and justify all objectives of management andthe priorities accorded them;

■ present the conservation strategy for the forestbased on the provisions of the regional plan(RFA) and a more comprehensive analysis of theenvironmental attributes of the forest; and on thisbasis,

− prepare a zone plan, for example, for Stateforests and a preferred management priorityplan showing areas additional to thosedetermined in the RFA which might be


26 March 2001 37

excluded from logging or managed for specialpurposes (flora and fauna conservation; soil,water and landscape protection, etc);

− reference the protocols/prescriptions forconservation of rare and endangered specieswhere present (or likely to be present); and

− for State forests, present prescriptions forconserving plants and animals or helpingensure their recolonisation after logging(within the general wood production zone);

■ reference the codes of practice dealing with roadsand fire trails, and soil and water protection, to beread in conjunction with the Pollution ControlLicence, and the Standard Erosion MitigationGuidelines for Logging;

■ include a monitoring program to evaluate thereliability of impact assessments and ameliorationmeasures;

■ present the objectives of wood supply or otheruses, based on an appreciation of ecologicallysustainable usage levels, targets set for differentuses, risk assessment, prospects for meeting thesetargets in the short and longer terms, and ways ofmaintaining or enhancing the social and economicbenefits derived from the forest;

■ analyse options for balancing the different rolesand values – or determine any trade-offs whichmay be needed to ensure a socially balancedsolution to competing objectives;

■ for State forests, present a silvicultural strategyshowing

− how multiple objectives may be achieved tothe greatest possible extent by taking accountof existing vegetational and structuraldiversity, and through diversity in silviculturalpractice; and

− how parts of the forest which have beendegraded through past activities will berestored;

■ reference plans for other forest activities such asfire management, grazing and any others relevantto the forest;

■ present a financial statement demonstrating likelyincome, administration costs and anticipatedmanagement expenditure;

■ provide for assessment of the environmentalimpacts of activities, ongoing refinement ofpractices to ameliorate impacts and, wherewarranted, site-specific environmental analysis;and

■ ensure the Plan is auditable so that it can besubject to an effective review process.

Recommendation: 3.46: Strategic planning inpublic forests must be strengthened. While theformat of plans prepared by the National Parksand Wildlife Service generally meetsrequirements for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, there is a need to complete planpreparation for all parks. For State Forests, anew strategic management area planning modelable to deliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement needs to be developed. Suchmanagement area plans:

• must be developed by the responsiblemanagement agency;

• should initially draw on and be consistentwith regional forest agreements;

• must be approved by the forest regulator(see later);

• should require an annual report to theregulator on achievements in relation to theplan;

• must be subject to periodic review (forexample, at 5–7 year intervals) or as requiredby exceptional circumstances, and

• after review, should be resubmitted to theforest regulator for approval.

The strategic management area planningprocess must:

• assess environmental impacts in sufficientdetail to allow management plans to replacethe environmental impact statement process;

• set targets (for example, sustainable yields,size of animal populations, degree of sitedisturbance);

• provide opportunities for public exhibitionand comment;

• allow determination by the forest regulator;and

• provide opportunity for review by the courts.

This process would be ongoing, providing abasis for adaptive management and continuousimprovement, and represent the primary publicforum for discussion and involvement in forestmanagement.

Recommendation 3.47: Given the distribution offorest across several land tenures, NationalParks and Wildlife and State Forests shouldcoordinate their approach to the managementof the comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative reserve system, often referred toas the CAR reserve system (which is based oncriteria defined by JANIS, the committee


26 March 200138

established to ensure the implementation of theNatinal Forest Policy Statement), (see also KeyRecommendation 13B).

Operational (activity) plansOperational planning is comparatively welldeveloped for the management of fire protection bymost agencies, production and related activities onstate forest and, in the case of private propertyapplications, under the Native VegetationConservation Act – but less so for other tenures oractivities (national parks, other crown lands, privateproperty). This is partly a consequence of lesserdegrees of activity.

Operational planning is a critical component of thehierarchy of plans which will regulate managementof State forests. The plan will reference all codes,field guides for operations and other relevantdocuments. It will specify an area of forest to beharvested during a 2 to 3 year period. It will identifythe ecological attributes of the forest; make provisionfor surveys identifying sites of environmental,cultural, heritage and Aboriginal significance, and thedistribution of rare or threatened Australian plantsand threatened wildlife species (or the likely habitatof those species); identify any sites which may beproblematic in terms of soil and water conservation;and present a silvicultural plan showing howmultiple-use and ecologically sustainable forestmanagement objectives will be achieved throughdiversity in silvicultural methodology. Operationsshould be subject to internal audit (compliance withplan), monitoring of outcomes, and evaluation ofecologically sustainable forest management (seeChapter 7).

State Forests of New South Wales have compiled anEcosystem Management Field Guide for South EastForests. This organises knowledge, research andregulatory requirements into one operationallyfunctional document in order to streamline theprocess for delivering regulatory requirements to theforest manager. This approach is commended by theexpert working group.


26 March 2001 39

Figure 2 - Proposed forest planning linkages in relation to existing tenure

Existing tenure

Proposed Planning Linkages

PUBLIC FOREST

StateForest

National Park &Reserve

Other Crown &Leasehold Land

PRIVATE FOREST

ReservedProtected Land

& PrivateForestry

Other Forest

Regional Bioresource Survey and Information System

Regional Land Use Strategy

ForestManagement

Area Plan

Park Management Plan Crown ManagementPlans (where

required)

VoluntaryConservationAgreement

Private ForestManagement

Plan

Threatened species recovery plans

Threat abatement plans

Codes of practice (activity/tenure specific)

Range of operational plans

DevelopmentConsent

(not required)

DevelopmentConsent(required)

Assessment e.g. EIS, SIS, REF where no zoning exemption exists


Figure 3 - Relationship between strategic and operational plans for different forest tenures in NSW

Comprehensive regional assessmentsand

Regional forest agreements

StateForest

NationalPark

PrivateLand

Regional VegetationManagement Plans

StrategicManagement Area Plans

Private ForestManagement Plans

Operational Plans(e.g. harvesting plans, species recovery plans)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,INCENTIVES/REQUIREMENTS AND THEPRECAUTIONARYPRINCIPLE

This chapter describes and reviews currentmanagement arrangements in relation to publicparticipation in the decision-making process,incentives and requirements in relation toimplementation (of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement Principles 2 and 3), and the role ofthe precautionary principle (Principle 4) inachieving ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Introduction

Ecologically sustainable forest managementPrinciple 2 requires provision for publicparticipation, access to information, accountabilityand transparency in the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management.

In relation to Principle 2, the National Strategy forthe Conservation of Australia’s BiologicalDiversity provides that:

■ the co-operation of conservation groups,resource users, indigenous peoples, and thecommunity in general is critical to theconservation of biological diversity; and

■ processes for and decisions about theallocation and use of Australia's resourcesshould be efficient, equitable and transparent.

There is currently considerable variation in NewSouth Wales legislative provisions for publicparticipation in resource decisions. Members ofthe public can participate in resource decision-making processes at two different levels:

■ strategic planning

■ operational planning.

Strategic PlanningAt the strategic planning level, the corelegislation, which has the potential to cover bothprivate and publicly owned land is theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act1979. One of its objects is:

...to provide increased opportunity for publicinvolvement and participation inenvironmental planning and assessment.

There are legally guaranteed opportunities tocomment on draft planning proposals, at the levelof Local Environmental Plans and RegionalEnvironmental Plans, but opportunity to commenton draft State Environmental Planning Polices liesin the discretion of the Minister. For example,there was no opportunity for public commentbefore the introduction of State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy 46, although the resultingreaction from the rural community makes itunlikely that this approach will be taken in thefuture. Regional vegetation management plansmade under the Native Vegetation Management


26 March 20012

Act 1997 must be placed on exhibition for publiccomment.

There are specific provisions about publicparticipation in the strategic planning of land inpublic ownership. Management plans for nationalparks have to be exhibited for public comment,and these comments are then referred to theNational Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council,which includes community representation.Management plans for nature reserves andwilderness areas are not placed on publicexhibition, but are referred to the AdvisoryCouncil. It was not until 1995 that a process forthe public exhibition of draft management plansfor State forests was introduced. Finalised plansmust be available for inspection by the public.The Director-General of National Parks andWildlife can prepare a management plan for aState forest, but only with the consent of StateForests.

Anybody at all can nominate a species, etc. forlisting under the Threatened Species ConservationAct 1995 (TSCA s.19). After the ScientificCommittee has made a preliminary determination,it must invite public submissions. Publicsubmissions must also be considered in relation todeclarations of critical habitat (ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act ss 41-42).

Within other agencies, in particular theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation,there is a long tradition of non-statutory strategicplanning.

There is currently no legislative provision for thedevelopment of strategic plans by the Departmentof Land and Water Conservation andopportunities for public comment depend onpractice. For example, there was extensive publicinvolvement in the development of componentpolicies under the State Rivers and EstuariesPolicy by the DWLC:

Working groups, with membership from bothGovernment and community groups havebeen used extensively. Wider communityconsultation on policies occurred throughworkshops and written submissions (NewSouth Wales Water Reform Fact SheetNumber 3, Water Resource ManagementPolicies).

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act1997 will allow the Minister for the Environmentto make Protection of the Environment Policies(PEPs), which would be prepared by theEnvironment Protection Authority and madeavailable in draft form for public comment. A

Protection of the Environment Policy, forexample, could be made to provide guidelines orstandards relating to private forestry managementpractices designed to prevent diffuse waterpollution.

Project ControlAt the operations level, there are variousapproaches to public participation in legislation onforest issues, which raises questions about thetransparency of process.

Where development consent under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979Part 4 is not required for a particular proposal, theprovisions of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act Part 5 may apply and allowpublic comment on proposals which require anenvironmental impact statement because they arelikely to significantly affect the environment.Currently, the forestry activities of State Forestsare covered by Part 5, and on a number ofoccasions an environmental impact statement hashad to be placed on public exhibition.

On the other hand, proposals requiringdevelopment consent that fall under theEnvironment Planning and Assessment Act Part 4need to be accompanied by an environmentalimpact statement only if they fall within the verydetailed list of designated development set out inSchedule 3 of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Regulation 1994. In thesecircumstances, the environmental impactstatement must be placed on public exhibition forpublic comment. In addition, third party meritappeals are available to objectors to designateddevelopment. The list of designated developmentincludes, for example, wood or timber milling orprocessing works with a particular capacity.Forestry and land clearing operations whichrequire development consent do not fall within thelist, whatever their impact on the environment.

The interim exemption from development consentfor sustainable native forestry under the NativeVegetation Conservation Act means that theseactivities are unlikely to be subject to publiccomment unless they fall within the EnvironmentPlanning and Assessment Act Part 5. In this casean environmental impact statement must beprepared for public comment if the proposal islikely to significantly affect the environment.There are, however, generally no rights of thirdparty merit appeal under Part 5, and response topublic inquiries is discretionary.

26 March 20013

Inconsistencies of this kind are a barrier toeffective public participation in decision-makingprocesses.

Where a species impact statement (SIS) isrequired, it must be placed on public exhibition ifit has been prepared under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act 1995 or the EnvironmentPlanning and Assessment Act Part 5. This is notthe case, however, if it is prepared under theEnvironment Planning and Assessment Act Part 4.This would appear to be an oversight. There is nobasis in policy for such a distinction.

Apart from situations where an environmentalimpact statement and/or a species impactstatement has to be prepared, putting a particularproposal out for public comment will only belegally required if it has been classified as‘advertised development’ under the EnvironmentPlanning and Assessment Act (through provisionsin an environmental planning instrument, adevelopment control plan or regulation), if it hasbeen identified in a development control plan asrequiring public notification (e.g. the newcategory of complying development introduced bythe Environmental Planning and AssessmentAmendment Act 1997) or if there are specialprovisions in other legislation. There are nospecial provisions for the public exhibition ofparticular proposals to clear native vegetationunder the Native Vegetation Conservation Act.There is no provision in the Protection of theEnvironment Operations Act 1997 allowing publiccomment on applications for pollution controllicences, although the Environment ProtectionAuthority does consult with stakeholders on theframeworks of the more complex licences. TheGovernment’s position is that the right tocomment on environmental impact statementsunder the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act Parts 4 and 5 is adequate.However, this is a one-off opportunity, whereaspollution licences are subject to regular reviewand adjustment. Moreover, if environmentalimpact statements for logging in State forestsbecome less frequent after the RFA is completed,then the Environmental Planning and AssessmentAct channel for public participation will beclosed, although the gap may be filled byadequate provision for public comment during thestrategic management planning process.

The fact, however, that there may in somecircumstances be no legal requirement for publicparticipation in decision-making processesrelating to specific activities in forests does not

prevent decision-makers from inviting it as amatter of practice.

Access to the Courts : Standing to SueUnder a number of pieces of legislation, anyonecan bring proceedings to remedy or restrainbreaches of particular legislation (for example,Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,Threatened Species Conservation Act). However,a broad standing provision appears in section 25of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act1989 which, although contained in legislationconcerned primarily with pollution control,applies generally to breaches of any legislationand rules made under legislation which cause orare likely to cause harm to the environment.Under this provision, it must be shown that thereis at least a threat of ‘harm to the environment’. Inpractice, however, this will not present a majorobstacle because ‘harm to the environment’ isdefined very broadly. In addition, the leave(permission) of the Land and Environment Courtmust be obtained. Before granting this, the Courtmust be satisfied that (EOPA s.25(3)):

■ the proceedings are not an abuse of the processof the Court;

■ the proceedings are in the public interest; and

■ there is a real or significant likelihood that therequirements for the making of an order willbe satisfied.

As this decision is made by the court,inappropriate obstacles do not appear to be in theway of proceedings. However, under the currentprovision, unlike specific provisions in otherlegislation, there is no power to make an orderremedying, as distinct from restraining, breaches.

Recommendation 4.1: Section 25 of theEnvironmental Offences and Penalties Actshould be amended so as to allow an order tobe made requiring remediation of unlawfulactivity.

Stakeholder Representation in Decision-Making ProcessesExhibition and comment provisions only requirethat comments be taken into account, not that theybe necessarily incorporated in decisions.Stakeholder misunderstanding of this position hasled to increasing dissatisfaction with exhibitionand comment provisions. In its search for analternative, the Department of Land and WaterConservation and State Forests have turnedincreasingly to another model of public


26 March 20014

participation which allows stakeholderrepresentatives to participate at an early stage inthe decision-making process, with the aim ofachieving negotiated outcomes, while still leavingthe final decision on whether to approve astrategic plan with the Minister. This is theapproach taken under the Native VegetationConservation Act, where regional vegetationcommittees will play a major role.

However, this approach may give rise to concernsabout the representativeness of the stakeholdersinvited to participate.

The Native Vegetation Conservation Act aims toachieve a balance between conservation and ruralinterests on Regional Vegetation Committees(RVCs) by including two representatives to benominated by the New South Wales FarmersAssociation. However, it has been suggested thata relatively small proportion of rural ratepayersare members of the New South Wales FarmersAssociation. One alternative would be to includeelected rural representatives on Rural LandsProtection Boards (RLPBs) on RVCs. They aredemocratically elected by all ratepayers, theBoards have existing responsibility formanagement of 2.7 per cent of the State’s landarea and a higher proportion of vegetationremnants on rural areas, and many Rural LandProtection Boards have established relationshipswith landcare groups, pest and weed controlauthorities, and roadside vegetation conservationgroups.

There are lessons to be learnt from experiencewith Catchment Management Committees andTrusts. Under the Catchment Management Act1989, Committees and Trusts must comprise amajority of landholders or land users in the area,in addition to representatives from those havingan interest in environmental matters, localgovernment and officers of governmentdepartments responsible for resource use andmanagement. The requirement for a majority oflandholders is widely regarded as havingundermined the credibility of CatchmentManagement Committees in the eyes of somegroups, and led to their increasing marginalisationwhen it comes to allocation of critical decision-making responsibilities.

Apart from the question of representativeness,there is some concern that community-basedconsultation at the local community level will notgive adequate attention to the limits placed ondevelopment by the biophysical environment,particularly the need to conserve biodiversity, but

will place much greater weight on socio-economicconsiderations.

Recommendation 4.2: The expert workinggroup acknowledges the benefits of directstakeholder participation in negotiatedoutcomes. The opportunity for publiccomment in decision-making processesshould be focussed at the strategic planninglevel, for example:

• environmental planning instruments(including regional vegetationmanagement plans);

• strategic management area plans(including both forest and parkmanagement plans); and

• cross-tenure threat abatement andspecies recovery plans.

Greater attention should be given toensuring that those nominated tomembership of consultation committeesadequately represent stakeholder interest.

Regional managers should negotiate withAboriginal groups on the most appropriateways for them to contribute to theformulation of strategic plans.

Opportunities for public participation at otherlevels should be confined to situations wherethere is likely to be a significant effect on theenvironment and where decision-makingprocesses have not been properlyimplemented.

In order to facilitate the regional forestagreement process and forest managementafter agreements are negotiated, ongoingformal processes (such as regional forestforums) need to be strengthened to raiseawareness and understanding of ecologicallysustainable forest management and how itcan be achieved in New South Wales forests.

REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES

Getting the Right Balance

Ecologically sustainable forest managementPrinciple 3 requires that governments ensure thatlegislation, policies, institutional framework,codes, standards and practices related to forestmanagement require and provide incentives forecologically sustainable management of the nativeforest estate. This raises the crucial issue of theappropriate balance between carrot and stick –between economic instruments and command andcontrol regulation.

The reluctance to confront this issue at a policylevel is a recurring theme in broad policy

26 March 20015

statements, resulting in an ad hoc, poorlycoordinated approach across legislation.

The National Forest Policy Statement 1992 adoptsthe kitchen-sink approach, providing thatstrategies available for use by the States inachieving ESFM:

...may involve controls over land clearingand/or land use covenants betweenlandowners and Government or mechanismsto encourage retention of native vegetation.This may include legislatively backedcontrols (p 27).

Similarly, the National Strategy for theConservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity1996, gives no clear lead to jurisdictions as to theappropriate balance between regulation on the onehand, and approaches based on incentive andagreement on the other, in seeking to induceprivate landholders to manage their land in amanner which is sympathetic to biodiversityconservation. There is a commitment tonegotiating heritage agreements (para 1.5.1), andcommitment to ‘controlling broad-scale clearance’(3.2.2).

The most recent version of the Joint ANZECC-MCFFA NFPS Implementation Subcommittee(JANIS) document on the CAR reserve system(JANIS 1997) makes no mention of regulatoryapproaches and emphasises ‘the development ofincentives for the establishment of mechanisms toensure protection, such as covenants on leaseholdand freehold lands’ (para 4.2). The reality is,however, that strategies which rest on voluntarycooperation will not provide a viable alternative toland-use regulation, including clearing controls,unless significant financial resources arecommitted.

There should be clear acknowledgment of thelimitations of different strategies. In the absenceof accompanying incentives, regulatory strategiesmay only serve to alienate landholders, and causeconsternation in agencies which have no lawenforcement tradition. On the other hand,strategies based on voluntary agreement may notencourage cooperation from particular landholdersbecause the incentives offered are not sufficientlyattractive. Where ecologically sustainable forestmanagement requires significant restrictions onproductive use of land, one approach would be tocombine land-use regulation with the provision ofincentives for active management of the land.

Regulatory Failure?

There are extensive provisions in New SouthWales law to regulate private and public land usein the interests of biodiversity conservation andland and water conservation, thereby putting inplace requirements. At the same time there issubstantial evidence of failure in implementation,at least insofar as conservation on private land isconcerned.

In the first place, command and control regulationrarely, if ever, completely prohibits activities. Itnearly always provides for exceptions toprohibitions to be made on a case-by-case basisthrough licensing, consent, permit, etc. processes.As a result, decisions are simply delegated todecision-makers who make decisions on themerits of particular proposals in light of thefactors spelt out in ecologically sustainable forestmanagement Principle 1. There is nothing in theexisting legislation or practices of the courts toguarantee that these factors will in any sense begiven even equal weight: what weight they aregiven will depend on the values of the particulardecision-maker.

Secondly, regulatory approaches which requireprivate landholders to act against what they arelikely to see as being in their economic interestsdepend substantially on vigorous enforcement fortheir effectiveness. In practice, there is evidenceon the part of some government agencies of afailure of will at this level. Quite apart from this,agencies simply do not have the resources topursue such a policy. Enforcement ofenvironmental criminal law by specialist agenciesis in practice fundamentally different from theenforcement of other areas of criminal law by thepolice.

These comments should not be taken as endorsingthe use of command and control regulation ofprivate landholders, but simply as pointing to thefundamental divergence between the law as itappears in Acts of Parliament and as it isadministered on the ground. Legislation raisesunrealistic expectations on the part of thecommunity which are undermined in day-to-dayadministration. This leads to a lack oftransparency. The question that needs to beanswered is whether any function is served bylegislation for which there is no commitment toenforce. If the function of particular legislation isessentially symbolic, then this should be madeclear to the community.

One way of dealing with this question is theissuing by agencies of prosecution guidelines,


26 March 20016

such as those issued by the EnvironmentProtection Authority (EPA ProsecutionGuidelines, August 1996).

Where prosecutions can be undertaken throughmore than one piece of legislation by more thanone body (for example, The Native VegetationConservation Act and the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act), there are no clear lines ofresponsibility.

Some agencies clearly feel uncomfortable withtheir law enforcement role in relation to privatelandholders. There is necessarily a tension withinthose agencies whose cultures are based oncooperation rather than confrontation: for examplethe extension arm of what used to be the SoilConservation Service and the role of the NationalParks and Wildlife Service as park manager, asdistinct from off-park enforcer.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has thepower under the Threatened Species ConservationAct to nominate particular ‘routine agriculturalactivities’, ordinarily exempt from the regulatoryprovisions of the legislation and to subject them toregulation. However, recent preliminary proposalsby the Service to regulate commercial bush-rockremoval, commercial dead timber removal,activities interfering with water flows to wetlandsand pesticide and herbicide application on privateland met with such hostility in communityconsultation exercises that the Service has decidedthat it would be preferable to pursue aneducational and incentive-based strategy ratherthan relying on regulation. In fact, bush-rock anddead timber removal almost certainly do not fallwithin the definition of routine agriculturalactivities, and as a result they are prohibited,unless licensed, where removal would causedamage to the habitat of a threatened species(National Parks and Wildlife Act s118D). There isa clear tension here between the formalpronouncement in the legislation, the expectationsthat this creates in certain section of thecommunity, and the enforcement policy pursuedby the particular agency.

Recommendation 4.3: Legislation shouldprovide clearer guidance to enforcementagencies on the implementation of regulatoryrequirements. See, for example, SoilConservation and Land Care Act 1989, s29(1)(c) (SA), which provides that one of thefunctions of a soil conservation board is to‘implement and enforce this Act within itsdistrict and to endeavour to do so as far as

possible on the basis of first seeking the co-operation of owners of land within the district’

The Need for Incentives

Government needs to give careful thought to theappropriateness of using sticks withoutaccompanying carrots, particularly where theactivities of rural landholders are concerned.Enactment of symbolically impressive legislationis inexpensive and may serve short-term politicalinterests, but it is unlikely to achieve ecologicallysustainable forest management unless it isaccompanied by incentives, particularly in areaswhere its effect is to substantially restrictdevelopment on land in private ownership. Thereality is that regulatory strategies which requirethe auditing of compliance across large areas ofrural land in small communities which are notconvinced of the benefits of regulation areunlikely to succeed. The danger is that suchstrategies will alienate rural landholders in acontext where conservation cannot be achievedsimply by imposing restrictions on land use.Biodiversity conservation requires activemanagement of the land. Regardless of whethercommand and control regulation is effective inrestricting land use in the interests ofconservation, it is certainly of limited utility whenit comes to persuading private landholders tocarry out positive management activities, asdistinct from restricting land uses.

It is cheap but inefficient to set up command andcontrol regulatory regimes relating to private land.In practice, these are substantially symbolicbecause inadequate resources are devoted toproviding decision-makers with backgroundinformation through the strategic planningprocess, to auditing compliance, and to providingincentives for active management. There is someevidence that this has happened in the past in NewSouth Wales.

The more recent focus on strategic planningthrough the RFA process and proposed regionalvegetation management plans, and the greateremphasis given in the Native VegetationConservation Act to funding the activemanagement of native vegetation on private land,through property agreements and the nativevegetation management fund, are encouragingdevelopments.

Incentives are particularly crucial where privatelandholders are involved, and where activemanagement is required, going beyond land userestrictions. Active management of the land, for

26 March 20017

example, for biodiversity conservation purposes,will not be achieved through command andcontrol regulation alone. The National ForestPolicy Statement committed governments to‘develop a range of incentives and programs topromote sustainable management of native forestson private land designed to ensure activemanagement of private native forests for bothecologically sustainable wood production andnature conservation’ (p 27).

Types of Incentives

Incentives can be delivered through targetedvoluntary agreements with individual landholdersor offered generally through the tax system. Anexample of the latter is found in section 75D ofthe Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This allowsan income tax deduction in the year ofexpenditure for the capital cost of operationsdesigned, among other things, to prevent landdegradation on areas not currently affected. Landdegradation includes the degradation of naturalvegetation. This would allow a deduction to beclaimed, for example, for the erection of fences toexclude stock and pests from particular areas. Theapproach taken in section 75D is designed todeliver land conservation as distinct frombiodiversity conservation. Apart from this, thegeneral offer of incentives through the tax systemdoes not permit the more careful targetingrequired where biodiversity conservation is theobjective. A review of section 75D in 1994-5 waspromised in the National Forest Policy Statement,but does not appear to have taken place.

Recommendation 4.4: Section 75D of theIncome Tax Assessment Act should bereviewed as a matter of urgency, with a view tomaking it more sensitive to the needs ofecologically sustainable forest management.

Individual agreements between landholders andgovernment represent a more carefully targetedapproach. Under the Soil Conservation Act 1938,the Minister for Land and Water Conservation canmake advances to landowners to enable them tocarry out works ‘necessary to ensure theconservation of the soil of those lands, themitigation of erosion or the conservation of waterresources’. This narrow conception of landdegradation would not allow advances to be madefor biodiversity conservation. Apart from this,advances must be repaid with interest.

Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act’ssection 69B, the Minister for the Environment canenter into Voluntary Conservation Agreements

with landholders for a wide range of natureconservation purposes. In return for thelandholder agreeing, for example, to restrict landuse, refraining from carrying out certain activitiesor agreeing to carry out specified activities, theMinister can provide assistance and technicaladvice, including financial assistance. Recentamendments to the Local Government Act 1993exempt land under conservation agreement fromlocal government rates.

Conservation agreements run with the land, in thesense that they bind those who purchase the landin the future (National Parks and Wildlife Actss69E). In practice, however, relatively fewagreements have been reached. An importantfactor here has been the lack of resourcesavailable to the National Parks and WildlifeService to negotiate these agreements, and toprovide even the minimal inducements requiredby landholders who have a commitment to natureconservation. The expert working group was toldthat there were eleven expressions of interest inentering into conservation agreements in the Edenarea, but only sufficient resources to process twoeach year. One difficulty with reliance onVoluntary Conservation Agreements is that theymay not reflect the Service’s priority areas forland acquisition. Management and pursuit ofVoluntary Conservation Agreements in areas oflow conservation significance may not be anappropriate use of valuable conservationresources.

Under the Native Vegetation Management Act,money may be allocated from the NativeVegetation Management Fund to provide financialassistance to landholders who are prepared toenter into voluntary Property Agreements (PAs)which identify protected areas of vegetation andagreed methods and practices of vegetationmanagement. PAs will run with the land, so as tobind successors in title if they are registered.There is no clear indication, however, of preciselywhat form the financial assistance will take. Interms of attractiveness to landholders, forexample, there is a big difference betweenpayments for fencing to protect sensitive areasand stewardship payments for active management.

In addition, there is no commitment to providingincentives to all of those who are restrained fromclearing native vegetation under the provisions ofa regional vegetation management plan, anddenial of development consent. A commitment toprovide management incentives to all thoserestrained from clearing and prepared to enter intoa Property Agreement would draw a close


26 March 20018

connection between carrot and stick, and avoidperceptions of unfairness, while still making itclear that incentives were for active management,and not paid as compensation.

Removing Disincentives

When we turn from conservation forests onprivate land to production forests, the marketalready supplies significant incentives. In thiscontext, a crucial issue is the removal ofdisincentives which discourage ecologicallysustainable forest management practices. TheNational Forest Policy Statement (p 27)recognises that the removal of disincentives canitself provide effective incentives.

The Industry Commission has found evidence of anumber of disincentives to growing trees fortimber production. Consequently, ‘decisions onvegetation management by agricultural andpastoral landholders are being driven primarily bythe potential to increase returns by expandinggrazing and conventional cropping activities’(Industry Commission, Inquiry into EcologicallySustainable Land Management, Draft Report,Chapter 12). The disincentives listed include:

■ the absence of a separate tenure for treesgrowing on land which would allow them to besold independently from the land;

■ potential double taxation of forestry profits;

■ uncertainty about rights to harvest, stemmingfrom changing environmental considerations;and

■ pricing policies of Government forestryagencies, which may result in prices chargednot reflecting the costs of supply.

Note, in relation to the third of these points, that inNew South Wales, special legislation, the TimberPlantations (Harvest Guarantee) Act 1995, hasbeen enacted to give greater security in relation toharvesting rights to owners and managers oftimber plantations which have been accredited,but this does not apply to non-plantation nativeforests managed for wood production on privateland. In relation to the second point, the NationalForest Policy Statement committed theCommonwealth Government to a comprehensivepublic ruling by the Australian Tax Officeclarifying the taxation treatment of native forestsand plantations used for commercial woodproduction.

Recommendation 4.5: The finalrecommendations of the Industries

Commission relating to the removal ofdisincentives to private forestry should bereviewed with a view to their immediateimplementation.

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

The precautionary principle provides the primaryincentive for survey and research to removeuncertainty from impact assessment andmitigation. The precautionary principle hasparticular relevance:

■ where surveys for identification of threatenedspecies, populations and communities affectedby activities have been inadequate;

■ where scientific knowledge is unable to predictthe magnitude and importance of impacts;

■ when setting minimum targets for reservationand retention to ensure long term viability; and

■ when setting codes of practice to amelioratepoorly known impacts.

Commonwealth and State Governments havemade much of the precautionary principle as oneof the key principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment. It has appeared in a number ofbroad policy statements, in particular, the NationalStrategy for Ecologically SustainableDevelopment (1992, p 8) and the NationalStrategy for the Conservation of Australia’sBiological Diversity (1995, p 5). It also appears inthe Intergovernmental Agreement on theEnvironment (IGAE) (para 3.5.1) and the NationalForest Policy Statement. Two pieces ofCommonwealth legislation specifically embracethe precautionary principle, including the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, whichrequires management plans to be informed by theprinciple (s 39Z(1)(b)). A number of othersincorporate a general reference to the concept ofecologically sustainable development in, forexample, provisions delineating the objects oflegislation or objectives/functions of governmentagencies. This includes the Endangered SpeciesProtection Act 1992 (ss 32(3)(c), 34(3)(c), 60, 70,81) which requires it to be considered in relationto the making of recovery plans, threat abatementplans, interim conservation orders, permanentconservation orders and impact assessmentconservation orders.

The precautionary principle is now specificallyincorporated into a number of pieces of NewSouth Wales legislation, including the objectssections of the Environmental Planning and

26 March 20019

Assessment Act and the Native VegetationConservation Act. Much of this is by cross-reference to the provisions of the Protection of theEnvironment Administration Act 1991 (NSW).This provides that, in pursuing its objective ofprotecting, restoring and enhancing the quality ofthe environment of New South Wales, theEnvironment Protection Authority (EPA) must‘have regard to the need to maintain ecologicallysustainable development’. The precautionaryprinciple is one of the principles which can assistin the achievement of ecologically sustainabledevelopment. It is defined as follows:

[I]f there are threats of serious or irreversibleenvironmental damage, lack of full scientificcertainty should not be used as a reason forpostponing measures to preventenvironmental degradation.

Although the Environment Protection Authorityhas traditionally been principally concerned withissues of pollution control and waste disposal, itdoes have a broad brief, and this is reflected in itsmore recent involvement in the protection ofinstream flows and the licensing of logging inState forests in relation to water pollution.Moreover, the Environment Protection Authorityhas broad powers to become involved in theactivities of other agencies. Under section 12 ofthe Protection of the Environment AdministrationAct it can ultimately issue directions to publicauthorities and local councils to do anythingwithin their powers which will contribute toenvironment protection or to cease doing anythingwhich adversely affects environment protection.Environment protection includes activities aimedat protecting, restoring and enhancing the qualityof the New South Wales environment, havingregard to the need to maintain ecologicallysustainable development. This would allow theEnvironment Protection Authority to issuedirections relating to the application of theprecautionary principle.

A version of the precautionary principle alsoappears in Schedule 2 of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Regulation 1994, but itis directed to those responsible for submittingenvironmental impact statements rather than tothose making decisions on whether to giveapproval after considering environmental impactstatements. See also the National Parks andWildlife Act, s 91CC(2)(b) (appeals against stopwork orders); Timber Industry (InterimProtection) Act 1992, ss 4, 10(1) (strategies forpromoting ecologically sustainable developmentin relation to logging operations).

There is still a considerable amount of uncertaintyabout the precise meaning of the precautionaryprinciple in the context of biodiversityconservation, as distinct from pollution preventionand control where it has received most attention.In that context, the issue has frequently beenwhether measures should be taken againstenvironmental degradation allegedly caused byongoing activities, whereas in the biodiversitycontext much of the damaging impact is likely tocome at the very beginning of proposed projectsand is likely to be irreversible.

One matter which is clear is that the version of theprecautionary principle which appears in thelegislation does not give priority to conservationconsiderations over socio-economicconsiderations in situations where there is noscientific certainty.

In Leatch v National Parks and Wildlife Service((1993) 81 LGERA 270), Stein J’s adoption of aprecautionary approach led him, on appeal, tooverturn a decision of the National Parks andWildlife Service to grant a licence to ‘take’endangered species by destroying habitat to builda bypass. He believed that one permissibleapproach is to conclude that the state ofknowledge is such that one should not grant alicence . . . until much more is known (at 284). Hemade it clear, however, that the decision could bereconsidered once adequate research into thepresence of the Giant Burrowing Frog had beencarried out.

In Greenpeace Australia Ltd. v Redbank PowerCompany Pty Ltd. ((1995) 86 LGERA 143),Pearlman CJ operated on the assumption that theprecautionary principle was a relevant factor to beconsidered by the Land and Environment Court indetermining a third party appeal on the meritsagainst a decision by a local council to givedevelopment consent to designated developmentin the form of a power station which used coalwashery tailing as a fuel. This decision issignificant from the perspective of biodiversityconservation because a number of majorinitiatives in this context rely on the developmentconsent process set up under the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act for their regulatorymuscle, for example, the Native VegetationConservation Act.

Pearlman CJ in the Greenpeace case stated (at154-155):

The application of the precautionary principledictates that a cautious approach should beadopted in evaluating the various relevant


26 March 200110

factors in determining whether or not to grantconsent; it does not require that thegreenhouse issue should outweigh all otherissues. . . [It] should not outweigh all otherfactors relevant to a determination of whetheror not to grant consent, but must be takeninto account in the Court's overall assessmentof the project.

The legislation under consideration in the Leatchcase has now been amended by the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act. However, theseamendments specifically incorporate theprecautionary principle into decision-makingprocesses. In deciding whether or not to licencedamage to the habitat of an endangered species,population or ecological community or to giveconcurrence to other approvals where herconcurrence is required, the Director-General ofNational Parks and Wildlife is instructed to takeinto account the principles of ecologicallysustainable development, including theprecautionary principle. The approach taken hereis the same as that taken by Pearlman CJ: theprecautionary principle is simply a factor to beconsidered alongside a number of other factors,including social and economic considerations.

The issue is, however, whether the principle issimply something to be taken into account, andperhaps overridden in the context of a particularproposal by pressing economic considerations, orwhether it is a special approach to makingdecisions.

Two of the regulatory agencies interviewedspecifically indicated that they applied theprecautionary principle in the regulatory decision-making process: the Department of Land andWater Conservation and the EnvironmentProtection Authority. In particular, theEnvironment Protection Authority indicated that itapplied the principle when making decisionsabout the grant of pollution licences indetermining areas where available evidencesuggested that there was a high risk of erosion,and in determining management protocols inmedium risk areas.

Questions which arise include:

■ How should decision-makers deal withproposed activities where there is no scientificevidence of likely impact, for example, theeffect of fire on a particular species of plant?

■ Under what circumstances, if any, should aparticular proposal be delayed while morescientific research is carried out?

■ If the precautionary principle is read asrequiring that more research should be carriedout before a decision is made, does it haveanything to say about how that research shouldbe carried out – for example, the number andtiming of surveys?

There are several well-established precautionarypractices, including the following:

■ automatic protection of habitats of rare andpoorly known species in reserves or retainedareas where development is prohibited;

■ where surveys have been inadequate,threatened species are assumed to be present ifpopulations are known from the surroundingregion (for example, within 20km), asdetermined by the National Parks and WildlifeService Wildlife Atlas records or theequivalent, and habitat present is potentiallysuitable for the species;

■ where knowledge of impacts is inadequate avariety of methods are used, most commonlythat a species will be impacted if the habitat orhabitat components on which it depends aremodified or removed (for example, if a speciesrequires tree hollows, the removal of trees withhollows will have an impact). Where theessential habitat requirements of a species arenot known (for example, foragingrequirements of many frogs affected bylogging and burning) and no expert is preparedto guess, the precautionary principle dictatesthat no disturbance of significant habitats (asdetermined on the basis of ecological andsocio-economic criteria) should be permitteduntil science or monitoring has shown that theactivity is unlikely to be harmful; and

■ minimum targets for habitat area have been setusing a variety of models designed to predictpopulation and habitat viability. Thepredictions of PVA models are generally basedon a combination of genetic theory, life historyparameters and environmental disturbance risk.These models are theoretical, unvalidated andhighly precautionary but are likely to remain inuse until more suitable viability assessmentmodels are developed.

The most appropriate way of avoiding thedifficulties of applying the precautionary principleat the operations level is through comprehensivebioregional planning, involving adequate surveyand conservation evaluation.

The creation of a CAR reserve system bypreserving viable populations of threatened

26 March 200111

species and communities in CAR reserves, whereno knowledge of response to development isrequired is precautionary.

Under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act,one argument might be that, where there is someevidence of serious or irreversible environmentalimpact on biological diversity, regional vegetationmanagement plans should defer identifying areasfor clearing until adequate information is collectedto allow the assessment of the impact onbiological diversity.

Recommendation 4.6: Guidelines be preparedfor interpretation and implementation of theprecautionary principle for the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management.

IMPLEMENTATION

INTRODUCTION

The systems and processes of forest managementin New South Wales were assessed to determinetheir ecological sustainability. The assessmentinvolved five State Government departments,State Forests of New South Wales, National Parksand Wildlife Service, Department of Land andWater Conservation, Department of Urban Affairsand Planning, and Environmental ProtectionAgency. A checklist prepared from theinformation contained in the project specificationfor the assessment of New South Walesmanagement systems and processes for thedelivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement (dated 20 August 1997 and amendedas necessary) was used to conduct the assessment.The process required discussions with executiveand departmental managers, with field, zone andarea staff and, with respect to State Forests, staffat Eden.

This chapter evaluates how the principles ofecologically sustainable forest management areapplied within the departments and thuscumulatively across the State, identifiesimpediments to their implementation and suggestsways these impediments may be overcome.

DEPARTMENTAL SITUATION

State Forests of New South Wales

State Forests’ role is primarily one of managingState forests as specified under the Forestry Act1916. Consistent with the use of State forests forthe purposes of forestry and of flora reserves forthe preservation of native flora, the Act requiresthe service to conserve and utilise the timber onCrown-timber lands to the best advantage of theState; and to preserve and improve, in accordancewith good forestry practice, the soil resources andwater catchment capabilities of those lands. Theservice must also take all practicable steps that itconsiders necessary or desirable to ensure the

preservation and enhancement of the quality ofthe environment.

In addition to complying with the Forestry Act,State Forests must also comply with legislationsuch as the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979 (EP&AA) and theThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995(TSCA).

Because of its age, the Forestry Act makes nomention of the principles of ecologicallysustainable forest management as such, but doesinclude references to soil and water conservation,good forestry practice, the preservation of nativeflora and the preservation and enhancement ofenvironmental quality. State Forests hasresponded to this legislative framework bydeveloping mission, vision and values statementsand an environmental policy. The latter contains acommitment to meeting legislative and regulatoryrequirements as well as implementing sustainableforest management. The policy mentionsbiodiversity, healthy and productive forests,heritage and cultural values, best practice andcommunication with relevant interested parties.

State Forests’ commitment to its environmentaland other statements is implemented through acorporate planning structure that identifies keyresult areas and objectives, such as ‘sustainabilityin forest management through world’s bestenvironmental practice’, and by defining ‘theforest resource available for long term sustainableforest management’. These key result areas andobjectives are supplemented by performanceindicators and, in some cases, targets.

Although these ecologically sustainable forestmanagement-related key result areas andobjectives are set out in the corporate plan, underthe current accounting system it is not possible todetermine the level of resources allocated to orexpended on their achievement. Someecologically sustainable forest management-related components can be identified at districtlevel through local accounting practices but these


26 March 2001 2

practices are not consistent across all districts.Further, government policy may make itnecessary for district offices to divert fundsallocated to ecologically sustainable activities toother legitimate purposes, thus negating to someextent corporate objectives for ecologicalsustainability. This redirection of funds may bedifficult to detect within the current accountingsystem.

Neither the corporate plan and its objectives northe environmental policy are well supported byother policy statements. For example, there are nocurrent statements relating to conservation, floraand fauna, water and soil management or theprecautionary principle, although in the latter casethis concept is defined in the Protection of theEnvironment Administration Act 1991, Section 6(2). The absence of specific policy statements onthese sustainability criteria has allowed thedevelopment of protocols and codes of practice ata functional, regional and/or district level. Theseprotocols and codes do not necessarily meet therequirements of the criteria for ecologicalsustainability, or the intent of the corporate plan,although they may reflect a practical interpretationof what is required at district level.

Discussions with State Forests staff at all levelsindicate that there is a lack of understanding of thecommon hierarchy of legislation, corporate andother policy, strategy (planning), operational andother processes, and audit and review. The linksbetween these management system componentsand the way they comply with the organisation’senvironmental policy—and through it with therelevant legislation—are also not clearlyunderstood. This lack of knowledge has led tomanagement inconsistencies throughout theorganisation. Some levels and locations havefocused on producing planning documents whileothers have produced codes of practice and stillothers manuals and instructions. These documentshave been produced in good faith and frequentlyhave been developed in the absence of clearpolicy. Thus they reflect current practice ratherthan best practice. In addition, older documentssuch as the Operations Manual, remain in use insome locations in the absence of more up-to-dateinformation.

This problem has now been recognised by seniormanagement and plans are being made tostrengthen the link between Government policyand the corporate plan. In addition, the absence ofcommon core policies and strategies on a range ofenvironmental and other issues has also beenrecognised and discussions with planning staff

have confirmed that action to rectify this problemhas begun. This action is commendable; however,the long absence of such policies or thedevelopment of policies where none existedpreviously may lead to reluctance in theworkplace to their acceptance unless the policiesare formulated in consultation with staff from alllevels in the organisation. It is also important thatsuch policies be applied consistently andsubjected to regular review.

The forest planning process has undergonenumerous changes since forests were firstidentified and maintained as an asset under theForestry Act. These changes have been introducedto meet both organisational (internal) and legal orpolitical (external) needs. The current planningprocesses can broadly be defined as occurring atthe following levels:

■ Strategic.Management at this level includes:− Area management plans, which were

prepared in the context of the Forestry Actand other Forest Commission policiesduring the mid to late 1980s to manage the67 forest areas into which the State wasdivided. These plans had an initial life of 10years but have not been reviewed since theintroduction of environmental impactstatements.

− A map-based forest classification schemewhich sets management priorities forparticular forest areas and is overlaid on thearea management plans.

■ Tactical (Operational).Management at this level could be subdividedinto:− Environmental impact statements or

assessments (EIS/EIA), to identify potentialand actual effects of proposed forest(harvesting) activities. These assessmentsare largely driven by external legislationand last for a defined period;

− Reserve, Aboriginal place and otherconservation management plans;

− Infrastructure plans associated with thedevelopment and management of roads andrecreational facilities;

− Fire planning, which deals primarily withfire prevention and suppression;

− Annual plans of operations (order ofworking) for identified compartments


26 March 2001 3

within management areas scheduled forlogging; and

− Harvesting plans to manage and controlharvesting operations within compartments.

Following the implementation of the EnvironmentPlanning and Assessment Act in 1992, acomprehensive assessment and review of thepotential and actual impacts of forest operationswas undertaken for the 14 forest areas wherelogging was scheduled to occur. This process wasmanaged by a team of State Forests personnelsupported by external consultants. During thecurrent assessment of forest management for itsecological sustainability, a review of several ofthe environmental impact statements raised duringthat period revealed that the process used to assessenvironmental impact was not well documented.It is not possible to determine how the work wasdone or to assess the effectiveness of the reviewprocess. For example, perusal of some of thepublic submissions on the Eden environmentalimpact statement indicate that the internal reviewprocess was inadequate. Records offer noindication of the rationale behind the process orwhether the same process was applied consistentlyacross all environmental impactstatement/assessment documents.

Prior to harvesting, district offices develop plansof operations based on a sustainable yield modeldeveloped by Margules in 1995. These plans aredeveloped annually and no long-term, three–fiveyear cutting plans were sighted. No procedure (thedocumented means by which policy is defined andstandardised and a systematic method ofperforming specified tasks is established) isavailable to indicate how the plans are developedor whether yield is sustainable.

The requirements of the environmental impactstatements/assessments are implemented throughthe harvest plan. Harvest plans are developed inaccordance with Operational Circular 95/1 whichrefers to relevant legislation and the relevantenvironmental impact statement. Harvest planscall up relevant operating codes of practice,licence conditions (such as those associated withpollution control), and any other specialrequirements. The current edition of theoperational circular does not refer to theThreatened Species Conservation Act but doesrefer to earlier similar legislation. The circular iscomprehensive and calls for a mandatory fieldinspection to verify and refine the data. Harvestplans are also subject to public comment throughthe Harvest Advisory Board and some plans are

subject to a review by the Environment ProtectionAuthority and the National Parks and WildlifeService prior to implementation.

Licenced contractors (providers of raw materials,intermediate processing, equipment or services,etc.) undertake the logging. Their conditions ofcontract refer them to the harvest plan, StateForests’ codes of practice and licence conditions.In accordance with the code of practice,contractors are also required to report anypollution they cause or encounter. Contractors’staff are required to be licenced for particulartasks and it is the responsibility of the supervisingforester to ensure compliance.

No comprehensive approach to monitoring andmeasurement was apparent from a perusal ofsome harvest and management plans. Forexample, three-yearly and other managementreports examined are of a very general nature anddo not provide a specific assurance that licencesor other conditions are being complied with.Further, there is no indication that harvest plansreflect changes that have occurred since theenvironmental impact assessment was completedor that changes in work practices are subject toformal review to determine whether they alterexisting impacts or cause new impacts thatwarrant further protection measures andamendments to the plans.

Some monitoring and measuring is evidenced byharvesting inspection reports. However thereliability of these reports is suspect. For example,Section 2 Soil and Water Protection, 2., the term‘machinery encroachment’ as written implies thata ‘Yes’ in the appropriate column means thatencroachment has occurred whereas the checklistnotes (Forest Practices Guidance Note 96/2) isworded so that a ‘Yes’ answer indicates thatencroachment has not occurred.

Confirmation that legislative requirements orconditions of environmental impact statementdeterminations are being met is not readilyevident and the identification of non-conformancewith licence conditions or other regulations is notwell controlled. Although it is evident thatincidents of non-conformance are identified, theyare not always documented and thus it is notpossible to determine whether corrective and/orpreventive action had been taken or was effective.

With respect to the five principles of ecologicallysustainable forest management, State Forests isnot able to document that it is meeting therequirements of sustainable development asdefined in its corporate plan, or that conditions of


26 March 2001 4

environmental impact statement determinationsare being achieved. Principles 1 and 4 areaddressed to some extent in the 14 environmentalimpact statements, Principle 2 is addressedthrough legislative requirements and is alsoevident through State Forests’ externalcommunications activities, Principle 3 isaddressed through legislative requirements andPrinciple 5 is outlined in the various codes ofoperating practice developed and promulgated byState Forests.

State Forests is a traditional organisation with asignificant number of long-serving staff who havemade forestry their life. This has led to a highlevel of regional/district autonomy and untilrecently has meant that the organisation wasoperationally focused rather than policy focused.Since the early 1990s, political and legislativechanges have resulted in a more policy-drivenorganisation, a change that is reflected incorporate plans, more detailed planning, greaterpublic consultation, the development of codes ofpractice and the conduct of internal audits.Despite these changes, the organisation is stilllargely reliant on the knowledge and experienceof its employees, especially those in the field.Unless an effective environmental managementsystem is put in place, State Forests will continueto be unable to demonstrate its ability to meet itsown environmental policy.

National Parks and Wildlife Service

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has botha regulatory and managerial role under thelegislation that it administers. This legislation iscontained in the National Parks and Wildlife Act1974, Wilderness Act 1987, and ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act 1995. The service alsohas a role under the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979.

The Acts the service administers make noreference to the five principles of ecologicallysustainable forest management referred to earlier .However the Threatened Species ConservationAct and the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act do go some way towardsaddressing the principles. These Acts both refer toecologically sustainable development.

The service has responded to its legislative andmanagerial responsibilities by developing amission statement, which is:

Working with the community to conserveand foster appreciation of nature, Aboriginal

heritage and historic heritage in New SouthWales.

The mission is being implemented through thedevelopment of a corporate plan that has five keyprogram areas, as follows:

■ Conservation policy, assessment and planning

− Policy

− Resource assessment and planning

− Research survey and information

■ Protection of conservation assets

− Nature conservation

− Aboriginal heritage conservation

− Historic heritage conservation

■ Promotion of conservation

− Park facilities and services

− Community relations and educationprograms

■ Regional park management

− Regional park management

■ Service wide support and development

− Government liaison

− Finance and business coordination

− Managing for performance.

The definition of terms such as biodiversity,nature conservation and ecologically sustainabledevelopment in the corporate plan are notnecessarily aligned with definitions of the sameterms in other documents.

The key program areas are supported by some 57lower order objectives and targets. With respect toecologically sustainable forest management theseinclude:

■ Implement the National Biodiversity Strategythrough the development of a StateBiodiversity Strategy, March 96;

■ Providing service input into the developmentof model forestry management plans to assistin achieving ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, May 96;

■ Identifying, in consultation with otheragencies, particularly the Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning and the ResourceConservation Assessment Council, ways inwhich the service can pursue an ecosystem


26 March 2001 5

management approach to environmentalplanning and management, May 97;

■ Developing and coordinating a State-wideendangered species conservation program,including recovery planning and necessaryresearch and surveys, July 96.

The corporate plan is implemented through astrategic management cycle which aims to ensurethat the plan is funded and is subject tomonitoring and review. Examples of this appear inthe 1996 update to the corporate plan, whichreports on progress in implementing the plan.Contributions to the strategic management cyclecome from the head office functional directoratesof corporate services, policy and planning, legal,operations and technical services; from regionaland district offices in relation to park/reservemanagement; and from zones in terms ofmanaging on and off park legislativerequirements.

Corporate plan objectives are, in part, supportedby a policy framework defined in a series ofdocuments. These include a document onenvironmental planning and assessment (in draftform), which provides guidance on theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act;Threatened Species Management Circulars and aninternal Threatened Species ManagementProcedures Manual and Wilderness (draft)manuals relating to law enforcement and publicenquiries, and manuals concerning concessionsand leases. Other more internally focused manualsare available on dangerous goods, staff safety,infectious (human) diseases, staff development,contract management and human resourcemanagement.

Perusal of these manuals indicates that during thelate ‘80s to early ‘90s there was a strong focus onpolicy development, initially related to staffmanagement and associated issues. More recentdocuments reflect concern for environmentalissues such as wilderness, vertebrate pests,threatened species, etc. However a number ofmanuals written between 1989–93 may well beout of date in not reflecting subsequent policychanges. In addition, distribution and updating ofmanuals is not controlled, so the degree of useeither in the field or head office could not bedetermined.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service hasplans of management relating to those assets forwhich it is responsible. The plans sighted,including those for the Kosciusko, Lane Cove andMarramarra National Parks, and Bungonia State

Recreation Area, varied in content. The Kosciuskoplan is a comprehensive document that includesmanagement functions whereas the remainingplans are more focused documents and excludethis section. The more modern plans sightedinclude references to biodiversity, heritage values,soil erosion and water quality, and threatenedspecies in the context of ecologically sustainableforest management.

The process for developing a park or reserve planis documented in a procedure held by FieldServices Division and available on request to theindividual developing the plan. The proposed planis based on a ‘model’ that is intended to provideconsistency in the plan development process. Theinternal process by which this consistency isachieved is not well documented. An outline ofthe process is available but its existence is notpromulgated. The content of the documentcontaining this outline is not prescriptive andoffers little guidance on how to write a plan. Noverification process is evident and although plansare subject to a detailed review within FieldService Division and the results of reviews arewell documented, the process itself is not includedin the process outline.

Plans of management contain implementationobjectives but no targets. Each plan isaccompanied by a financial impact statement thatcontains details of the cost of its implementationin terms of both capital and recurrent expenditure.Plans are implemented through a district’s annualprogram. Implementation is subject to theavailability of both funding and staff. Thereappears to be no requirement within specificplans or the ’model’ plan to monitor or reportcompliance either with the implementationprocess or with the content of the plan. Theprocess includes public involvement in thedevelopment of the plan and also publicexhibition of the plan prior to seeking ministerialapproval and adopting the plan.

Concern with the current planning process isevident within the service and a review has beeninitiated with the objective of improving theprocess. A project brief has been prepared and thereview is in progress. The elements of the revieware wide ranging and include such requirements asbenchmarking current practices in other States,public involvement in plan preparation, assessingthe effectiveness of the public exhibition process,and plan content. However, the process does notappear to include an examination of the planningprocess itself in terms of documenting andmanaging the process, financing the plan and


26 March 2001 6

monitoring the plan’s effectiveness as both a shortand long term instrument in park/reservemanagement.

A review of head office policies and manuals didnot reveal a risk assessment policy or strategy.Discussions with regional staff indicated that risksassociated with fire or pest management areevaluated from historical information, and are notconsistent between region/districts. TheThreatened Species Conservation Act containssome consideration of risk assessment in terms ofidentifying threatening processes.

Discussion with staff confirmed that with respectto ecologically sustainable forest managementthere is little direct evidence to demonstrate thatthe service is implementing ecologicallysustainable development. Staff stated that suchimplementation is executed as a matter of coursein the their approach to park/reserve management.As evidence of this commitment, staff citedcompliance with the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act and the Environmental Planningand Assessment Act with respect to firemanagement (through the development of a firemanagement protocol), the issues addressed in theplans of management for parks/reserves, thedevelopment and use of survey design protocolsfor pre-logging and pre-roading, and a jointlydeveloped conservation protocol for timberharvesting on State forests land.

To demonstrate compliance with the principles ofecologically sustainable forest management orecologically sustainable development it isnecessary to demonstrate the level of expenditurecommitted to achieving such an outcome. Suchinformation would allow a value judgement to bemade in terms of the short and long-termeffectiveness of current management strategies.Using the service’s current accounting system it isnot possible to identify accurately the fundsallocated or expended on the maintenance ofecologically sustainable development or its keycomponents. The service is purchasing an assetmanagement system which may enable it to betteridentify such funds.

Under the current organisational structure, zonesmanage the on and off-park regulatoryrequirements administered by the National Parksand Wildlife Service. Zones receive andimplement assessments and species impactstatements under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act and issue Section 90 consents asrequired. In these circumstances the service isrequired to take into account the precautionary

principle and the principles of ecologicallysustainable development. These activities areperformed in accordance with the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act and manual and theThreatened Species Conservation Act Manual.

With respect to the principles of ecologicallysustainable forest management, the National Parksand Wildlife Service is not able to documenteffectively that it is managing the forests in anecologically sustainable fashion. .

Despite identifying biodiversity, natural andcultural heritage values, soil and water andecosystem health and vitality as significant issues,these aspects are not monitored in a way thatdemonstrates managerial compliance withPrinciple 1. With respect to Principle 2, theservice is largely governed by regulatoryprocesses; compliance with those processes, andtherefore with Principle 2, can be demonstrated.In the same manner, the service can exhibit somecompliance with Principle 3, as a result ofcompliance with regulatory requirements and withpart of Principle 4, again in terms of compliancewith the Environmental Planning and AssessmentAct and the Threatened Species Conservation Act.Compliance with Principle 5 is hard to determineand there is no indication that this principle isactively considered by the service.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service is anorganisation with a strong corporate policy focussupported by plans of management at park/reservelevel. The organisation is sustained by competentand experienced staff. However the relianceplaced on the knowledge of these staff, coupledwith an absence of documented procedures tomanage critical processes—including themonitoring of effectiveness and performance—leave the service vulnerable, as it would be unableto demonstrate compliance with particular legal orother requirements either to the courts or in thepublic domain should it be necessary to do so.

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

The principal Act administered by the Departmentof Urban Affairs and Planning is TheEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act1997. This Act contains three principle objectives,one of which has seven parts which could beconsidered at a broad level to encompass theprinciples of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

In its corporate policy statement the departmentdefines it role as follows:


26 March 2001 7

To set the environmental planning frameworkfor NSW and to plan, develop and implementenvironmental housing and urban and ruralpolicies and practices that promote thesustainable management and use of land andother resources.

The department is composed of five divisions thatreflect those of its functions that are directlyrelevant to this study namely, State and regionalplanning, housing and metropolitan,environmental policy and assessment, corporatemanagement and resource and conservation. It hasother functions but these are not directly relevantto this study.

The corporate plan contains a series of goals,outcomes and key actions that are intended toencompass the objectives contained in the Act;however, the alignment of these aspects of thecorporate plan with each ecologically sustainableforest management principle is not explicit. Thecorporate plan is also broadly linked to the annualbudget based on funding bids for key action itemsand varies from year to year in the weighting itgives to the specific objectives of the Act.

The objectives in the Act are implemented by arange of mechanisms, including policies,environmental planning instruments (such as localand regional environmental plans and StateEnvironmental Planning Policies[SEPPs]),directions under Section 117, strategies,management plans, environmental assessment andco-ordination, and liaison/negotiation processeswith stakeholders.

The Act and associated regulations define theprocesses for plan preparation and environmentalimpact assessment. However, no associatedprocedures setting out the process to be followedin decision making were sighted. For example,while the process for reviewing the environmentalimpact statements prepared by State Forests wasdescribed effectively (Schedule 2 of theRegulations and Directors General’srequirements), there was no documentedprocedure available to indicate that reviews couldbe performed with consistency.

In situations where the Minister or the departmentis the consent authority for development, nosystematic audit process takes place to ensureeither compliance with the requirements of theAct or the effectiveness of the outcome exceptwith respect to SEPP (State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy) 34, where consent conditionsissued under Part 4 of the Act have been audited.In all other cases, reliance is placed on members

of the public or other environmental interestgroups for ensuring that consent requirements arebeing met. Approvals under Part 5 of the Act aremade to the determining authority, which in themain is State Forests, and it is that organisation’schoice as to whether the approach is implemented.

The department may prepare environmentalplanning instruments for controlling development,protecting the environment or for conservationpurposes under Part 3 of the Act. These mayinclude local, regional or State environmentalplans or policies. Guidance material is availablefor the preparation of local environmental plans,e.g. best practice notes and circulars to Councils,and environmental planning instruments (EPIs)are prepared in accordance with processes set outin the Act.

Local environmental plans generally provide theframework for development in local governmentareas and as a requirement under the Act must bereviewed by Council. The Act also requires thedepartment to undertake regular and periodicreview of regional environmental plans and Stateenvironmental planning policies. However, thereview period is not nominated and even when areview is commenced it may take years tocomplete. Regional environment plans aregenerally only reviewed in changedcircumstances. Ministerial consent of local andregional plans is required and the form, contentand structure of regional plans and Stateenvironmental planning policies are alsodetermined by the Minister. The departmentassesses local environmental plans for consistencywith State regional planning policies for theMinister’s consideration when deciding whetherto make a local environmental plan. Howeveraudits of local and regional plans to gaugecompliance are not performed.

Guidelines to help various industries prepareenvironmental impact statements and undertakeenvironmental impact assessments have beenprepared. In addition, there are specific guidelinesrelating to economic effects and evaluation inenvironmental assessment and to ecologicallysustainable development in environmental impactassessments.

The objectives of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act require the provision ofopportunities for public involvement andparticipation in environmental planning andassessment. The department ensures this occurswith both statutory and non-statutory documents,although the Act only specifies details for


26 March 2001 8

statutory documents. Various communicationmechanisms are used including exhibitions,community consultation focus groups, publicmeetings and stakeholder steering committees—some of which are given statutory effect—localgovernment liaison committees, and committeesset up under Section 22 of the Act. However nopolicy was sighted regarding externalcommunication on non-statutory documents.Various mechanisms may be used to obtain publicconsent where significant issues are to beconsidered but this is not reflected in policy.

No internal communication policy was sighted;however, regular staff meetings, technical andtraining seminars and monthly executive andmanager planning policy forums are held, whichconfirm that communication is taking place. Thereis also a broad distribution of policy andprocedural documents.

An organisation chart was noted and positiondescriptions sighted although these did not assigngeneral environmental responsibility. Aninduction training program was evident and aperformance appraisal system that enables theidentification of individual training requirementshas been established. A skills developmentpackage addressing record keeping is beingdeveloped. The record keeping function iscurrently outsourced to the centralised corporateservices section.

Department of Land and WaterConservation

The Department of Land and Water Conservationwas formed in late 1995 from an amalgamation ofthe former Department of Conservation and LandManagement, Water Resources and the WaterServices Policy Division of the Department ofPublic Works. The current department administers37 major Acts, has 4000 staff spread over eightregions, and two head office locations, one inSydney and one in Parramatta.

The department has a vision statement ‘Toachieve clean, healthy and productive catchmentsfor the twenty first century’. It has not developeda corporate plan but has identified four key resultareas:

■ Information and knowledge base;

■ Security of access to resources;

■ Healthy and productive ecosystems;

■ Community awareness and responsibility fornatural resources.

Each of these key result areas is subdivided intofuture directions and key performance targets.

The department has recently revisited its visionstatement together with its purpose, strategy, corevalues and key result areas. In 1998 a newcorporate direction will be taken, together with thefull implementation of the department’srestructure.

The department is currently divided intofunctional divisions responsible for: strategicservices, regional and commercial services,natural resource management includinginformation management and technology,corporate services and a small group made up ofother functions such as internal audit, etc. At thetime of interview, no statement of responsibilitycould be located for each division and beyond thesenior management level position descriptions hadyet to be developed. Under recent changesbrought about by the department’s restructuringprocess, most of the five divisions now havedeveloped statements of responsibility for theirconstituent branches. Financial recording is to bebased on functional lines and programs whereidentified, and cannot be related to ecologicallysustainable forest management as such, except inthe case of specific programs.

As part of broader government change, thedepartment or its antecedents went through aregionalisation process in the late ‘80s and early‘90s that allowed inconsistencies to develop inboth organisational structure (different betweenregions and head office) and work methods. As aresult of these inconsistencies and the subsequentamalgamation process, the department was still ina state of significant flux at the time of interview.The recent restructure has addressed some of theinconsistencies between regions.

The department has managerial responsibilityover Crown land, which constitutes 55 per cent ofall public land in New South Wales. Some of thisland is subject to exclusive leases or non-exclusive licences. The number of leases andlicences is known but it is not possible todetermine readily the land area associated witheach of the licences/leases. The remaining land(that is, crown land not covered by leases orlicences) is made up of areas that are reserved ordedicated and managed under a trust structure;lands not claimed by others; and leased landwhere the owner has a right to purchase but hasnot exercised the option.

In terms of forest management, these lands aremanaged under the following Acts:


26 March 2001 9

■ Crown Lands Act 1989 and regulations (1995)

■ Water Administration Act 1986 and the WaterAct 1912

■ Soil Conservation Act 1938

■ Western Lands Act 1901

■ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979

■ Total Catchment Management Act 1989

■ Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997

Discussion with departmental staff revealed anabsence of policy documentation with reliancebeing placed on the Acts or associated whitepapers to set policy. A policy dossier which willprovide detailed documentation on alldepartmental policies is currently in preparation,and a standard process for the development,review and promulgation of policy documents hasbeen introduced. Departmental policies may befound in the Summary of Affairs, which ispublished annually in the Government Gazetteunder the Freedom of Information Act. Thislisting includes current strategic policies,operational policies, manuals, guidelines,strategies and management plans.

A plethora of documentation was evident, largelybased on past functions, but there was littleevidence to indicate an awareness of thedocumentation or that it is being followed. Thefollowing documents were noted during the visit:

■ Office Practice Guidelines: Crown LandManagement dated 1990. More recent andmore up-to-date copies of this three-volume setwere sighted during visits to otherdepartments.

■ Handbook of Trust Management of Reservesand Dedicated Crown Land dated 2/95.

■ Accounting Procedures Manual, part of a four-volume set, dated 1997.

■ Communication Pack, dated 1997.

■ Land Assessment Process for Crown Land inNew South Wales (Draft), dated 8/95.

Very few documents are subject to any form ofdocument control, no list of document holders wasevident and most publications sighted were notamended. Some publications contained draftmaterial which had been issued ‘informally’ whilewaiting for formal consideration. In one caserelated to environmental considerations, thissituation had pertained since 1991.

Crown Land is subject to an assessment processprior to allocation and management. A Draft LandAssessment Process for Crown Land has beendeveloped and promulgated. However,discussions with staff indicated a lack ofunderstanding of the parallel nature of therequirements of Parts 4 and 5 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act,with few if any leases or licences having beensubject to consideration of the environmentalimpacts of the proposed activity, or subject toconsideration under Part 4 of the Act as adevelopment activity. The recent development ofguidance notes in the form of memorandum mayovercome this problem.

Current licence and lease conditions are stronglycommercially oriented. Environmentalconsiderations are largely limited to compliancewith the relevant soil conservation, pollutionprevention or land clearing laws, and are scatteredthroughout the documents.

With respect to reserves and dedicated lands,plans of management may be required by theMinister and guidance material for these havebeen developed and published in the LandManagement Manual in 1993, part of which hasbeen revised and issued as Succeeding with Plansof Management, dated March 1996.

Environmental assessments for cultivation andclearing of land in the Western Division of NewSouth Wales are undertaken during the licensingprocedures. The Western Lands Act, however,does not require an assessment of the kindrequired under the Crown Lands Act. Leased landsizes are, however, far larger than those in theother areas of the State and the Mines Act allowsmining leases to be issued. No policy guidance isavailable on lease conversion.

Information on the application of the Water Actwas obtained from a guide on EnvironmentalReview under the Water Act. The majorenvironmental concern in the guide seemed to bethe amount of water extracted and how this mightaffect biodiversity and the ecosystem in general.

With respect to ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, current legislation is old andcontains or refers to some requirements but doesnot include incentives as mentioned in Principle 3.Principle 4, the precautionary principle, isallegedly applied but the process of when or howthis is done is not well documented.

The Water Act, in relation to diversion of water,on-stream storages and pumping from rivers, is


26 March 2001 10

considered largely irrelevant to forestryoperations. It may be, however, that thedepartment is not made aware of forestry workswhich require licences.

In terms of clearing native vegetation, thedepartment is also a consent authority under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act inaccordance with State Environmental PlanningPolicy No. 46.

The recently introduced Native VegetationConservation Act 1997, is intended to achieve,among other things, ecologically sustainablemanagement of forests on private land. The Actprovides for the preparation of regional vegetationmanagement plans which will be gazetted asenvironmental planning instruments under theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act. Itrepeals state environmental planning policy No 46and certain protected lands provisions in the SoilConservation Act, and it amends the WesternLands Act relating to s18DB licences and theForestry Act in respect of crown timber lands.

Departmental technical staff have a goodunderstanding of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act, but there was little documentedevidence of how the Act is taken intoconsideration in relation to forests. Thedepartment has no definition for the fifth principleof ecologically sustainable forest management,‘best practice’. It is hoped this will be corrected inthe work that is currently underway.

With respect to Principle 1, a very good draftguide for internal use was in preparationconcerning the 8-point test. The draft was subjectto good document control and well presented. Thetechnical content looked impressive but wouldrequire a technical assessment.

Perusal of reports prepared under Section 21D ofthe Soil Conservation Act did not seem consistentwith the content of the Act and wereoversimplified. Regional offices are responsiblefor ensuring compliance with leases and licences and 21D consents, but there was no evidence thisoccurred, except in response to complaints.

A number of other guides were examined,including an Environmental Review under theWater Act, Guide for Preparing Clearing orCultivation Applications, a similar one for habitatassessment, Destruction or Injuring Trees onProtected Land, Mitigation of Erosion and LandDegradation for Permanent Clearing on SEPPProtected Land, Erosion Mitigation in LoggingOperations in New South Wales, Guidelines for

Addressing Section 90(1) Environment ProtectionAuthority matters for consideration, Guidelinesfor the Rapid Assessment of EnvironmentalSignificance of Leasehold Land and for thePreparation of Interim Regional VegetationManagement Plans, and Definitions andExemptions for SEPP46.

In the course of assessing Land and WaterConservation procedures for their ability todeliver ecological sustainability of forests, thefollowing more general matters were examined:

■ Environmental policy. The department doesnot have its own environmental policy. It has,however, developed policies under TotalCatchment Management including: State TreesPolicy, State Soils Policy, State Rivers andEstuaries Policy and State Groundwater Policy.

■ Communication. The assessment found thatinternal and external communication occurred.Departmental newsletter and circulars are usedto disseminate information internally, and acommunication pack was sighted. Howeverthis document was not subject to a process ofdocument control and dealt more with pressreleases and the content of publications ratherthan communications. Public participation indecision-making processes is largely coveredby legislation.

■ Internal Audit. There is a requirement forinternal audits but no internal auditmanagement manuals governing the processwere sighted; instead, manuals from otherdepartments were used.The current three-yearaudit plan includes strategic and detailedcompliance audits. No clear risk strategyregarding audits was present; however,documentation indicated a risk strategy wasused to determine programme audits. Theassessment found that audit reports regularlyidentified a lack of policy and procedures.

■ Training. Some training is occurring but is notcompetency-based, that is, training is notaimed at achieving a particular level ofexpertise. There is an annual training plan byhuman resources management at a higher levelwith local training provided as required. Forexample, training for regional staff inunderstanding the 8-point test. Some trainingrecords were available but are retained by thetrainer and not at a central location

The Department of Land and Water Conservationis a large organisation in transition in terms bothof culture, in moving towards a more modern


26 March 2001 11

approach to quality and environmental issues, andstructurally, in trying to adjust to a new structureand broader responsibilities. It is also handicappedby having the head office split across twolocations. This organisation would benefit greatlyfrom the introduction of an environmentalmanagement system, which would provide a focusfor the organisation’s activities and establish amechanism to manage environmental issueseffectively.

Environmental Protection Authority

The Protection of the Environment AdministrationAct 1991 sets out the key objectives for theEnvironmental Protection Authority as:

To protect, restore and enhance the quality ofthe environment of New South Wales, havingregard to the need to maintain ecologicallysustainable development. To reduce the risksto human health and prevent the degradationof the environment.

The term ecologically sustainable development isdefined under the Act as:

Requiring the effective integration ofeconomic and environmental considerationsin decision making processes.

Under the Act, ecologically sustainabledevelopment is to be achieved through theimplementation of the following principles andprograms:

■ The precautionary principle—namely, that ifthere are threats of serious or irreversibleenvironmental damage, the absence ofscientific certainty about the hazard should notbe used as a reason for postponing theintroduction of measures to preventenvironmental degradation.

■ The principle of intergenerational equity—namely, that the present generation shouldensure that the health, diversity andproductivity of the environment is maintainedor enhanced for the benefit of futuregenerations.

■ Conservation of biological diversity andecological integrity.

■ Improved methods for valuing and pricingenvironmental resources.

The authority’s objective of ecologicallysustainable development is supported by acorporate plan that outlines a series of programsaimed at developing better tools for environmentalprotection, managing regional cumulative impacts

on the environment, and reducing the impact ofhuman activities on the environment. Theseprograms are subdivided into four sub-programs.One of these sub-programs, entitled primaryproduction, deals with forest issues. The programsare supported by a series of key tools andstrategies with appropriate milestones. Theassessment found no indication that budgetarytargets were aligned with the programs andstrategies.

Policies in support of the strategies or otherinitiatives generally take the form of positionpapers and/or public discussion papers. Oncecomments on such papers are received andreviewed, the papers become the basis for furtheraction. Examples of this include the existingPollution Control Licences—Justification ofLicence Concepts and Conditions dated August1995, Protection of the Environment OperationsBill 1996, Managing Urban Stormwater datedSeptember 1996, and other more generaldescriptive documents designed for publicinformation purposes.

These policies and strategies are not always wellsupported by procedures. A policy/proceduresmanual does exist but it is a collection of bothsingle-issue type documents and more generalpolicy statements/procedures. It does notsystematically provide guidance on the policyimplementation process.

With respect to forest issues the authority’s majoractivities relate to the pollution control licenceprocess and approving harvest plans.

■ The pollution control licence arose from arequest by State Forests to licence their forestharvesting, roading or burning activities.Because of the difficulty of measuringpollution, the Environment ProtectionAuthority took the view that licensingconditions should reflect those environmentalprotection measures necessary to preventpollution. To this end, current licences focuson identifying water pollution hazards andimplementing strategies by way of a code ofpractice that puts controls in place to protectagainst potential pollution. Licence conditionsalso require State Forests to monitor the waterquality outcomes of the ’best practice’management activities. The authority has inthe past conducted field assessments todetermine the level of compliance andeffectiveness of the process.


26 March 2001 12

■ Harvesting plans are inspected and approvedprior to implementation, using a desk reviewprocess.

Some pollution control licences have been auditedin the past 18-24 months. However, they were notaudited using the audit protocol developed in1995 due to other ongoing work. To some extentthis protocol has been superseded by the AuditCompliance Handbook, produced by the authorityin 1997. The assessment team was advised that acomprehensive audit protocol will be developedfor the Forestry Unit in the near future.

The assessment found no formal mechanisms forproviding feedback to licence holders followingan audit; however, the department maintains a‘conditions’ file that contains information relatingto instances were licence conditions failed toprevent pollution occurring or were not readilyunderstood by licence holders.

The Protection of the Environment OperationsBill will lead to the introduction of a revisedlicensing system based on performance and risk.This system will include a requirement not topollute but will also include ‘ best practice’guidance on measures likely to prevent pollution.Licences will only be required for those areasidentified as high risk, for example, in terms ofsoil type (stability) or land slope.

The definition of best practice within the authorityis not clear and thus the basis for environmentalprotection guidance was hard to confirm. Noestimation of the costs involved in adopting theseguidelines has been determined. An impactanalysis of the draft schedule of the authority’slicensed activities has been conducted andindicates that costs associated with this revisedlegislation would differ little from the currentsystem.

With respect to prosecutions, the authority’sguidelines for prosecution have been publishedand are available to the public.

The authority has descriptions for staff positionsand training is identified as part of theperformance assessment process.

There was no evidence of an overarchingenvironmental policy that encompasses theauthority’s approach to the management of itsinternal and external impacts. Some records of theaudits it has performed and of other activities arekept.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The Expert Working Group’s assessment ofmanagement systems and processes used in NewSouth Wales forests found that there are severalfactors which significantly impede theimplementation of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

■ Diverse and overlapping legislativerequirements;

■ Absence of a detailed definition andunderstanding of ecologically sustainableforest management;

■ Lack of a common commitment fromstakeholders to the delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management;

■ Absence of a framework within which todeliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement and monitor outcomes; and

■ Inability to identify and monitor the financialand other resources required to deliverecologically sustainable forest managementeffectively.

Each of these five issues is addressed in moredetail in the following section.

Legislative requirements

Legislative requirements for environmentalprotection within New South Wales are diverse,overlapping and unnecessarily complex. Each ofthe four departments with responsibility for forestmanagement has its own primary legislativeframework; however, they are also subject tolegislation of a broader nature that imposesadditional legislative responsibilities on them.This legislative structure is not cost effective andrequires considerable resources, not only toidentify the legislative overlap but also todemonstrate compliance with each requirement.

It may be possible to overcome this legislativeproblem and a number of alternatives have beenidentified in Chapter 2.

Definition and understanding of ESFM

Ecologically sustainable forest management is adifficult concept to understand and even moredifficult to measure. It is also complicated by itsapplication within an Australian environment andthe fact that some time may elapse before theindicators selected as the means of measuringmanagement efforts can be confirmed as


26 March 2001 13

appropriate. The absence of agreed criteriaprovides an opportunity for those interestedparties who wish to avoid implementingecologically sustainable forest management forpolitical, commercial, financial or other reasons todo so.

With respect to the environment, measuringoutcomes alone is not enough. For example, it ispossible to produce a ‘green’ product, such asrecycled paper, but to do so using processes thathave a significant detrimental effect on theenvironment. Alternatively, it is possible toproduce a product, such as chlorine-bleachedpaper, using processes that are harmful to theenvironment, but to do so in a way that is ‘bestpractice’ and minimises the impacts of theprocesses used. The net detrimental effect to theenvironment is greater from the first example thanthe second.

It may be appropriate to consider a two-foldapproach to achieving ecologically sustainableforest management, examining both process andoutcome. Given Australia’s long experience inforest management, it may be possible to identifyprocess-related indicators while awaiting thedevelopment of outcome-related indicators. Theseprocess-related indicators could be based oncurrent ‘best practice’ activities which provideproven environmental protection. These indicatorsmay take two forms: environmental performanceindicators and environmental condition indicators.Within each there would be both management andoperational performance indicators.

Environmental performance indicators would be:

■ Management performance indicators –provide information about management'sefforts to influence the environmentalperformance of the organisations operations.Such indicators relate to policy, people,practices, procedures, decisions and actions.

■ Operational performance indicators – provideinformation about the environmentalperformance of the operations of theorganisation and relate to:

− design, operation and maintenance of theorganisation’s physical facilities andequipment;

− materials, energy, products, services,wastes and emissions related to theorganisation’s physical facilities andequipment and ;

− supply of materials, energy and services tothe organisation’s physical facilities andequipment and the delivery of products,services and wastes from facilities andequipment.

■ Environmental condition indicators provideinformation about the condition of theenvironment. These are generally the type ofindicators expected to be identified and used inthe process of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

Typical process-related indicators in a forestenvironment may include:

■ Management indicators:

− number of objectives and targets achieved;

− degree of implementation of codes of forestpractice;

− degree of compliance with regulations andother requirements (including complianceby contractors);

− research and development funds applied toensuring ecologically sustainable forestmanagement;

− resources applied to support environmentalcommunity programs;

− number of forest areas with environmentalperformance reports.

■ Operational indicators

− quantity of hazardous material used inforest processes;

− quantity of energy (fuel, oil, etc.) used pertree logged;

− amount of non biodegradable wastegenerated per logged area;

− average fuel consumption of machinery andequipment per distance run or time used;

− noise measurement per site;

− quantity of sediment discharged to nearestwater course.

Appropriate process indicators, some of whichcould be common between agencies and acrossland tenures, could be developed to suit particularforest operations. Both State Forests of NewSouth Wales and National Parks and WildlifeService are currently trying to develop suchindicators and if this were done jointly across allagencies this may prove a useful mechanism to


26 March 2001 14

start the process of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement and ease the introduction of the morespecific environmental condition indicators whenthese become available.

Commitment to ESFM

To successfully manage New South Wales forestsin an ecologically sustainable manner, a strongand consistent commitment will be necessaryfrom each department involved in forestmanagement. This commitment must not onlycome in the form of financial, human and materialresources but also in term of leadership, whichwill require senior managers to take a personalinterest in the process. The responsibility forimplementing ecologically sustainable forestmanagement should remain with the most seniorexecutive officer in each department, and thesenior management group. Responsibility for day-to-day implementation can be delegated.

Because of the complexity of ecologicallysustainable forest management in terms of bothwhat it is and how it is to be achieved, asignificant commitment in terms of education willbe necessary both within the organisation andexternally. Without understanding andacceptance—which translates into ownershipwithin the organisation and externally—it isunlikely that the concept of ecologicallysustainable forest management will be accepted.Experience indicates that programs that have to berestarted consume resources in an order ofmagnitude greater than those starting for the firsttime, as it is necessary in the former situation toovercome the ‘been there done that’ syndrome.

ESFM Framework

All the organisations evaluated within thisassessment process lacked a management systemcapable of delivering ecologically sustainableforest management. Most organisations hadelements of such a system in place and in all caseshad pockets of expertise in areas such as policysetting, planning and auditing. Without aneffective management system, the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management inwhatever form it takes will be extremely difficult.Furthermore, experience indicates that withoutsuch a system the application of ecologicallysustainable management practices will beinconsistent across the organisation.

To deliver ecologically sustainable forestmanagement effectively, each organisation willhave to introduce an environmental management

system (see Key Recommendation 11). Theinternationally recognised standard for suchsystems is specified in the International StandardsOrganisation’s 14000 series of standards, ofwhich ISO 14004 specifies the components ofsuch a system and ISO 14001 specifies a set ofcore requirements that may be objectively audited.

As part of an environmental management system,each organisation would have an environmentalpolicy that would contain a commitment toecologically sustainable forest management. Thesystem would be used to deliver the organisation’spolicy and thus ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. The advantages of using such asystem over others, including an internallydeveloped system, are its international standingand the fact that it can be independently certifiedif necessary.

Resource Identification

In order to confirm the implementation ofecologically sustainable forest management withinState instrumentalities it will be necessary toidentify both the expenditure required for itsimplementation and maintenance and the fundingmade available for the purpose (see KeyRecommendation 4). The financial managementsystems currently in use in the organisationsevaluated for this report are not able to identify,except in aggregate terms at the highest level, theexpenditure associated with achievingecologically sustainable development. While itmay not be possible to identify the resources usedat the forest floor, the financial accountingsystems in place should have sufficient capabilityto provide expenditure patterns atregional/area/district/zone levels, as appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Two of the major impediments to implementingecologically sustainable forest managementexperienced by the five departments evaluated inthis assessment were in the main outside theircontrol. The problems of overlapping legislativejurisdictions and the absence of a detaileddefinition and understanding of the principles ofecologically sustainable forest management wouldhave to be resolved before the departments couldbe expected to deliver ecologically sustainableforest management.

The remaining problems associated withecologically sustainable forest management,namely departmental commitment to the concept,


26 March 2001 15

the absence of a framework within which todeliver it and the ability to monitor resourcedelivery in terms of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement are matters which each department isable to address. Of these, a commitment fromsenior management to the concept of ecologicallysustainable forest management will be necessarybefore it can be implemented and significantchanges to departmental accounting systems maybe necessary before the resources allocated toecologically sustainable forest management canbe measured effectively.

Recommendation 5.1: All New South Walesdepartments with direct forest managementresponsibility should develop and implementa recognised (and certifiable) environmentalmanagement system. Further details of therequirements for implementation of such asystem can be found in Chapter 7 andAppendix A. The environmental managementsystem is essential to ensure continualimprovement of forest management(‘adaptive’ forest management) and to permiteffective audits that demonstrate compliancewith principles and regulations forecologically sustainable forest management.

Essential components of adaptive forestmanagement that are currently poorlydeveloped and need to be strengthenedinclude performance measures that cangauge whether management is ecologicallysustainable and review processes that willlead to continual improvement in themanagement system.

The results of applying the environmentalmanagement system and the outcomes ofmanagement plans should be publiclyreported to raise community confidence thatecologically sustainable forest managementis being achieved. Regulatory complianceshould also be reported and subject toindependent validation.

26 March 2001 3

MONITORING

This chapter provides an assessment of the currentprocesses for monitoring the impacts of forestpractices on forest values, and recommendsimprovements to the monitoring process requiredfor ecologically sustainable forest management.

Where management systems and processes capableof delivering ecologically sustainable forestmanagement are in place, compliance withprescriptions, guidelines, codes, and environmentalstandards will be sufficient to ensure ecologicallysustainable forest management.

MONITORING IMPACTS OFACTIVITIES

Broad Considerations

Monitoring is the single most neglected aspect ofenvironmental management for the delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management inNew South Wales. The reasons for this includelack of mandatory legislative provisions formonitoring and reporting under the EnvironmentPlanning and Assessment Act 1974 andThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995, lack oflong-term funding commitment by government andindividual agencies, variation in levels ofcommitment by individual land managementagencies, the lack of understanding and recognitionof the problem, and the lack of cross-tenure co-ordination between agencies.

Routine monitoring is one of the most cost-effective research tools for validating andimproving impact predictions, codes of practiceand operational planning and managementprocedures. Effective monitoring requires a long-term commitment of resources, standardisedmonitoring methods and effective statistics andanalysis. It is unlikely that the expertise required todevelop effective monitoring systems could bereplicated within each land management agency.

Public Land – State ForestsMonitoring is generally neglected by forestmanagers. For example, State Forests of New SouthWales have not adopted a rigorous approach tomonitoring and measurement, or to the regularrecording of non-conformance with legislativerequirements or EIS determinations. Very littleroutine monitoring of change in soil and watervalues is currently being undertaken in New SouthWales forests. The same is generally true of theother states and in most forests world wide.

State Forests of New South Wales have now acted torectify these deficiencies through two processes:

1. control of management implementationthrough an 'Annual Management Report'which incorporates the monitoring and reviewof performance against the major objectives ofthe plan, and provides certification ofperformance according to the requirements ofthe management plan; and

2. an audit programme which has three functions:

■ to evaluate the effectiveness of key planningand operational management systems inensuring compliance with environmentalstandards, external approvals, licences anddeterminations; and to achieve consistent andreliable information on outcomes and theadequacy of internal controls;

■ to determine the level of compliance withenvironmental standards, and to examineperformance in other selected areas; and

■ to recommend cost-effective improvements tosystems.

The report at the conclusion of each auditinvestigation or review will include findings,recommendations, the management response andevaluation of the management response. The reportis to be structured to note strategically importantrisks, and any State-wide issues, as well as reportingon matters specific to the performance of particularactivities, programs or business units.


26 March 2001 4

In relation to the silvicultural strategy and provisionsof the strategic area management plan, it will beappropriate that monitoring activities focus, in thefirst instance, on the present forest condition, and theecological and historical reasons for it. For example,it will be necessary to examine the extent to whichnatural species and community patterns may havechanged with time; the extent to which effectivepost-harvest regeneration has been obtained; theproductive condition of existing growing stock – interms of the individual tree condition and standdynamic processes; the range of tree ages/sizeswithin the forest and its relationship to sustainableyields; the incidence and severity of tree decline anddieback; the extent to which the more criticalelements of wildlife habitat have been maintained(or can redevelop); and so on. Post-harvestmonitoring within each harvested area should thenexamine:

■ the productive condition of each unit of forestwhich is more or less homogeneous in respectto species composition and stand structure;

■ the extent to which full site occupancy is, orwill be achieved – including the adequacy ofregeneration (where required) in terms ofstocking, species composition, and early growthrates in relation to the intensity of site treatmentused to create a seedbed;

■ the health and vigour of the forest, includingany evidence of tree decline, the vigour of andexpression of dominance within the canopy ofeven-aged stands, and the dynamics of uneven-aged forest as expressed through the potentialof trees within different age classes to maintainvigorous growth to maturity;

■ the retention of sufficient elements of habitat(trees with hollows, diversity of food-sourcetrees, appropriate understorey) whereconservation of fauna (or potential for theirrapid recolonisation) was a stated objective ofmanagement; and

■ the condition of seedlings and saplings whichhad been planted or seeded to enrich poorlyproductive sites, and the need (if any) forrelease treatment.

Auditing is conducted against the Code of ForestPractice and the guidelines of the Pollution ControlLicence (PCL) that are designed to protect soil andwater values. Under the PCL, a limited amount ofwater quality monitoring has been initiated, but it isunclear how the findings are being evaluated andused to improve practice. Emphasis must be given todeveloping key soil and water indicators that can be

used to monitor the effects of forest management inrepresentative forested landscapes. State Forests ofNew South Wales have some research studiesexamining change in soil and water values afterlogging operations. These represent a very limitedform of monitoring, but in general there does notexist any explicit method for extrapolating findingsfrom research sites to the broader forest. The issue ofhow to extrapolate findings also applies tomonitoring and this is discussed more fully later.

An explicit basis for stratifying the forest estate formonitoring purposes, and for applying the findingsof research or a monitoring program needs to bedeveloped.

Recommendation 6.1: All New South Walesgovernment departments with a direct forestmanagement responsibility should implementlong-term monitoring programs so as to beable to track changes in important forestvalues. Monitoring methods must be able todetect changes at spatial and temporal scalesthat are significant for ecologicallysustainable forest management. A set of keyindicators for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement should be selected, used andsubject to ongoing improvement. Theseindicators should be compatible with theregional framework and the core set ofindicators developed by the Montreal ProcessImplementation Group, a national committeeworking to identify criteria and indicators forreporting ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. Supplementary indicators thatcover additional locally important valuesshould also be used.

The setting of targets (for example,sustainable yields, size of animal populations,degree of site disturbance) essential tointerpreting effects of forest management onforest values should occur as part of thestrategic planning process.

Public Land - Conservation AreasThe introduction of threatened species protectionlegislation in 1991 increased the responsibility ofgovernment agencies, particularly the NationalParks and Wildlife Service and the Department ofLand and Water Conservation, to regulate theillegal clearing and development of threatenedspecies habitat on private and public land. Theperformance of government agencies in meetingthis responsibility reflects, in large part, theirprevious history and experience in private landregulation.

The Department of Land and Water Conservation,which has a successful track record forenforcement and prosecution under the Soil


26 March 2001 5

Conservation Act 1938, has also succeeded inprosecution and enforcement under StateEnvironmental Planning Policy 46, while at thesame time retaining good public relations. Themajority of clearing breaches are reported byneighbours. Most landholders comply with theprovisions of State Environmental Planning Policy46 and appear to support the prosecution of theminority who do not comply with the spirit andintent of clearing legislation. In the past, a majorproblem for the Department of Land and WaterConservation has been the limited (6 months) timeframe for discovering breaches (as distinct from 2years for Protected Lands). This problem has beenrectified by the Native Vegetation ConservationAct.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service had noregulatory responsibility for off-reserve habitatclearing and development before the introductionof threatened species and habitat protectionlegislation in 1991. The Threatened SpeciesConservation Act provides penalties for harm tothreatened species and their habitats and courtorders for the restoration of habitat. However, TheNational Parks and Wildlife Service has made noprosecutions under the Threatened SpeciesConservation Act and currently lacks aprosecutions policy.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service’s role inprosecuting offences against biodiversity isconvoluted under existing legislation. The servicehas no formal regulatory role for habitat clearingand harm offences under part 4 and 5 of theEnvironment Planning and Assessment Act. Theprimary responsibility for 8 point tests and habitatclearing on residential land lies with local councils,while responsibility for 8 point tests and habitatclearing on non-residential lands falls under theDepartment of Land and Water Conservation. Theservice has a role in regulating activities which donot fall within the provisions of either part 4 or 5of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act,(for example impacts on protected fauna, firewoodand bush-rock harvesting on private land), throughthe licensing provisions of part 6 of the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act. However, prosecution isconstrained by a requirement in the offenceprovision, found in section 118D of the NationalParks and Wildlife Act to prove that proponents‘knowingly’ caused damage to habitat. Theeffectiveness of enforcement as a disincentive tooffences against biodiversity would be enhancedby re-structuring current legislative provisionsunder a single regulatory agency with

responsibility for 8 point tests, SIS andprosecution.

Most government agencies lack routine monitoringprocedures for systematic measurement andreporting on the biodiversity condition of theirpublic estates. A working group is currentlyconsidering this issue at the policy level in theNational Parks and Wildlife Service. Monitoringshould be mandatory for all threatening activitiesand processes on public and private lands. At thepresent time there are some procedures formonitoring the effects of forestry, including theloss of tree hollows, but no routine proceduresexist for monitoring other threatening processessuch as vegetation clearing, frequent burning, andferal animal and weed distribution and abundance.

Recommendation 6.2: A systematicmeasurement process should be introduced formonitoring the distribution and extent ofthreatening processes and the condition ofbiodiversity on all forests after completion ofthreat abatement plans.

Private LandSimilarly there is no routine monitoring forreporting on the condition of the forest estate onprivate lands. The government does not know howmuch illegal clearing goes on in New South Waleseach year. The Department of Land and WaterConservation currently relies on the public(particularly neighbours) for monitoring andreporting breaches under State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy 46. This approach is inconsistentand unreliable and needs to be replaced by a state-wide systematic monitoring capability. Illegalclearing can cause irreversible loss of biodiversityby removing rare and poorly known populationsand communities. It also contributes to thegreenhouse problem by depleting carbon sinks andcontributing CO2 to the atmosphere. It has beensuggested that Australia could meet greenhousepollution targets simply by stopping clearing of theland, particularly forests. The expert workinggroup has been advised that the Department ofLand and Water Conservation is monitoringclearing as part of the enforcement element of thevegetation reform package.

Recommendation 6.3: A system of vegetationcover monitoring be introduced in areas subjectto high risk of illegal clearing.

Proposed Eden RFA

As part of the Eden RFA, an ecologicallysustainable forest management manual is being


26 March 2001 6

developed which outlines proposals for assessingkey indicators. Sustainability indicators and targetsthat may be used to assess the delivery ofecologically sustainable forestry management havebeen listed. Assessment is at two levels: the widerlandscape level for the development of the RFAperiod (‘...used during option development toanalyse ecological sustainability, implications of agiven reserve design and wood supplycommitment, and to guide management during theRFA agreement period’); and the more immediateperformance level (‘..can be implementedimmediately after the RFA as a performancemeasure and used to review performance after 5years’).

A brief outline of the proposals is given as theyrelate to ecologically sustainable forestrymanagement principles – though it should beappreciated that some of the indicators may be‘regionally specific’ and unlikely to be translateddirectly to regions with different vegetationattributes, management systems and practices.

BiodiversityBroad assessment of biodiversity conservationwould focus on the extent of forest/vegetation typeby growth stages (indicators of habitatconservation); the extent of connectivity in relationto threatened species habitat, general retainedhabitat, and conservation reserves; andmanagement measures to maintain species extentand abundance. The aim is to minimise loss of old-growth and rare or endangered forest types,maintain natural species patterns within harvestedforest, and ensure functional connectivity byimplementing conservation protocols and byensuring that ecosystem function is maintained.

Performance monitoring would assess theimplementation and efficacy of protocols for allthreatened species. The assessment would aim toimprove the risk status of endangered species,assess the condition and structure of the forest afterharvesting, and monitor habitat abundance and acore set of indicator species over time. Themonitoring would incorporate existing data andsurvey sites, and generate adequate data for thefive-year review of the RFA.

Productive capacityAt the regional level, data would be compiled onthe annual removal of timber products and non-timber products from forest ecosystems, togetherwith the standing volume of log stocks by speciesassociation and diameter class on land available fortimber production – by land tenure. This would be

based on progressive inventory and growthmodelling, and assessment of the impact ofchanges in land tenure on apiary and grazing.

The change in harvested volume, standing volume,growth stages and growth rates by forest typewould be monitored. It is recognised that it wouldbe appropriated to monitor site quality and changesin site quality, though additional data sets andinformation would be required before it is possibleto report on this indicator (e.g. implications ofchanges in nutrient budgets).

Health and VitalityThe focus is upon control of exotic species (weeds,feral animals, insects), keeping forest diseases tobenign levels (within the limits of naturalvariability), and reducing the impact of processeswhich affect ecosystem health and vitality,including fire. Monitoring suggestions include: (i)individual agencies to collect and annually reporton biological factors in a constant manner; (ii) themeasurement of populations of several targetspecies (pigs, foxes, dogs, rabbits); (iii) thepreparation of a complaints register on biologicalfactors received from the community; (iv) themonitoring of the occurrence and impact ofwildfire, and (v) the planning and execution ofprescribed burning.

Soils and WaterAt the broader level, assessment would focus onthe extent of roading by road categories, stream-crossing density by catchment for the region, theproportion of individual catchments likely to beharvested during a 20-year period (as a proxydetermination of water quality), and changes in thelevel of growth stages during this period (as aproxy index of change in water quantity).

Monitoring would focus on the stability ofcrossings as a priority, and the extent andproportion of current harvested forest land withphysical disturbance – to ensure that the physicaldisturbance of subsoil and topsoil does not exceedtargets for the sustainable management of soil foreach hazard class for each harvest system. Theharvesting supervision process would continue toreport on occasions of excessive soil disturbance.

Economic and SocialInformation would be compiled on the meanvolume and royalty-value of logs to be harvestedannually by species and grade, and by tenure; andemployment numbers by type across all forestusers. Targets would include a review of royalty


26 March 2001 7

rates against fair market rates, and a provision thatharvest levels would not exceed ecologicallysustainable wood supply commitments by morethan 5 per cent over the five- year period of theRFA.

The total volume and value of all products (timber,pulp, seed, apiary sites, grazing), and the flow-oneconomic contribution would be compared withthe costs of production for all products; and royaltyrates for all product types would be monitored.There is a provision that the harvest of any producttype (including water, seed, honey, grazing) shouldnot exceed ecologically sustainable levels byproduct type over a five-year period. Quantitativestatistics on the availability and use ofrecreational/tourism facilities would be collected,and a gross income index complied. There wouldbe a target to increase the value of products perunit area as a measure of good forest management.

The expert working group believes that themonitoring process proposed for Eden is anencouraging start but that continuing work isneeded to improve indicators, in particular targets,and to provide a clearer basis for interpretingtemporal change in them. For Eden, the focus haslargely been on environmental conditionindicators. These need to be extended to provide abetter coverage of management and operationalprocesses. There is also a need to developmonitoring regimes specific to the circumstancesof each region or management area. The groupoffers some further comments on indicators andperformance measures based on matters consideredin this report.

Provision of Forest Research andDevelopment in New South Wales

The continuing development of monitoringsystems depends on a research and developmentprogram which can enhance the understanding ofhow to measure the impacts of forest activities onecologically sustainable forestry managementvalues, and assess the adequacy of existingprotocols and practice. The research anddevelopment requirement relating to each of theecologically sustainable forestry managementprinciples is outlined.

The major providers of forest-related research inNew South Wales are State Forests of New SouthWales, the National Parks and Wildlife Service,the Department of Land and Water Conservation,and CSIRO and universities.

State Forests of New South Wales’ ResearchDivision is currently being restructured followingthe appointment of a new Director in early 1997.At this stage, a business plan identifying strategicneeds, measurable objectives, reviewing process,and funding strategy is not available, but is beingdeveloped. The expert working group wasprovided with a list of current projects categorisedaccording to major objectives. About 50 per centof the annual research and development budget iscommitted to work in native forests. Clients(mostly internal) purchase research anddevelopment according to a system of annualcontracts.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has aninternal research capacity in the EnvironmentalSurvey and Research Branch. The service commits2.2 per cent of its annual budget to support theBranch. A report on the activities of the Branchbetween 1988 and 1993 was available to the expertworking group. The Branch does not have astrategic research plan, and the expert workinggroup was not provided with any documentationdescribing research planning or management andperformance evaluation processes. Again, theexpert working group had limited time to examineresearch and development processes in theNational Parks & Wildlife Service.

The Department of Land and Water Conservationcan conduct significant research through the Centrefor Natural Resources which has 175 staff. Onlysome of this research is relevant to forests.

CSIRO and various universities conduct someresearch in New South Wales forests, much of it incollaboration with the managers of the publicforest estate.

From its brief review of forest research anddevelopment activities in New South Wales, theexpert working group concludes that research anddevelopment appears to be scattered, poorlycoordinated across agencies, and in some agencies(e.g. National Parks and Wildlife Service) verypoorly resourced in relation to the need for betterforest management. A clear and essential linkbetween agency policy and the research anddevelopment needed to help deliver the policy isoften lacking. Strategic research planning, anddocumentation of this, needs to be improved in allagencies.

Recommendation 6.4: Steps should be takento achieve better coordination and effectiveuse of resources allocated to research forecologically sustainable forest managementin New South Wales government agencies.


26 March 2001 8

Such actionshould lead to the formation of asingle research unit that services the needs ofboth forest management and regulation. Asingle unit would improve research co-ordination and strengthen the focus onmeeting the needs of ecologically sustainableforest management , which are often genericacross tenures. The unit should undertakeformal collaborative work with externalresearch providers to enhancemultidisciplinary research. There is merit inlinking the proposed forest resourceinformation unit to the activities of theresearch unit and in co-locating these twounits.

Principle 1A Protect and maintainbiodiversityA range of research is in progress relating toreserve management, including basic surveys ofspecies or vegetation, ecological processes, threatsto species or ecosystems; management-orientedsurveys and limited monitoring of populations andthe impact of visitor use.

Reservation alone will not guarantee the long-termsurvival of some species. Reserves need to beactively managed for specific conservationobjectives. The contribution to those conservationvalues by forests used for wood production alsoneeds to be considered. Where species arethreatened by contemporary human disturbance,their habitat requirements should be identified sothat these can be protected or re-created asrequired. Information of this sort is limited forforest-dependent flora and fauna in Australia.Continuing research is needed to provide the dataon which species management plans can be basedand to assess the adequacy of the systems used inestablishing reserves for representing biodiversity.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service researchprogram on biodiversity gives the impression ofbeing disjointed (rather than strategic) and poorlyresourced.

For State Forests, research into biodiversity hasbeen more strategic and better resourced. Betterdocumentation of the process by which researchpriorities are set would, however, be desirable.Further strategic research is needed, especially intofauna, including detailed systematic surveys toimprove confidence in predicting the occurrence ofthreatened species, and studies to improve theintegration of reserve and off-reserve managementto meet conservation objectives better .

Recommendation 6.5: Strategic plans for floraand fauna conservation research should bedeveloped. This should be undertaken by the

proposed Forests Research Unit incollaboration with the forest land managers.Research into reserve selection andmanagement for protecting and maintainingbiodiversity on private land as a priority.

There is a critical need throughout Australia for thedevelopment of models to predict future forestconditions under a variety of management regimes,in terms of biodiversity, structure and productivity.Such models are essential tools for the long-termmanagement of all forest tenures and uses. Animproved knowledge of the effect of fire andsuccessional processes in relation to biodiversity isvital to this work.

Recommendation 6.6: Predictive models ofsuccessional processes for major forest typesshould be developed. These should be done bythe proposed Forest Research Unit.

Research is required into the effects of variousforms of plantation management on biodiversityconservation, both in the plantations and inadjacent natural ecosystems. The latter isespecially important in terms of pest and diseasemanagement, fire control and gene linkage issues.

Principle 1B Maintain the productivecapacity and sustainability of forest ecosystemsThe review and improvement of the capacity tomaintain the productive capacity and sustainabilityof forest ecosystems rely on a combination offormal research and a more general approach toadaptive management based on the monitoring ofperformance in the field.

In State Forests of New South Wales, research isconducted on improving inventory and growthmodelling. The Resources Branch has developedmethods for forecasting future growth and yield.All these activities are being integrated under theFRAMES project which will continue for severalyears. The capacity to forecast future growth andyield is recognised as central to ecologicallysustainable forestry management, and the currentlimited capacity to achieve this, especially inregrowth forests, is acknowledged.

The current limited capacity to predict future forestgrowth, yield and wood quality in regrowth forests,is a major impediment to the achievement ofecologically sustainable forest management andmust be rectified. This is a priority area forresearch and development, especially for themixed-age and mixed-species forests of thenorthern parts of New South Wales.


26 March 2001 9

Recommendation 6.7: High priority should begiven to research and development to improvespatial prediction of future forest growth, yieldand quality in regrowth forests, and toincorporate the effects of a wide range ofcontrasting silvicultural systems on thesepredictions.

The documentation of the scientific basis forcurrently used silvicultural systems and their keyelements needs to be better developed and focusedon public education. More areas for demonstratingalternative silvicultural systems need to beestablished.

Demonstration areas should include some of thealternative systems advocated by sections of thecommunity. Carefully targeted research trialsshould be established to resolve elements of thesystems that are in contention, ensuring that theyare designed for long-term observation and capableof contributing data to the development ofsilvicultural models. Because of the high cost ofresearch of this nature, and the degree of publicinterest, multi-disciplinary design and public inputare desirable. The trials should be modest in theirbreadth and complement, rather than attempt toduplicate relevant research in other States.

Recommendation 6.8: The agency responsiblefor wood production should document thescientific basis for current silviculturalpractices, establish demonstration areas for arange of systems and initiate specific multi-disciplinary research trials aimed at resolvingcontentious aspects of these systems.

Principle 1C Maintain forest ecosystemhealth and vitalitySome routine assessments of forest health areconducted in native forest and plantations,focusing mainly on disease outbreaks. A limitedamount of research and development is attemptingto develop indicators of health and vitality.

Fire, both natural and managed, can threaten manyforest values, but its impacts are still poorlyunderstood. Fire management planning focusesmainly on protection goals and consideration ofother values is often limited. In view of theimportance of fire in the maintenance of particularspecies and ecosystems, and its widespread use forhazard reduction, considerably more research isneeded in this area. The limiting factor at presentappears to be resource allocation.

Recommendation 6.9: The proposed ForestResearch Unit should prepare in collaboration

with the forest management units a strategicprogram of fire management research thatcovers all forest tenures.

Principle 1D Protect soil and water resourcesSeveral agencies are conducting research on soils,hydrology, and tree nutrition. Some long-termresearch and monitoring of nutrient flows andwater yield and quality is also under way.

There is a scientific basis for guidelines to protectsoil and water values listed in the State Forests ofNew South Wales Forest Practices Code and thePollution Control Licence.

The effectiveness of buffer and filter strips inprotecting water quality and aquatic systems,especially of temporary streams, merits continuingresearch (see Chapter 3).

There is a need to develop improved indicators topermit the monitoring of changes in soil fertility.

Principle 1E Maintain the forests’contribution to global carbon cyclesAs far as the expert working group is aware, littlework has been done on the contribution of the NewSouth Wales forests to carbon cycles. The reasonsfor this are given in Chapter 3.

The contribution of forests to carbon budgets inNew South Wales, as well as nationally, needs tobe assessed. A nationally coordinated programbased on regional analyses is needed.

Principle 1F Maintain and enhance long-termsocio-economic benefitsAssessments of the contribution of New SouthWales forests to social and economic values havebeen made in recent years by State Forests of NewSouth Wales and as part of the RFA process.However, systematic research in this area appearsto be lacking.

The next major decision on land-use allocationand management will be made during thedevelopment of the Regional ForestAgreements. There are several options fordeveloping mechanisms for a periodic reviewof RFAs. Consideration of the trade-offsnecessary in the development of futurestrategic plans may be conducted through arange of public participation processes. Asdiscussed in Chapter 3, there is a need tostrengthen and formalise these processes inNew South Wales. The expert working groupconsiders there are advantages in maintaining


26 March 2001 10

some flexibility in the mechanisms to suit thecircumstances of the time rather than

institutionalising them at this stage.

REVIEW ANDIMPROVEMENT

This chapter makes recommendations forimproving scientific underpinning, managementsystems and associated processes in order toincrease the certainty of achieving ecologicallysustainable forest management.

Review and improvement of forest managementrequires both a strengthening of the scientificbasis for prescriptions and practices and a systemfor ensuring the effective implementation ofmanagement policy. These requirements are alsonecessary to ensure that internal processes andoutcomes meet the needs of management andstakeholders. These needs may include thoseassociated with internal requirements, such as thecost effective delivery of services, and externalneeds such as the maintenance and protection ofconservation values.

Processes that lead to review and improvement offorest management are important for two reasons:

■ it is likely that management prescriptions willneed to change because knowledge of the long-term effects of forest management onecological values is currently limited anduncertain, and

■ the community’s expectations of whatconstitutes ecologically sustainable forestmanagement will change over time.

Forest management strategies must respond tochanging circumstances, including betterknowledge of the effects of those strategies.Forest management presents unusual challengesbecause forests take a long time to reach matureform. This means that the structure of forest plantand animal communities is complex and changeswith forest age, and changes in ecosystemstructure and function are difficult to detect asthey occur over such a comparatively long time.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS

The most significant procedural improvementrecommended in this report is to implement anenvironmental management system that willprovide a consistent and recognised frameworkfor the delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. Such a system delivers manybenefits. It:

■ Provides a more structured approach tomanaging and delivering the department’senvironmental policy;

■ Provides a recognised mechanism throughwhich the department can report on itsenvironmental performance and identify theresources necessary to deliver the requiredperformance level;

■ Allows the department to demonstrate duediligence;

■ Allows greater operational control over thedepartment’s activities;

■ Increases departmental effectiveness byproviding a better database for forwardplanning;

■ Can be used to identify the cost benefitsassociated with environmental improvement;

■ Provides stakeholders with a demonstration ofthe department’s commitment toenvironmental issues;

■ Has the potential to improve departmentalcommunity relationships through a commonunderstanding of systems and processes.

The environmental management systems currentlybeing used by State Forests of New South Walesand National Parks and Wildlife Service havebeen evaluated against the criteria of the


26 March 2001 2

internationally recognised ISO 14001Environmental Management Systems:Specification with guidance for use. The results ofthe evaluation are detailed in Appendix A. Theappendix also provides guidance on the actionsrequired by departmental staff to meet therequirements specified in this standard.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The effectiveness of research and developmentprograms in contributing to ecologicallysustainable forest management depends on theprocesses that determine the priorities for theprograms, successfully execute research, andimprove planning and management by capturingthe findings. The following processes areimportant:

■ Identification of the key research needs inrelation to ecologically sustainable forestmanagement.

■ Risk assessment to assess the consequences ofnot undertaking particular components ofresearch.

■ Prioritising research needs in relation to oneanother and securing resourcing.

■ Setting targets for individual research projectsin relation to what is needed to minimise therisk from lack of knowledge.

■ Setting secondary processes in place to ensureadequate performance of the researchprogrammes.

■ Assessment of information deficiencies duringthe development of strategic land-use plans.

■ Evaluation of the risks of adverse effectsduring the strategic land-use planning process.

■ Ensuring plans and prescriptions areunderpinned by scientific knowledge.

RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

The purchaser (client)–provider model is currentlybeing applied to research conducted by StateForests of New South Wales. While this modelensures a close interaction between the client andthe research provider, with clear financialcommitment on the part of the client, it can be adeterrent to longer-term strategic research.Currently in New South Wales, the processes bywhich research priorities are developed are notwell documented. Better documentation would

help in later evaluation of results and in therevision of priorities.

The development of a strategic plan for researchand development would address all of thesecomponents. The process for allocating funding toresearch is important and should be based on ananalysis of the threats to ecologically sustainableforest management and the contribution ofresearch to reducing these threats, rather than onany arbitrary proportion of organisational budgets.

FOREST PRACTICES CODES

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, there is a needto further develop codes of practice to assist withthe implementation of ecologically sustainableforest management. It is vital to incorporate state-of-the-art information in the codes, and to set upeffective review and update mechanisms. Suchmechanisms are extremely important for continualimprovement of forest management. An effectivecode system involves a combination of self-regulation, well-founded prescriptions that can beupdated in the light of new knowledge, adequatesanctions, and use of well-trained staff. Such asystem is a useful vehicle for ensuring thatappropriate standards are implemented and, overtime, for improving the general standard of forestmanagement. One way of improving the codesystem would be to require an independent reviewof the operation of the system and its outcomes atregular intervals, not greater than five years.

Recommendation 7.1: An independent expertreview of the operation of the forest practicescode system and its outcomes be undertaken atintervals not greater than five years.

ADAPTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

The most important contribution research canmake to ecologically sustainable forestmanagement is to improve the quality of theplanning, management prescriptions (especiallytheir ‘local’ application), monitoringmethodologies, and environmental standards thatare used for interpreting the effects ofmanagement on forest ecosystems.

There are two approaches to collectinginformation that can be used to improvemanagement prescriptions.

The first is based on site-specific research (casestudies) that examines the effects of various forestmanagement options in a number of representativeforest environments. The results are then


26 March 2001 3

extrapolated to the wider forest estate using someform of environmental stratification (e.g. foresttype, soil type, terrain features, etc.).

The second approach is based on systematicallymonitoring the outcomes (effects) of forestmanagement. An example of this approach is themonitoring of regeneration success, which uses astandard methodology, specific standards,reporting, and strategies for remedial action whererequired.

The former approach is the one currently usedmost frequently in New South Wales forests. Thisapproach suffers from a major limitation, namelythat generally results are extrapolated from a fewexperimental sites to broad areas having vastlydifferent environmental conditions. Often there isno explicit basis for how results are applied to theforest at large. It is clearly desirable to supplementsite-specific research with monitoring ofoutcomes.

Recommendation 7.2 : A clear strategy todevelop and implement efffective monitoring offorest management outcomes, leading to reviewof management practice (adaptivemanagement) should be defined in regionalforest agreements.

STRENGTHENING SCIENTIFICINPUT

Much forest management practice involves thedevelopment of detailed decision criteria andprescriptions based on advanced scientific andtechnical knowledge. While forest managementagencies in New South Wales maintain severalsignificant research groups these do not cover allareas of relevance to improving forestmanagement. Strong mechanisms are needed toensure that external advice is routinely sought tofill gaps.

External peer review is a mechanism forincreasing the transparency of managementactions and is also a key component of any riskminimisation strategy. The forest managementagency should ensure that the scientific basis ofthose parts of the management system thatgenerate greatest risk to ecologically sustainableforest management is subject to peer review. Peerreview is also important in areas of managementwhere there are contrary scientific interpretationsor scientific knowledge is advancing rapidly.Management prescriptions should be madeavailable to the public in a timely manner.

Some community groups commonly complainabout lack of timely availability of scientificinformation. A strong commitment to timelycompletion, appropriate peer review andpublication of scientific research is essential tounderpin both ecologically sustainable forestmanagement and public confidence in forestmanagement processes.

CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

Continual improvement of the managementsystem and its outcomes in New South Wales willbe based on identifying the key elements forreview and improvement. These key elementsmay be summarised as follows:

■ Clear identification of performance indicatorsfor both management and environmentaloutcomes;

■ Timely reporting of performance indicatorsboth internally and externally;

■ Active assessment of feedback from staff andthe public concerning current management andenvironmental performance;

■ High level performance review using bothinternal and external technical expertise;

■ Development of changes in major managementprocesses to correct identified weaknesses;

■ Ensuring that major advances in scientificknowledge are reflected in managementprescriptions;

■ Ensuring that important research anddevelopment is initiated to address majorproblems identified during review;

■ Ensuring that the above processes aremaintained over time.

26 March 2001 1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

COMPARISON OF THE CURRENTNSW ECOLOGICALLYSUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ANDPROCESS WITH AS/NZS ISO 14001WITH GUIDANCE FORIMPLEMENTATION

GeneralThis section of the report compares the currentNew South Wales ecologically sustainable forestmanagement systems and process for NationalParks and Wildlife Service and State Forests withAS/NZS ISO 14001 Environmental ManagementSystems – Specification with guidance for use,and provides guidance on the actions required bydepartmental staff to meet the requirementsspecified in this standard. Detailed definitionsrelated to the terms used and references quoted inthe text are contained in Annex A.

1.0 Environmental management system (Clause 4.0)

1.1 General requirements (Clause 4.1)

What the standard says

The standard specifies the core requirements foran environmental management system. It appliesto those environmental aspects which theorganisation can control and on which it can beexpected to have an influence. The system willenable the organisation to establish and assess theeffectiveness of procedures to set theorganisation's environmental policy andobjectives, achieve conformance with them anddemonstrate conformance to others. To achievethis it is necessary to:

■ Put the system in writing and include:

− procedures

− work instructions.

■ Ensure the system is working properly.

State Forests: current position

A review of State Forests of New South Wales’current management system for theimplementation of its environmental policies andstrategies shows that the system had a strongpolicy focus in the 1980s. This is demonstrated bythe various forest policy statements issued duringthis period and the issue of the then ForestCommission booklet entitled Planning for theFuture which clearly outlined the policy/planningprocess. Since the late ’80s this policy/planningfocus appears to have moved to a lower level withless emphasis on centralised policy and planningand a move to more regional autonomy. This inturn has encouraged the development of regionalsystems with a greater concentration on workplaceactivities, frequently at the expense of policy andplanning.

While this move may have been aimed atincreasing the effectiveness of the forestmanagement process at a regional level, it hasdone so at the expense of consistency,harmonisation and process improvement in theway in which regional activities are performed.For example, variations are evident in the way inwhich tasks such as harvest planning, forestoperations and other functions are performedbetween regions, regardless of the differencesinherent in managing different forest types.Attempts to achieve consistency are proceeding insome areas through processes such as the totalquality management initiative on harvest planningimprovement. However, even these initiativeslack a strategy which prioritises the issues on thebasis of environmental impact, cost effectiveness,process time etc., and thus allows staff to see the


26 March 20012

relevance to their work activities and theorganisation’s mission.

The development of a systems approach tomanagement activities can be resource-intensivein the initial phases and it is evident fromdiscussions with staff and from visualobservations that State Forests is down-sizing.This leads to conflict between operationalpriorities (i.e. getting the day-to-day job done) andthose system establishment and implementationpriorities necessary to provide a consistentoutcome from the various work-processesthemselves. Staff losses and work loads areincreasing within State Forests and theseconditions are not conducive to the developmentof sound management systems nor to the deliveryof consistent and effective outcomes. Seniormanagement will need to assess carefully theresources available for implementing their chosenmanagement system if the implementation processis to proceed smoothly and be successfullyconcluded within an acceptable time.

National Parks and Wildlife Service: currentposition

National Parks and Wildlife Service, like its StateForests counterpart, had strong policy focus in thevery late 1980s and early 1990s. This can be seenin the number of policy manuals that were dated1993. These were in general of a very highstandard but appear to have languished between1993 and 1996 with additional manuals onlyappearing as a result of new legislation. Draft newmanuals are now evident for a range of issuessuch as threatened species management,threatened forest fauna and biodiversity.

This has again provided the opportunity forinconsistency across regions in matters such asrisk assessment and has allowed the developmentof regionally based manuals such as the pollutionmanual. While these initiatives are to beencouraged, they increase the opportunity forregional activities to get out of step with corporateobjectives and cause misinterpretation of policiesand principles.

The Service went through downsizing during theearly ’80s, followed by an increase in staff in thelate ’80s when it became apparent that theorganisation was understaffed; and this is evidentin the level of staff competence currentlyavailable in the organisation. It is clear that amainstay of the current organisation is theknowledge of senior staff, especially at the

regional level. Unless the current policyframework and associated procedures are revisedand improved, the Service will have to do a lot oflearning when the existing staff retire.

Recommendation A1: Senior management ofState Forests and National Parks and WildlifeService should:

■ commit to the development ofenvironmental management system at theearliest opportunity

■ prepare an implementation plan for theselected system

■ identify, document and commit the level ofhuman and material resources necessary toimplement its environmental policy.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 clause 4.1 and Annex A.1offer additional guidance on an EMS.

1.2 Environmental policy (Clause 4.2)


The standard wants the organisation to:

1. set and document an appropriateenvironmental policy having regard to theenvironmental impact of the organisation’sactivities, products and services;

2. make sure all the organisation's employeesunderstand what this means to them in theirday to day work activities;

3. make the environmental policy available tothe public;

4. abide by its commitment to the environmentin all that it does both now and for the life ofthe statement;

5. continually improve its environmentalperformance and prevent pollution; and

6. set and assess environmental objectives whichquantify its commitment to comply withrelevant environmental legislation andregulations and with any other requirementsto which the organisation subscribes.


An effective environmental policy is traceable inthe organisation’s mission, vision and values and,specifically with respect to government


26 March 2001 3

instrumentalities, in any overarching Governmentenvironmental policies. New South Walesgovernment policy with respect to ecologicallysustainable forest management is derived from itssubscription to the National Forest PolicyStatement 1992, which was developed in responseto the reports of the Ecologically SustainableDevelopment Working Group on Forest Use, theNational Plantations Advisory Committee and theResource Assessment Commission’s Forest andTimber Inquiry. State Forests showed itscommitment initially in their corporate plan,which refers to sustainability in environmentaland commercial terms, and at a policy level in itsenvironmental policy.

State Forests’ corporate and environmental policy,as currently written, does not fully reflect therequirements of ecologically sustainable foestmanagement as documented in either the NationalForest Policy or in the ecologically sustainablefoest management principles. For example, theydo not reference the National Forest Policy or listall the principles, such as integrated decision-making and management or forest conservation,although these may be inferred from anexamination of these and other policies and theirlikely collective outcome. The environmentalpolicy as currently written would not meet therequirements of ISO 14001 in that it does notprovide a framework for, or reference, the settingof environmental objectives and targets.


The Service has well-defined mission, vision andvalues statements which designate key programareas and priority corporate issues with respect tothe requirements of the Environmental Planningand Assessment, Heritage and Wilderness Acts.However, the organisation has no current internalenvironmental policy for its own operations andthus it is not possible to trace the key tenets ofecologically sustainable development as reflectedin the National Forest Policy through to theirapplication and implementation in theorganisation. No single document was evidentwhich encapsulated the Service’s perception ofecologically sustainable forest management andits implementation process.

The corporate plan is well supported by policystatements about law enforcement, concessionsand leases, wilderness, threatened species,vertebrate pest control and other conservation

protocols. Perusal of a number of the availablepolicy documents revealed an initial bias towardshuman resource issues which now appears to havebeen corrected by a swing towards moreenvironmental policy issues. However themajority of these policy documents do not appearto have been subject to any major review sincetheir initial issue and could in some cases be outof date.

Although the technical content and overall qualityof the available policy documents was very good,there was some suggestion that they were notbeing followed in all areas of the organisation. Forexample, the fact that a number of these policieshad not been revised since their inception couldmean that their use is infrequent so that nobodythought to revise them, not all staff were aware oftheir existence or breadth, and their distributionwas not well controlled.

Recommendation A2: State Forests should:

■ establish and document a clear link betweenrelevant national and State governmentenvironmental/forest policy and theorganisation's corporate objectives;

■ commit itself to the development of thosegeneral and specific polices necessary andrelevant to implement national and Stategovernment environmental/forest policy andthe organisation's corporate objectives;

■ develop strategies for the implementation oftheir corporate environmental policy andother more specific environmental policies;

■ ensure that the development andimplementation processes are transparentand involve workplace staff; and

■ revise the environmental policy to betterreflect the requirements of ISO 14001.

National Parks and Wildlife Service should:

■ develop, promulgate and implement anorganisation-wide environmental policywhich contains the core elements of itsapproach to the management of itsenvironmental responsibilities as both aregulator and forest manager;

■ encapsulate in its environmental policystatement, or other document asappropriate, the organisation's perceptionof ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in the context of its regulatoryand managerial role;


26 March 20014

■ review its existing environmental policiesfor currency and develop newenvironmental policies to better reflect itscommitment to ecologically sustainableforest management; and

■ ensure the policy meets the requirements ofISO 14001.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.1.4, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clauses 4.2, Annex A.2 and BS7750 offeradditional guidance.

1.3 Planning (Clause 4.3)

1.3.1 Environmental aspects (Clause 4.3.1)



1. establish and maintain a procedure to specifyits environmental aspects, that is those of theorganisation's activities, products and serviceswhich interact with the environment and overwhich it can exercise control or be expected toinfluence;

2. identify those environmental aspects,including those occurring during normal,abnormal and potential emergency conditions,which have a significant impact on theenvironment;

3. based on these significant impacts determinethose environmental aspects that aresignificant; and

4. keep this information up to date.

This element of the standard is trying to ensurethat the organisation has a process to remain fullyaware of the significant environmental aspects ofits activities, products and services. This processshould, where appropriate, consider for operatingunits such factors as:

■ emissions to atmosphere

■ releases to water

■ waste management

■ contamination of land

■ use of raw materials and natural resources,such as land, water, fuels and energy

■ other local environmental issues, includingnoise, odour, dust, vibration, and effects on

specific parts of the local environment andecosystems etc.


The current management and control ofenvironmental impacts in the forest industry islargely based on the practical experience gainedsince forest activities first began. This has resultedin a planning process which is primarily aimed atimpact prevention through the conduct of soundenvironmental practices before and during theconduct of on-site activities and the amelioration,where necessary, of those impacts that cannot beavoided.

Perusal of these plans in the context of anEnvironmental Management System reveals aplethora of relevant information, none of which,except within the environmental impactassessment process, is centred on anunderstanding of the environmental impactscaused by particular activities. For example, it isnot possible within the current planning process tofollow a particular activity (on-site machineryoperation) in a consistent manner through theinteraction it has with the environment in terms ofreleases to air, discharges to water, resource useetc., to determine any site-specific characteristics(such as topographical, geographical,hydrogeological, habitat or other considerationsrelevant to the activity), to assess theirsignificance, and to determine the impact andaspect it creates. In addition, the environmentalimpact statement was not required to consideractivities over which State Forests has influence,such as the type of equipment used by thecontractor to bring employees to and from thework-site, as against that which it controls such asactual work-site activities; nor was it required toconsider abnormal or emergency circumstances interms of work activities.

That is not to say that these things have not beenrecognised, but merely to show that theiridentification is spread across a number ofdocuments and is not necessarily complete in allcases. For example, the impacts of materialresource use in terms of machinery fuel is notnormally considered relevant in all loggingoperations. The down-side to this approach, fromthe viewpoint of an environmental managementsystem, is that it has until the advent of theenvironmental impact statement been reactive:only after impacts have occurred has action been


26 March 2001 5

taken to ameliorate the situation and prevent arecurrence.

In terms of an environmental management system,it is likely that most of the information necessaryto demonstrate the link between an activity and itssubsequent impact is available from the currentdocumentation held by State Forests. However, itwould need to be reformatted into a form that canbe used in an environmental management systemframework and may require further work to listimpacts in priority so as to allow the setting ofobjectives and targets for improving theorganisation’s environmental performance.


Again, as with their State Forests counterparts,there is not always a clear link between all theactivities performed in managing a national parkand the impacts these create. That is not to saythat this link is not present but merely to point outthat it is difficult to work through a process of thekind required in an environmental managementstatement where each activity (for example, on-site machinery operation) can be linked to itsenvironmental aspect (releases to air, dischargesto water etc.), any site-specific characteristics(close to a koala habitat) can be noted, and theimpacts the activity creates (for example, noise,emissions of carbon monoxide and its impact onthe koala habitat ) and its significant aspect can berecognised.

All activities (a wide-ranging definition is presentin the best practice guidelines for Part 5 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979produced by the (then) Department of Planning),proposed in areas dedicated or reserved under theNational Parks and Wildlife Act Section must beaccompanied by a review of environmentalfactors, or in some cases an environmental impactstatement as required under this Act. This processis extensive and includes activities performed byan external body or by the Service itself. Anoutline of a procedure for this is documented inthe draft Environmental Planning and AssessmentManual dated 1993. Where this has been done, itwould meet the requirements specified under anenvironmental management statement. However,the Act does not say what should be done withrespect to changed circumstances nor does itprovide guidance on the discretionary componentgiven to a district officer to decide whether anyactivity is significant.

Recommendation A3: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service should:

■ identify the activities, products and servicesperformed during the total forest processincluding compartment identification,planning, contractor selection, harvesting,reforestation etc., which management maycontrol or influence;

■ develop (and keep up to date) a procedureto list those significant environmentalaspects, including those resulting fromnormal, abnormal and potential emergencysituations, arising from its own activities,products and services and/or those suppliedby contractors;

■ ensure that any changes in their activities,products or services are reviewed for theireffect on the organisations’ impacts createdby forest operations;

■ assess the contractual arrangements withtheir contractors with a view to ensuringthat they identify their impacts and, as aminimum, manage those impacts effectivelyand advise district forest managementbefore undertaking a new activity orchanging an existing activity that may leadto a change in their environmental impact;

■ review all management plans to ensure thatthey contain or reference responsibilities,measuring/monitoring and implementationtimescales where appropriate; and

■ develop and document a risk managementpolicy and an associated implementationstrategy necessary for the implementation ofan environmental management system.

Comment

The identification of the activities, products andservices, and their potential or actual interactionwith the environment that occurs at every functionand level within the organisation, is essential if anenvironmental impact is not to be missed. Thisidentification is best accomplished by theemployees themselves as they are in the mostappropriate position to notify management of anynew or changed activities, products, services orenvironmental interactions, before, or as, theyoccur and thus allow the impacts of these new orchanged circumstance to be considered beforethey happen.


26 March 20016

Although the level of influence of State Forestsand National Parks and Wildlife Service over theircontractors may be limited, it should extend torequiring them to consider as part of their contractconditions the development and approval of anenvironmental management plan to manage theiron-site activities, incorporating energy saving andrecycling where appropriate. This may also be aneffective way to manage contractor activities.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.2.1, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.3.1, Annex A.3.1, AS4360 and3931 offer additional guidance on this element ofthe standard.

1.3.2 Legal and other requirements (Clause4.3.2)

What the standard cays


1. identify all environmental, legislative andregulatory requirements, codes of practice orother standards to which the organisationsubscribes directly applicable to theenvironmental aspects of its activities,products and services associated with theorganisation’s business; and

2. set up and maintain procedures to ensure anynew or changed requirements are identified.


State Forests have a management role over theassets which they manage and are well aware ofthe relevant legislative, statutory or otherrequirements applying to their activities, productsand services. They have qualified legal staffwhose role is to assess legislative changes fortheir impact on the organisation’s activities.However, there was no evidence that proceduresexisted to ensure the ongoing dissemination ofsuch requirements to those responsible for theirimplementation or that this process was beingmonitored effectively and that the informationreceived was required to be acted upon.


The Service has a management role over its ownassets and a regulatory role over the assets ofothers. Legal responsibilities and roles regarding

enforcement are outlined in a Law EnforcementManual dated 1989. Other legal responsibilitiesare detailed in the various policy documents heldby the organisation. For example, theEnvironmental Assessment and Planning Manualoutlines both the regulatory and managerial role.The organisation has qualified legal staff whoserole is to assess legislative changes for theirimpact on the organisation’s activities. Noprocedures were seen which showed thatlegislative changes were disseminated (except aspart of policy changes) through the policy unitssuch as threatened species, wilderness orconservation, or that the process was beingmonitored effectively.

Recommendation A4: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shoulddevelop and implement procedures for theidentification and ongoing assessment of legaland other requirements which relate to theorganisations' activities.

Comments

Although the standard does not require themaintenance of a register or other database of allthe relevant legal and/or other environmentalrequirements previously identified, this isrecommended.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.2.3, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.3.2 and Annex A.3.1 offeradditional guidance on this element of thestandard.

1.3.3 Objectives and targets (Clause 4.3.3)


The standard wants the organisation to considerits legal and other obligations, its significantenvironmental aspects, technological options,operational and business requirements and theviews of interested parties in:

1. identifying and documenting its objectivesand targets for the relevant levels andfunctions within the organisation;

2. ensuring that the objectives and targets areconsistent with the organisation’senvironmental policy and its commitment tothe prevention of pollution.


26 March 2001 7


State Forests’ current environmental policycommits the organisation to meeting theenvironmental requirements set by legislation andregulation and to communicate and consulteffectively and constructively with the communityregulators and customers and to developpartnerships for cooperative forest management atthe strategic level. The current environmentalpolicy does not require the setting of objectivesand targets aimed at improving the organisation’senvironmental performance (by reducing theimpacts created) although some objectives andtargets achieve this. For example, the Edenenvironmental impact statement identifies as anobjective ‘exclusion of the Long footed Potoroomoratorium area from logging for three yearswhile research proceeds’.

The objectives set within the planning process aregenerally based on management of environmentalperformance with commensurate targets, some ofwhich lack the necessary precision to be auditable.For example the Eden environmental impactstatement has as an objective to ‘obtainhydrological data for regional rivers monitored byDepartment of Water Resources - periodically’.Without a clear definition of the period (days,weeks, years?) this target is meaningless.However, it should be noted that while the targetmay be meaningless in practice it should not beconcluded that the monitoring is not being done atprecise and regular intervals.

In setting its objectives and targets, State Forestswill no doubt give due consideration to itsoperational and business requirements and mayneed to determine its Best Practice EnvironmentalOption (BPEO). BPEO in this context means theoption which, for a given objective, provides themost benefit or least damage to the environmentas a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term aswell as the short term, as a result of a release tothe environment. BPEO decisions on the setting ofobjectives and targets should be documented.

State Forests’ environmental policy and therequirements of the environmental managementsystem seem to coincide as far as obtaining theviews of interested parties is concerned. Thepublic comment period of the environmentalimpact assessment process, the role of theRegulatory and Public Information Committee(RaPIC) and the harvesting advisory boardsclearly offer opportunities for interested parties(stakeholders) to comment upon the objectives set

in documents generated during planning andharvesting processes.


The corporate plan contains high level objectivesand targets. However the setting of environmentalperformance-based objectives and targets at alower level could not be confirmed. Severalmanagement plans were examined and found tocontain objectives, but these were a mix ofmanagement-related and performance-relatedobjectives. None of the management plansexamined contained both environmentalobjectives and targets.

The Service has noted this deficiency and hasengaged a consultant to assist in the setting ofperformance objectives and targets. This is acommendable approach, but care must be taken toensure that the performance indicators establishedrelate to the organisation’s overall objectives interms of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. These environmental objectivesshould also be set in conjunction with theorganisation’s interested parties such asemployees, other government departments andagencies, local councils, relevant communitygroups, etc. In addition, it is essential that theorganisation establish a management system todeliver the agreed objectives and targets. Withoutsuch a system, the objectives and targets will notin themselves be sustainable.


■ set objectives and targets that can bedirectly related to the organisation’senvironmental performance and specificallyrelated to the significant aspects occurringat particular locations; and

■ develop policy and procedures to formallyseek community consultation in the settingof objectives and targets.

Additional guidance


1.3.4 Environmental management program(Clause 4.3.4)


26 March 20018



1. set up and maintain a program for achievingenvironmental objectives and targets;

2. assign responsibility for achieving targets ateach function and level within theorganisation;

3. document how objectives and targets will beachieved; and

4. amend the program to manage theenvironmental issues associated with projectsrelated to new or modified activities, productsor services to show:

− what environmental objectives are to beachieved

− how they will be achieved.


Under the requirements of AS/NZS ISO 14001, anenvironmental management program (EMP)forms part of an environmental managementsystem and is necessary to show how theenvironmental objectives and targets for particularactivities, services or products are to be met. InState Forests, environmental objectives andtargets are generally defined in terms of protectioncontrol measures the intent of which may appearin conservation plans, codes of practice,harvesting plans, pollution control licenceconditions or other documents used by staffresponsible for particular activities occurring inthe forest.

This practice however does not provide a clearand demonstrable link between what is set out inthe environmental impact statement and what isaccomplished on site. The requirements of theenvironmental impact statement in terms ofobjectives and targets are diffused over such awide spread of documents that it is not possible todetermine whether all the requirements have beenmet or that adequate resources have been providedto enable the objectives and targets that have beenset to be met. To be effective it is necessary forthese documents to include details of both theresponsibility for implementing the objectives andtargets and the resources to be allocated for theircompletion within the times allotted.

The absence of an effective environmentalmanagement program, which may be a standalone plan or be made up of several plans, does

not allow the organisation’s commitment toimproving its environmental performance to bedemonstrated. Nor does it provide managementwith any feedback in terms of material or otherresource requirements necessary to meet itsenvironmental policy. The environmentalmanagement program should be integrated withthe organisation’s corporate or strategic planningprocesses to ensure that resource requirements areknown during the financial planning process andthat it is aligned to the organisation’s otherprograms and its stated mission. Such links werenot clearly evident in State Forests’ currentoperations.


The Service management plans contain objectiveswhich show that the resources to achieve theseobjectives should come from current programs. Inaddition, a Financial Impact Statement is requiredto accompany each plan of management.


■ develop environmental managementprograms based on the objectives andtargets set as a result of the determinationof the organisations’ significant aspects; and

■ develop and implement proceduresrequiring the consideration of objectivesand targets during the strategic planningand budgetary processes.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.2.6, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.3.4 and Annex A.3.4 and BS 7750Clause 4.6 and Annex A.6 offer additionalguidance on this topic.

1.4 Implementation and operation (Clause 4.4)

1.4.1 Structure and responsibility (Clause4.4.1)



1. document the environmental responsibilitiesof each person within the organisation whoseactivities may have an environmental impact;


26 March 2001 9

2. show who they report to and who reports tothem;

3. state what they are responsible for andcommunicate this to them;

4. specifically state what they are allowed to doto ensure that the organisation'senvironmental commitment is maintained;

5. provide sufficient resources, human andmaterial, to ensure the proper implementationand control of the environmental managementsystem; and

6. appoint an individual to be responsible forimplementing and maintaining therequirements of the standard.


State Forests’ new functional organisationalstructure has been defined in a series of detailedorganisational charts. The organisation wasformally broken into regions and each region intodistricts. The latest reorganisation does away withthe regional structure and increases the size of thedistricts. Position descriptions were evident formost positions and these were subject to periodicrevision based on organisational changes.However, up to date copies were not alwaysreadily available in the workplace and there wasno systematic method of ensuring that individualswere aware of changes to their positiondescription as they occurred.

Within an environmental management system, jobdescriptions for personnel, including those atoperator level, who are responsible for activitieswhich could impact on the environment shouldcontain details of their environmentalresponsibilities, especially those associated withemergency activities. No process was evident fordefining such activities or including specificenvironmental responsibility in an individual’sposition description.

Position descriptions should also include mentionof responsibility for the environmentalperformance of contractors, especially at theregional level. State Forests uses a range ofcontractors and there is a clear need to ensure thattheir environmental performance both on and offsite reflects favourably on the organisation andtherefore responsibility for their managementshould be assigned.

Perusal of the revised organisational charts doesnot reveal any high-level responsibility for an

environmental management system. The positionof Manager for Sustainable Forest Management,(reporting to the General Manager for ForestPolicy) would seem to be the individual mostlikely to assume such a responsibility should StateForests elect to use an environmental managementsystem as a mechanism to implement ecologicallysustainable forest management.

Experience suggests that the responsibility forimplementing an environmental managementsystem cannot be assigned and must be acceptedby the Cheif Executive Officer and GeneralManagers. Organisations which assign such aresponsibility to an individual rarely provide theappointee with the resources and authoritynecessary to carry out this responsibility, sincethey are frequently only service providers and donot have line responsibility for the functionalactivities associated with the management of allthe organisation’s operations. The role ofenvironmental management system facilitator,reporting to the Cheif Executive Officer or a high-level committee of General Managers can beassigned without the need to provide increasedlevels of authority or significant resources to thisappointee.

Senior managers need to be aware of the resourcesand commitment necessary to implement anenvironmental management system. The task isboth time consuming and resource intensive, atleast in the implementation stage, and should notbe attempted unless management is totallycommitted. Ownership of the implementationprocess within the organisation is essential if thesystem is to be maintained effectively and the useof consultants should be minimised. State Forestsmust ensure that, if a second attempt is made toimplement an environmental management system,there is total commitment from seniormanagement, as the more attempts that are madethe greater the resources required and the lesslikelihood of success as staff become increasinglyfrustrated and disillusioned over the lack ofsupport and recognition for their efforts.


The Service has a well-defined, functional,organisational structure based on regions anddistricts which manage on-park activities, andzones which manage regulatory matters for off-park activities and for on-park activities whenthese fall under a regulatory framework. Position


26 March 200110

descriptions and performance targets forindividual appointments are required as a part ofthe organisation’s human resource managementprocess. Again, with respect to an environmentalmanagement system, job descriptions, includingthose at operator level, who are responsible foractivities which could impact on the environmentshould contain details of their environmentalresponsibilities, especially those who areassociated with emergency activities and areresponsible for the environmental performance ofcontractors.

Comments made in the last two paragraphs onderState Forests apply equally to National Parks andWildlife Service.


■ identify and continually review activitiesthat may have an impact on theenvironment or on effective environmentalmanagement;

■ amend position descriptions to include theenvironmental responsibilities of all thosepositions identified above;

■ amend all relevant position descriptions toinclude responsibility for the environmentalperformance of contractors, as appropriateand communicated to position holders;

■ assign responsibility for the implementationof the management plan or system to themanagement group as a whole, and for thefacilitation or coordination of theimplementation process, to an appropriateindividual; and

■ ensure total commitment of seniormanagement to the concept of anenvironmental management system beforesuch a system is implemented, and ensurethat adequate resources are provided toimplement and sustain the system.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.2.3, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.1 and Annex A.4.1 offeradditional guidance on this element of thestandard.

1.4.2 Training, awareness and competence(Clause 4.4.2)


The standard wants the organisation to ensurethat:

1. procedures are in place to identify trainingneeds;

2. personnel whose work has a significantimpact on the environment are properlytrained; and

3. procedures are maintained to make employeesat each relevant function and level of theorganisation aware of:

− why they have to comply with the:

i. organisation's environmental policy andprocedures

ii. environmental management system

− the significant environmental impacts,actual or potential, of their work activitiesand the environmental benefits of improvedpersonnel performance;

− their roles and responsibilities in achievingconformity with environmental policy andprocedures, the requirements of theenvironmental management system,including emergency preparedness andresponse requirements;

− potential consequences of departure fromspecified operating procedures.

4. personnel who do work which can causesignificant environmental impacts arecompetent on the basis of education,appropriate training and/or experience.


Discussion with head office and regional staffconfirm that training relevant to the organisation’soperations is occurring at all levels. However,there is no clear training strategy that relates thetraining activities to the organisation’s mission,corporate plan, and issues such as sustainableforest management. As mentioned earlier, this isnot to say that such training is not being providedbut that there is no strategy to align it with highercorporate objectives.

Training within State Forests needs to beconsidered at several specified levels, as follows:

All Employees. Environmental awareness trainingis necessary to bring all employees up to the samelevel of knowledge on environmental issues, asreflected in an induction training program for new


26 March 2001 11

employees. This training is considered as a one-off requirement and would cease when allemployees have been trained and the trainingstrategy implemented reflecting the levels oftraining shown below.

Induction. To introduce new staff or staffchanging appointments to State Forests’ vision,values and policies associated with theenvironment and the job they will be performing.

Technical. To provide the technical and/oroperational skills necessary to perform forestoperations, including those associated with theenvironmental impacts of the work.

Supervisory. To provide the skills needed tosupervise the staff at all levels in the organisationand ensure the relevant degree of generalenvironmental awareness.

Management. To provide the skills needed tomanage and control the relevant managerial andother processes.

Refresher. To keep personnel up to date with theenvironmental significance of the work theyperform and inform them of any changes inlegislation, policy, or codes of practice which mayeffect their work.

While State Forests do conduct training, there waslittle to show that it was being conductedconsistently, although information providedindicated that a training needs analysis had beenperformed in some areas. For example, no overallor regional training programs were seen forindividual employees or for contractors, althoughit was evident that some employees andcontractors undergo soil and water training as wellas attending supervisor and other courses. Pastcourses appear to have been attribute-based andthe newer courses competency-based. Inductiontraining for regional staff is still completed in theworkplace by workplace supervisors and nosyllabus for such training was seen. It was notedthat an induction training course is underdevelopment to ensure consistent trainingoutcomes.

Training records at head office and regional levelwere not adequate in terms of a managementsystem. Records of attendees at courses were notalways complete, the course syllabus was notdesigned in a way which provided measurableoutcomes, and the method of assessment waseither inconsistent or was not effective inmeasuring the participants’ understanding of theoutcome. A number of courses were provided by

external trainers and no effective method of in-field supervision was evident to ensure theconsistency of course delivery. New courses suchas the supervisors’ course were competency-basedand appeared to redress some of the concernsexpressed earlier in this paragraph.

It was noted under the new organisationalstructure that a training and development managerwas to be appointed under the human resourcesmanager, to overcome shortcomings in theprevious structure. This is to be commended astraining is an integral part of ensuring theeffective delivery of the organisation’senvironmental policy and must be resourced at theappropriate level. A centralised approach to thedevelopment of a training strategy, coupled withcentrally developed but regionally deliveredcommon core competency-based courses usingassessment methods appropriate for regional staff,will allow the transfer of personnel betweenregions with consistent skill levels and will makea positive contribution to the delivery ofsustainable forest management.


Training policy is specified in the HumanResource Manual which details the process foridentifying a training need and seeking approvalfor funding it through an approved trainingcourse. Under the human resource policy, eachmanager is to discuss with each subordinate anytraining necessary to enhance the employee’sskills. Discussions with district/regional staffshow that some managers maintain acomprehensive training program for allemployees. However, this may not be consistentacross all districts/regions and could not beconfirmed, as a visit to a region was not possible.


■ develop competency standards for thosepersonnel who do work which can cause asignificant environmental impact;

■ develop a training strategy which includesthe conduct of a training needs analysis withthe aim of identifying all those activitieswithin the organisation that can have asignificant environmental impact, andwhich deals with communications,motivation, and environmental awareness


26 March 200112

and technically related environmentaltraining;

■ develop and implement procedures tomanage, control and record the trainingprocess; and

■ provide training to staff at each relevantfunction and level of the organisation,including contractors where appropriate, tomake them aware of the need to:

− know their roles and responsibilities inachieving conformity with environmentalpolicy and procedures, and therequirements of the environmentalmanagement system, includingemergency preparedness and responserequirements;

− understand the significant environmentalimpacts, actual or potential, of theirwork activities and the environmentalbenefits of improved personnelperformance; and

− know the potential consequences ofdeparting from specified operatingprocedures.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.2.5, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.2 and Annex A.4.2 offeradditional guidance on this element of thestandard.

1.4.3 Communication (Clause 4.4.3)



1. set up a procedure for controlling the receiptand responses to internal and externalcommunications relating to the environmentalactivities of the organisation; and

2. document the internal and externalcommunications mentioned above.


Discussion with staff and a perusal of StateForests documentation did not reveal an internalcommunication strategy. While the absence ofsuch a strategy does not mean this is notoccurring, there was no information to prove thatan effective communication process exists across

the organisation. For example, a lot ofcommunications within the organisation, certainlyat a regional level, were not subject todocumentation – and so could not be verified,should this prove necessary, to defend aprosecution or demonstrate something to thepublic.

The implementation of such a strategy would alsoensure that communications being delivered toregional staff and through them to contractorswere understood. For example, the codes ofpractice currently in use are expected to be usedby ‘State Forests managers, employees,contractors and other clients’ yet the documentsthemselves are written in the expectation of adegree of literacy which may not have beenachieved by all employees and contractors.Similarly, circulars are not written to cater forthose with lower levels of literacy. Again it wasnoted that State Forests were tackling this, at leastin part, through literacy surveys and were alsoaware of the reading and comprehension problemsassociated with in-field documentation.

With respect to external communications astrategy was under development and it wasevident that a process existed for considering theviews of parties interested in selectedenvironmental issues. The use of community andfocus groups to obtain the views of interestedparties and the more formal placing of documentson public display, the use of harvest advisoryboards, the Regulatory and Public InformationCommittee and other strategies are all appropriatein the context of a management system.

An integrated communication strategy may needto be developed to communicate effectively withinterested parties such as employees, communitygroups, and the general public, any of whichmight become disenchanted over theorganisation’s response or its reporting of specificenvironmental issues and seek to publiciseinternal matters. This strategy should also beprepared to deal with inter-agency disputes andissues of cross-boundary jurisdiction or nationalsignificance.

AS/NZS ISO 14001 does not requireorganisations to report on their environmentalperformance except as required by law. StateForests should, however, report as fully aspossible on its environmental impacts andobjectives and targets. In determining what andhow to report, management should be guided byrelevant international codes of practice if criticism


26 March 2001 13

of the reporting structure and content byenvironmental interest groups is to be avoided.For example, reports could include anorganisational profile, details of employee andcommunity involvement in the development andimplementation of the environmental managementsystem, and a consistent layout in terms ofmoving from policy, through management,releases, resource conservation, risk andcompliance, to employee recognition and endingwith interested party involvement.


The Service had an internal communication policybut the policy is aimed at defining downwardcommunication, largely through regular meetings,and it did not describe upward or lateralcommunication effectively. It was noted that allpolicy and procedure manuals were to beaccessible to all staff and available for purchaseby the public.

The Service’s external communications arelargely governed by legislation and no policy wasseen. However, it was noted that the 1995-96Annual Report contained extensive coverage ofthe community consultation process and thiswould exceed the requirements of ISO 14001.

The 1995-96 Annual Report contains acomprehensive overview of the organisation’senvironmental activities and broad strategicoutcomes. Future reports should cover bothstrategic and environmental performanceoutcomes.

Recommendation A9: State Forestsmanagement should:

■ give consideration to the development of ainternal, external and integratedcommunications strategy;

■ develop and implement procedures for themanagement and control of internal andexternal communications aboutenvironmental issues; and

■ consider a layout defined in a recognisedcode of practice for the annual reporting oftheir environmental performance.

National Parks and Wildlife Servicemanagement should:

■ revise its internal communications policy tobetter reflect the requirement for upwardand lateral communication;

■ develop and implement procedures for themanagement and control of internal andexternal communications aboutenvironmental issues; and

■ consider a layout defined in a recognisedcode of practice for the annual reporting oftheir environmental performance.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.3.1, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.3, Annex A.4.3 and theReferences 15 and 16 offer additional guidance onthis element of the standard.

1.4.4 Environmental management systemdocumentation (Clause 4.4.4)


The standard wants the organisation to documentin paper or electronic form:

1. the core elements of the managementsystem and how they interact with eachother; and

2. provide direction to related documents suchas procedures, work instructions,emergency plans, process information,standards, etc.


State Forests’ documentation of the managementand control of forest activities is comprehensivebut disjointed. There is no policy aboutdocumentation in terms of its layout, format,technical content, use or control. There wasapparently no central or regional index ofdocumentation. This leads to inconsistencies andto the multiplication of local documents whichmay, unknown to the writer, duplicate andcontradict a central document or lead to thedevelopment of a regional document whosecontent may be based on incorrect assumptions.

An environmental management system requires ahierarchy of documents not clearly present withinState Forests’ documentation system. Thishierarchy starts with the organisation’senvironmental policy at the pinnacle and devolvesto individual policies for each element of thestandard, normally concentrated in anenvironmental policy manual. For example, thepolicy on contractor selection may emphasise theneed to select contractors on the basis of past


26 March 200114

environmental performance as well as other moreconventional cost-based criteria. These policiesare then cascaded throughout the organisation inprocedures that state what and why something hasto be done, where and when it has to be done, andwho must do it. Where necessary, workinstructions then follow which state how it has tobe done.

These system-based policies, procedures and workinstructions are complemented by similar process-based documents such as a conservation policy,plans, procedures and work instructions whichreflect what, when, why, where, by whom andhow conservation will be achieved. Theenvironmental management system does notspecify a particular method or medium forachieving this hierarchy of documentation. StateForests may seek to continue to use their existingdocumentation structure in terms of plans,circulars, local documents, operational manuals,codes of practice, etc., but the role of thesedocuments will need to be more precisely definedif they are to add value to the management of theorganisational process.


Although the Service has a structureddocumentation system in which high-level policyis documented and supported in some areas withprocedures, there was no policy on documenthierarchy. While it was evident that head officedocumentation was well structured, there wasinformation to suggest that regional/district/zonedocumentation was not consistent or adequatelystructured.

As mentioned earlier, a documentation policy isrequired so that employees and members of thepublic can understand the role of documentationin delivering consistent organisationalperformance. It is also necessary to compensatefor organisations which have traditionally reliedon the experience and stability of their work forceand may, through changes beyond their controlsuch as the inability to pay market rates, orchanges in government policy, be required toreduce staff, cut operating costs, or replace olderstaff with less experienced staff.


■ develop documentation policies which meetthe requirements of AS/NZS ISO 14001;and

■ align existing documentation with thedocument hierarchy, subject tomanagement and control as defined in thedocumentation policy.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.3.2, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.4 and Annex A4.4 offeradditional guidance on this element of thestandard.

1.4.5 Document control (Clause 4.4.5)



1. set up and keep in place a procedure forcontrolling the documents which are neededto manage an ISO 14001 based environmentalmanagement system, making sure:

− that all documents are suitable andapproved for use,

− documents needed to do the work arecurrent and handy for staff to use, and

− out of date documents are not still in use.

2. ensure that the documentation is legible,dated, readily identifiable, maintainedproperly and able to manage changes to thesystem effectively.


Perusal of many documents of the State Forests’management system shows that document controlis at best inadequate and at worst non-existent.For example, few documents are complete with aunique identification number, date of issue,authorisation (ownership) signature, revisionstatus and page numbering. Manuals or plansfrequently do not state the number of pages theyshould contain or do not specify a list of effectivepages.

Lists of available documents, if they exist, aregenerally out of date and obsolete documents aremixed up with current documents and not markedto indicate their obsolescence. Where documentsare used, they are rarely referenced in the workprocess and the currency of documents is


26 March 2001 15

generally suspect. For example, some areamanagement plans have not been updated for tenyears or more. The management and control ofpollution control licences and other legaldocuments was more systematic but still notadequate in terms of an environmentalmanagement system. Document distributionrecords were rarely kept and it was not possible todetermine who had what documents or howcurrent they were.

The absence of document control means thatworkplace activities are subject to unnecessaryvariation through the use of incorrect or out ofdate documents. This could lead to prosecution bya regulating body because of an incorrect responseto a particular set of circumstances, and in theevent of a prosecution, since it is unlikely that thereference document in use could be establishedwith any certainty, this could jeopardise anydefence put forward by State Forests.


A review of some of the Service’s policydocumentation showed that there had been amajor policy development between 1989 and1993, followed by further policy development in1995-96, some of which is still going on.However, some of the documentation had notbeen amended since its initial development. Other,more modern documents had been subject toamendment and new documents were still underdevelopment.

Perusal of these documents also revealed that in anumber of cases they were not copy numbered,there was no list of effective pages and noamendment status. Loose documents werefrequently inadequately labelled, contained noindication of their issue status or of the number ofpages that should be present. There was nocentralised master list of documents and documentsponsors and not all document sponsors had a listof document holders.

The comments made in the last paragraph underState Forests apply equally to the National Parksand Wildlife Service.

Recommendation A11: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldimplement a document control system for alldocuments related to the management of bothorganisations' significant impacts.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.3.3, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.5, Annex A.4.5 and BS 7750Clause 4.7.2 and Annex A.7 offer additionalguidance on this element of the standard.

1.4.6 Operational control (Clause 4.4.6)



1. identify and plan all activities, functions andprocesses performed by the organisation thatare associated with its significantenvironmental aspects and which fall withinthe scope of its policy, objectives and targets;and

2. make sure all activities, functions andprocesses so identified are controlled.

This element, although comprising one paragraphin the standard, is one of the most difficult tounderstand and comply with. In order to simplifythe explanation of what is required, it is easier tobreak it down into the following sub-elements:

■ Planning and control

■ Work procedures and instructions

■ Verification

■ Workmanship

■ New processes

■ Equipment control and maintenance

State Forests and National Parks andWildlifeService: current position

State Forests and National Parks and WildlifeService activities create a number ofenvironmental impacts as reflected in suchdocuments as environmental impact statements,other assessments, and plans. However, the linkbetween an activity and the significant impactoccurring at a particular site is not always clearand readily discernible. Further, the situationregarding normal, abnormal and emergencycircumstances, along with those environmentalaspects over which State Forests and the Servicehas control or can influence, is a furthercomplication which neither organisation’s currentmanagement system resolves.

Planning and control. It is essential to plan andcontrol the activities performed by State Forests


26 March 200116

and the Service that are associated with itssignificant aspects. This can only be achieved ifthe interaction with the environment at each stageof the activity, in terms of input resourcerequirements and outputs in terms of unwantedwaste or other by-products, is known. In forestoperations, these activities may include road andinfrastructure maintenance or building, habitat orother maintenance, harvesting, site security,equipment maintenance, chemical handling andstorage, waste disposal, and transportation to andfrom the site.

Planning in State Forests and the Service isgenerally well documented in a variety ofoperational, harvest, habitat, conservation, fireand other management plans. These defineprotection control measures which seek tominimise the environmental impact caused byforest operations as identified through theenvironmental impact assessment process. Theplans may also refer to other requirementsspecified in pollution control licences, soil erosionand other protocols. They do not, however, alwayslink particular activities to specific impacts and donot deal with the broader issues of influence interms of ISO 14001.

Recommendation A12: Process flow diagramsshould be developed for the forest operationsundertaken by State Forests and NationalParks and Wildlife Service and these should beused to link activities with their environmentalaspects and impacts.

Work procedures and instructions. Procedures andwork instructions are needed to ensure work tasksare completed in a manner which is consistentwith an organisation’s environmental policy andassociated objectives and targets.

State Forests uses codes of practice and selectedcirculars to provide guidance to staff andcontractors on work processes. These guidancedocuments are well developed but are not alwayssupported by more technical guidance on how toundertake a particular activity such as theconstruction of particular drain types, roadgrading and so on. These may be supplemented byregional documents but the approval process forall these documents is not well defined.

The Service has some documents which containmore detailed information on work practices, suchas the Threatened Species Conservation Act andfire protocols. However, there was littleinformation about any consistent set of roading,drainage and building practices or other

maintenance activities. Regions and districts havetheir own practices but these were not always welldocumented.


■ develop and implement proceduresincluding:

− the identification, management, controland assessment of the procedure andwork instruction development process;and

− those necessary to manage theorganisation's significant aspects.

Verification. Monitoring and control of theactivities of State Forests and National Parks andWildlife Service and their contractors’ operationsensure that the outcome of each activity providesthe desired environmental performance in apredictable and cost-effective way. Achievingsuch consistency requires the identification ofpoints in the work flow which serve to monitorand control the outcome of an activity or theservice delivery process, including variables suchas individual staff skills, working conditions andany equipment used in the process. Decisions onthe selection of these points are based on anassessment of the impact of each work activity onthe environment. For example, during a fellingprocess, the incorrect felling of a tree into ahabitat reserve and its subsequent removal maydamage the habitat unnecessarily if it is not donecorrectly. Such an activity may need to besupervised because of its critical nature.

No evidence was seen that such requirements hadbeen identified in relation to environmentallyrelated issues under current workplace processrequirements.

Recommendation A14: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldamend plans/procedures/quality controlplans/work instructions, etc. to include theidentification of work flow control points forenvironmentally related issues, as appropriate.

Workmanship. How well the job is done, andtherefore how effectively any adverseenvironmental impacts are minimised, depends onmany things including the training given, thedegree of supervision, subcontractor /operatormotivation, the quality of the procedure and workinstructions and the tools and equipment providedto do the job. No evidence was available to show


26 March 2001 17

that workmanship standards have been set,especially for the contractor, for environmentallycritical operations or tasks – for example, themixing of chemicals, cleaning of equipment or thecompilation of accident/incident reports.

Recommendation A15: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service ensurethat workmanship standards are set, displayedwhere appropriate, or documented, and thatsenior staff record when inspections take placeto monitor adherence to the standards.

New processes. All processes are subject tochange as time passes and experience is gained intheir operation. These changes must not beconsidered in isolation, since a beneficial changein one part of the process can often have adetrimental effect in another part. Process changesor new processes must be reviewed before beingimplemented, to ensure that they do not alter theorganisation’s environmental aspects or havesignificant adverse impacts. No procedures wereevident within State Forests or the Service thatrequired the management and control of newprocesses or changes to existing process inenvironmental terms.

Recommendation A16: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldamend existing procedures to includeenvironmental considerations in theintroduction and control of new processes,materials or techniques.

Equipment control and maintenance. The natureof harvesting and forest maintenance is such thatthe efficient and continued operation ofmechanical equipment is essential. Achievinguninterrupted operation of equipment is a functionof such factors as the level of preventivemaintenance, adherence to well-definedmaintenance schedules, documented maintenancestandards and equipment history, an effectivemaintenance management system and anappropriate number of trained staff and otherresources.

The environmental damage from equipmentfailure may well be severe in that the impact willbe sudden and there could be secondary impactsfrom it, for instance, hydraulic line failure causinga spill of hydraulic fluid on the forest floor,leading to the inability to finish a drain before arain storm moves through the forest. No evidencewas available to show that State Forests’ or theServices’ equipment maintenance philosophy orthat of its contractors took into consideration the

environmental impacts likely to be caused as aresult of such failures.

Recommendation A17: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldconduct an assessment of equipment used inharvesting and other operations to identifythose pieces of equipment whose failure couldhave a significant environmental impact.Equipment so identified should be subject to aprogram of preventive maintenance based onsound engineering practices.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.3.4, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.6, Annex A4.6 offer additionalguidance on this element of the standard.

1.4.7 Emergency preparedness andresponse (Clause 4.4.7)



1. establish and maintain procedures to:

− identify potential emergency situations andpermit effective response to real situations,and

− prevent and mitigate the environmentalimpacts caused by emergency situations;

2. assess and revise the procedures after theoccurrence of such situations; and

3. periodically cost the emergency procedures,where practicable.

State Forests and National Parks and WildlifeService: current position

The most significant possible emergency in forestoperations is wildfire. Other likely emergenciesmay involve human health, the failure of a drainor erosion bank, or a vehicle accident. Themanagement of wildfire emergencies is welldocumented in both organisations and associatedplans and fire planning requirements are subject toregular exercises.


• make a complete list of possibleemergencies, including those likely to begenerated by non-operational activities andexternal sources;


26 March 200118

• develop plans to respond to suchemergencies;

• develop procedures to identify new andchanged circumstances in whichemergencies may occur and ensure thedevelopment of plans for the managementof any new emergencies that are identified,including amelioration of the likely effects;

• exercise emergency plans at regularintervals and review the plans after suchexercises or any real situations.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.3.3.5, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.4.7 offer additional guidance onthis element of the standard.

Comments

Identification of circumstances in whichemergencies may arise in forest operations shouldresult from the completion of the work associatedwith identifying the organisation’s significantenvironmental impacts. Typically, more generalcircumstances may include accidents, fire, flood,lightning strike, sabotage, chemical, fuel or oilspillage and accidents involving motor vehiclescarrying dangerous goods.

1.5 Checking and corrective action (clause 4.5)

1.5.1 Monitoring and measurement (Clause4.5.1)



1. implement and maintain procedures to:

− periodically evaluate conformity withrelevant environmental legislation andregulations, and

− monitor and measure those keycharacteristics of its operation that can havea significant impact on the environment,including information to track performance,relevant operational controls andconformance with the organisation'sobjectives and targets

2. ensure monitoring equipment is calibrated andmaintained and that the records of this process areretained.


Monitoring and measurement in State Forests’activities is not well defined. Environmentalimpact statements, harvest plans, pollution controllicences and other documents contain arequirement to monitor and measure. However,discussion with operational staff did not reveal aready familiarity with the monitoring ormeasuring requirements in these documents. Forexample, it was not always possible to determineclearly whether the monitoring requirements ofthe environmental impact statement were beingmet.

Discussions with regional staff revealed thatmonitoring and measurement results were subjectto a regular analysis and review but that theresults of the review and the subsequent actionwere not always adequately documented. Further,there was no documentation to demonstrate thatany higher review took place to ensure that themonitoring and measurement process wasreviewed for confirmation that it was meeting theoriginal intent of the process. For example, noreview was evident of the monitoringrequirements of the Eden environmental impactstatement to determine whether circumstanceshad changed and new monitoring requirementsshould be established.


The monitoring and measurement of the Serviceactivities is not well defined, nor are the resultseffectively documented. Most documentsexamined in the Service contained objectives, andin some cases detailed criteria; however, few ifany documents, except perhaps the corporate plan,in terms of the strategic management cycle,contained any monitoring component.

Despite the absence of documented requirementsto monitor environmental performance,monitoring does take place. However, this isgenerally discretionary and is not consistentbetween regions/districts/zones and the results arenot always documented adequately. Documentedmonitoring programs and associated records arenecessary to demonstrate to the public and otherinterested parties the effectiveness of the Service’smanagement of its assets. No information wasseen that suggested that the organisation as awhole was monitoring legal compliance.

Recommendation A19: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service should


26 March 2001 19

develop procedures to enable the identificationand maintenance of the appropriateenvironmental parameters to be monitored toshow conformity with the relevant legal andother internal environmental standards andenvironmental objectives and targets.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.4.2 and AS/NZSISO 14001 Clause 4.5.1. offer additional guidanceon this element of the standard.

1.5.2 Non conformance and corrective andpreventive action (Clause 4.5.2)



1. maintain procedures for managing andcontrolling any incidence of non-conformancewith regulations;

2. take action to mitigate any environmentalimpacts resulting from non-conformance;

3. take action to stop ensure non-conformancedoes not recur, either in the short term or atsome time in the future;

4. make sure any corrective action works both inthe short and long-term;

5. look at all work-related environmental andother records, customer complaints, staffsuggestions, etc. regularly to find anyproblems that are likely to cause non-conformance in the future and take action tofix them.

6. prioritise problems according to the impactthe problem has on the environment;

7. change procedures where there is a need to doso to prevent non-conformance.


The need to identify environmental activities thatdo not conform to regulations, etc. in State Forestsis not well documented. Codes of practice outlineperformance monitoring in terms of finalreporting and auditing and do not in general coverquality control issues such as non-conformancereporting. The Harvesting Inspection GuidanceNote, an internal document, does however,include a requirement to report non-conformancesin respect of breaches of licence or harvest plan

conditions. Compliance with State Forests’ Codesof Forest Practices is a requirement of acontractor’s licence conditions but littleinformation was available to show that thereporting requirements of such codes wereeffective in encouraging non-conformancereporting by contractors.

Current non-conformance reporting activities aregenerally reactive and no preventive requirementwas found in the codes or other documentation.Such a requirement may include the monitoring ofpast incidents/non-conformances to identifypotential future incidents/ non-conformances.


As with State Forests, the need to identify non-conforming environmental activities in theService is not well documented. Without thisinformation, the Service will be unable to identifyand take the necessary corrective and/orpreventive action to prevent a recurrence orameliorate the impact of an occurence. Again, thisis not to say that such action is not already beingtaken; the problem is that a requirement to take itis not defined in all cases and the action taken isnot well recorded. In such circumstances it isextremely difficult to improve the organisation’senvironmental performance.

Recommendation A20: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shoulddevelop and promulgate a non-conformity,corrective and preventive action procedure.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.5.3, ISO 14001Clause 4.5.2 and Annex A.5.2 and BS 7750Clause 4.8.4 and Annex A.8 offer additionalguidance on this element of the standard.

1.5.3 Records (Clause 4.5.3)



1. develop procedures for the identification,maintenance and disposition of environmentalrecords;

2. keep environmental-related records which canprove the environmental management systemis working properly;


26 March 200120

3. ensure that records to be kept are named ornumbered, listed, filed, stored, able to berecalled at any time they are needed and keptfrom damage or deterioration; and

4. keep records for a definite period, which mustbe stated.


The quality and quantity of environmental recordsretained in State Forests varies with the degree ofimportance placed on them by the relevantmanager. No policy or guidance was seen on whatrecords were to be retained or the retention period.The absence of a records policy and records whichconfirm compliance with particular aspects ofState Forests’ operations could leave theorganisation vulnerable in the event of aprosecution with respect to licence or otherconditions.

Implementation of an environmental managementsystem will require the establishment andmaintenance of procedures for identification,collection, indexing, filing, storage, maintenanceand disposition of environmental records in suchaway as to ensure their permanency, retrievabilityand maintenance in an environment free fromdeterioration, damage or loss.


The Service should be commended on the recentlyintroduced records management system whichdraws on the content of the Australian standardfor records management AS 4390. When thissystem is fully implemented, it will proveinvaluable in aiding the Service to demonstrate itscommitment to the environmental management ofits assets.

Recommendation A21: State Forests shoulddevelop policy and procedures in accordancewith the requirements of the standard for theidentification of environmental records to beraised and retained.

Comment

Sorting out what records are to be kept can be aproblem until the organisation has had someexperience with this element of the standard. Inthe first instance, it is better to keep more recordsthan is necessary and then cull the ones notneeded than it is not to have enough records to

prove that the environmental management systemis working properly.

Additional guidance


1.5.4 Environmental management systemaudits (Clause 4.5.4)



1. carry out audits to:

− determine whether or not the environmentalmanagement system

i. conforms to planned arrangements forenvironmental management, and

ii. has been properly implemented andmaintained;

− provide information on the results of theassessment to the management assessmentprocess; and

2. develop a program and procedures for periodicenvironmental management system audits witha schedule based on the environmentalimportance of the activity to be audited and theresults of past audits.


State Forests currently has a sound internal auditprogram in place which is risk-based. Theprogram includes regular audits of regionalactivities including harvest plans. However, thecurrent program does not seem to cover thebroader issues such as meeting corporateobjectives, effectiveness of organisational policyor management strategies or reviews. Should StateForests implement an environmental managementsystem, this program would have to bestrengthened and internal auditing would have tobe introduced at the district level.


The Service does not have an internal auditprogram in place which meets the requirements ofthis standard.


26 March 2001 21

Recommendation A22: State Forests shouldstrengthen the scope of internal audits toinclude a broader range of higher levelauditing task.

National Parks and Wildlife Service shouldimplement an internal audit program as soonas possible to enable the organisation todemonstrate its commitment to environmentalmanagement.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.4.5, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.5.4 and Annex A.5.4, AS/NZSISO 14010, 14011-1 and 14012 offer additionalguidance on this element of the standard.

1.6 Management review (Clause 4.6)


The standard wants the organisation to ensure thatthe environmental management system is:

1. being applied across the whole organisationand its activities effectively; and

2. continues to be suitable for the organisation’sneeds.

State Forests and National Parks and WildlifeService: current position

Although neither organisation conductsmanagement reviews of the kind required by this

standard, it was evident that management reviewsdo take place. For example, State Forests recentlyreviewed and identified the absence of supportivepolicies as an issue of significance and similarlythe Service identified the absence of effectivemonitoring as an issue of significance for it.

Recommendation A23: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldestablish and document a management reviewprocess to meet the requirements of ISO 14001.

Comment

Management review meetings would normally beheld quarterly or half yearly, by the most seniorperson in the organisation (chief executive officer,director-general, managing director, etc) and maybe combined with other meetings. The reviewshould consider such factors as the continuingsuitability of environmental policy, regulatorydevelopments, budgetary considerations, concernsof interested parties, changing activities of theorganisation, changes in environmental sensitivityof surrounding areas, environmental and planningconcerns and professional standards and practices.

Additional guidance

AS/NZS ISO 14004 Clause 4.5, AS/NZS ISO14001 Clause 4.6 and Annex A4.6 and BS 7750Clause 4.11 and Annex A.11 offer additionalguidance on this element of the standard.

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONSBY CHAPTER

CHAPTER 2

Recommendation 2.1: The legislation setting upthe National Parks and Wildlife Service asmanager of conservation areas in publicownership, and State Forests as manager ofproduction forests in public ownership should beamended so as to clearly identify the objectives ofthese agencies and the areas which they manage interms of the demands of ecologically sustainableforest management. In particular, it should bemade clear that the provision of recreationalopportunities in land located in the proposed CARforest reserve system should be subservient to theconservation of biological diversity.

Recommendation 2.2: In the short term, an inter-agency coordinating group involving existingregulatory agencies should be established to:

■ better coordinate planning in relation to cross-tenure issues;

■ ensure consistency of plans with the regionalforest agreement and other hierarchicalcomponents of the planning structure;

■ coordinate the process of granting licences andapprovals;

■ coordinate independent audits of processes andoutcomes;

■ ensure better implementation and enforcementof regulations;

■ improve response to public concerns aboutinadequate compliance with policies andcodes; and

■ effectively report to the public and governmentof the findings from audits.

However, even in the short term, it is essentialthat the following functions are managed andapproved by a single agency:

■ responsibility for ensuring that forests-relatedplans address management requirements forecological sustainability and specifyecologically sustainable management targets(such plans include, for example, managementarea plans for public forests; regionalvegetation and private forest management

plans; and local and regional environmentalplans);

■ responsibility for establishing an effective codeof forest practice system, including theapproval of codes and methods for theirimplementation (See Recommendation 3.18);

■ responsibility for ensuring that monitoring (bythe forest manager) of agreed ecologicallysustainable forest management outcomes isconducted (see Recommendation 6.1).

Within three years, the position of forest regulatorshould be established as a means of moreeffectively performing the above functions whichare necessary for achieving ecologicallysustainable forest management and to approveoperations not adequately addressed by codes ofpractice or approved plans of management.

Recommendation 2.3: There is a need tostrengthen cooperation and coordination betweenGovernment agencies so as to achieve integratedmanagement for conservation, wood productionand other values in both public and private forests.Specifically:

■ active management across tenures of thecomprehensive, adequate and representative(CAR) reserve system (formal and informalreserves and areas managed by prescription);

■ complementary management of general woodproduction zones within State Forest;

■ effective threat abatement practices;

■ an appropriate balance between recreation andconservation;

■ more effective management and use ofresource information supporting ecologicallysustainable forest management ;

■ more effective use of expertise;

■ support for private native forest management;

■ better strategic management area plans;

■ better coordination of research anddevelopment;

■ more effective communication of ecologicallysustainable forest management outcomes.

In order to promote cultural change withinexisting forest agencies, the formation of aninterdepartmental coordinating committee mayprovide some interim benefit. However, in themedium-term, a more effective option would bethe formation of a Natural Resources ManagementAgency with management responsibility for all

public forested land and a support function formanagers of private forested land.

This recommendation is contingent upon thecreation and filling of the position of forestregulator in order to assist in maintaining abalance between forest uses. The proposed naturalresources agency will be guided in balancingconservation and wood production objectives byobjectives specified in RFAs, requirements of theexternal regulator, and by other governmentpolicy.

A logical corollary of the proposals inRecommendations 2.2 and 2.3 will be to extendthem so as to cover not only forests but all naturalresources. However, this is outside the EWGterms of reference.

Recommendation 2.4: Private forest managersshould be given assistance with theimplementation of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement , including:

■ technical assistance in the preparation ofconservation management plans, private forestmanagement plans and individual timberharvesting plans;

■ negotiation of conservation agreements; and

■ the provision of advice and training in relationto codes of practice.


Recommendation 2.5: A whole of governmentprocess to develop natural resources legislationshould be put in place. Parts 3 and 4 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1995should be considered as a potential vehicle forintegrating natural resource management in viewof the following characteristics of that legislation:

■ broad plan-making powers;

■ a well-developed assessment procedures andapprovals process;

■ a well-understood system of communityparticipation including review by the courts;

■ potential to move beyond constraints on landuse to active management;

■ potential applicability to both public andprivate land.

In the short term, to reduce complexity at the levelof operational regulation and as a move towards a‘one-stop shop’:

■ there should be a review of separaterequirements for approvals under existinglegislation with a view to replacing them withconcurrence procedures.

Recommendation 2.6: The EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act should be amendedso as to enable Ministers other than the Ministerfor Urban Affairs and Planning to makeenvironmental planning instruments. Appropriatearrangements should be made to ensureconsistency between instruments.

Recommendation 2.7: Regional vegetationcommittees and authorised officers should havepowers of entry over private land for the purposesof regional vegetation management planning.

Recommendation 2.8: regional vegetationmanagement plans should clearly indicate areas ofprivate land necessary to complete the CARreserve system and secure their protection throughprohibitions on clearing and the conclusion withlandholders of registered property agreements,which run with the land. These should deliver tolandholders attractive financial incentives tomanage the land in a way which is consistent withconservation objectives.

Recommendation 2.9: Strategic and operationalplanning decisions about the protection of nativevegetation from subdivision pressures should bebrought within the Native VegetationConservation Act in order to ensure that itsconservation is considered in a regional context.

Recommendation 2.10: In order to reinforce theimportance of State Forests of New South Wales'scommitment to the policy objectives, the expertworking group recommends that State Forests ofNew South Wales:

■ commits itself to the development of thosegeneral and specific policies necessary toimplement national and state Governmentenvironment and forest policies, and theorganisation's corporate objectives;

■ documents for staff a clear linkage betweenlegislation, corporate and other policies,strategic plans, operational and otherprocesses, and audit and review processes;and, more specifically, the importance of thehierarchy in delivering ecologically sustainableforest management principles; and

■ develops a policy which, among other things,recognises the ecological and silviculturalprinciples upon which silvicultural practicemust be based, the range of values for whichforests are now managed, the need to integrate

wood production and environmental objectivesthrough silvicultural practice, and the diversityin silvicultural practice needed to achievemultiple-use objectives.

CHAPTER 3

Recommendation 3.1: Information collation,analysis, communication and dissemination fordelivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in New South Wales should beimproved by:

■ storing, analysing and disseminating State-wide information required for deliveringecologically sustainable forest management,including all existing digital, biophysical,socio-economic and cultural heritage data;

■ developing protocols for data collection;

■ maintaining standards of data quality, storageand transfer;

■ identifying gaps in current knowledge;

■ guidance on data ‘capture’ (collection) andinventory activities;

■ better training and advice to staff by agencies

■ facilitating the free exchange of data betweengovernment agencies and making dataavailable to stakeholders, local councils, andthe public; and

■ provision of existing information to interestedparties for the cost of data retrieval andhandling.

A single forest resource information unit shouldbe created within the New South WalesGovernment to take responsibility for informationmanagement.

Recommendation 3.2: That the New SouthWales Government take legal advice on the rightto copyright and trade biodiversity records.Departments should only accept records into theirdatabases on condition that they be available forplacement in the public domain. Some recordsmay be quarantined from general public accesswhere it can be shown that release would pose asignificant threat to population survival (forexample, species subject to wildlife trade).

Recommendation 3.3: That the New SouthWales Biodiversity Survey Program beimplemented as a matter of urgency subject tomodification to improve and guarantee low costdelivery of information to stakeholders andprivate and public planners and managers.

Recommendation 3.4: That all environmentaldata (including vegetation community maps,threatened species distribution maps and models,and threatened species records) generated andheld by Government after completion of regionalRFA agreements be made available to the generalpublic, stakeholders and planners at no more thanthe cost of data retrieval and handling.

Recommendation 3.5: Development proposalsfor forests should be exempt from requirements toundertake 8-point tests and environmental impactstatements where:

■ they are within specified zones identified onproposed regional vegetation managementplans and are incorporated into localenvironmental plans and regionalenvironmental plans;

■ comprehensive regional environmental surveyshave been undertaken;

■ impacts of activities are known with a highlevel of scientific certainty;

■ approved codes of practice have been adoptedfor the proposed activities; and

■ effective monitoring and enforcementprocedures are in place.

Recommendation 3.6: That the 8 point test in theThreatened Species Conservation Act be revisedto:

■ better reflect regional criteria and targets usedfor monitoring and delivery of ecologicallysustainable forest management;

■ specify minimum standards for biodiversitysurvey and impact assessment;

■ specify exemptions from the 8 point testprocess (for example where proponents adhereto approved codes of practice, undertakeactivities under approved propertymanagement plans and vegetation managementplans or within exclusion zones designatedunder regional planning instruments (regionalenvironment plans, local environment plans,propoerty management plans and proposedregional vegetation management plans).

Recommendation 3.7: The Threatened SpeciesConservation Act be modified to require approvalof 8 point tests by the National Parks and WildlifeService or an independent regulatory agency withappropriate biodiversity expertise.

Recommendation 3.8: That the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act be amended to require

proponents to consult with the Forest Regulatorearly in the assessment process to maximiseopportunity for modification of activities andproposals to avoid significant impacts wherepossible.

Recommendation 3.9: Local GovernmentCouncils and regulators develop and implementdecision support systems for all major land uses tofacilitate cost effective assessment of impacts onthreatened species habitats and delivery ofconsistent and transparent significance tests.

Recommendation 3.10: Guidelines be preparedfor determining when activities have a significantimpact under the 8 point test based on regionaltargets for delivery of ecologically sustainableforest management and other biodiversityconservation criteria.

Recommendation 3.11: All ecologicalcommunities on private land which areinadequately represented in the CAR reservesystem should be considered for listing asendangered ecological communities under theThreatened Species Conservation Act to facilitateprotection from potential clearing anddegradation.

Recommendation 3.12: Fox and cat predation belisted as a threatening process under the TSC Actand that threat abatement plans should beprepared to reduce the extent and impact of foxand cat predation, particularly on public landswhere conservation is a priority.

Recommendation 3.13: The potential conflictbetween the objects of the Rural Lands ProtectionAct and ecologically sustainable forestmanagement principle 1 be removed to ensure theprotection and maintenance of dingo populationson public forests.

Recommendation 3.14: A threat abatement unitshould be created to develop regional cross-tenurethreat abatement plans (to counter significantthreatening processes) and to implement recoveryplans for threatened species.

Recommendation 3.15: Current resourcing forthreat abatement, particularly fox and cat control,be increased substantially (for example, by anorder of magnitude).

Recommendation 3.16: That current legislationbe modified to enable officers of National Parksand Wildlife Service to enter private land for thepurpose of threatened species’ survey andmanagement.

Recommendation 3.17: Threat abatement plansmust be prepared for all recognised majorthreatening processes (including fox and catpredation, clearing on private land, loss of treehollows, grazing, frequent burning, weed invasionand disturbance by exotic animals) as a matter ofurgency (within three years). These plans shouldbe prepared prior to or concurrently with recoveryplans prepared for individual threatened speciessignificantly affected by these processes.Recovery plans should be prepared for groups ofthreatened species affected by commonthreatening processes and prioritised according toextinction risk. Consideration should be given toextending completion dates for individualrecovery plans for threatened species at low risk.

Recommendation 3.18: Application of effectivecodes of practice to guide planning and operationsis critical to achieving ecologically sustainableforest management, but currently codes are onlyapplied in a significant way in public woodproduction forests.

The role of codes of practice in supporting theimplementation of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement in New South Wales should beexpanded by:

■ developing and approving legally bindingcodes to address all important activities acrossall land tenures in New South Wales forests,including wood production, conservationreserve management, grazing, pestmanagement and clearing.

■ ensuring that such codes contain sufficientdetail to guide protection of environmentalvalues at appropriate scales;

■ providing adequate resources to expedite thedevelopment of such codes and their effectiveimplementation in forested areas;

■ implementing codes within the framework ofan environmental management system inpublic forests to facilitate:

− agencies and organisations implementingcodes to demonstrate compliance withcodes through independent means;

− regular public review processes to ensurethat codes reflect continual improvementand best-practice concepts.

Recommendation 3.19: As some codes ofpractice and conservation protocols arenecessarily precautionary at the present time,codes should be subject to ongoing fine tuningand regional modification on the basis of

independent expert advice and the results of newresearch. Any changes to codes of practice shouldflow through to Conditions of Consent forapproved activities and this should be thepreferred mechanism for progressive refinementand modification of environmental protectionstandards rather than undertaking newenvironmental impact statements and speciesimpact statements at regular intervals.

Recommendation 3.20: A code of practice bedeveloped for regulation of clearing on all tenuresincluding residential lands, and the code specifyminimum levels of vegetation retention andprovide guidelines for the maintenance ofcorridors and links.

Recommendation 3.21: The 8 point test bemodified to include provision for assessment ofcumulative impacts and consideration of regionaltargets for vegetation retention.

Recommendation 3.22: The current system ofproject-based assessment and approval for privateforests should be replaced by one based on:

■ regional (cross-tenure) land use planning (forexample, regional vegetation managementplans);

■ preparation of a private forest managementplan;

■ use of codes of practice for all significantactivities within each planning zone;

■ preparing private forestry management plans,where forestry is proposed on specific sites;

■ enhanced monitoring by the forest manager;and

■ periodic review of the private forestmanagement plan and its outcomes in terms ofecological sustainability, undertaken by theforest regulator.

Recommendation 3.23: Coordinated cross-tenureplans for habitat corridors and links across allprivate and public tenures should be developed.

Recommendation 3.24: The development of aregional approach to private forest managementbased on regional vegetation management plansand private forest management plans should beexpedited. Improved vegetation managementplans should use information derived fromcomprehensive regional environmental surveysthat take into account the conservation status offorest ecosystems across all tenures and considersuch elements as biodiversity, soil, water andcultural heritage. The vegetation plans must also

acknowledge the fundamental distinction betweenclearing for agricultural and residential purposesand sustainable native forest management.

Committees preparing regional vegetationmanagement plans must possess adequatetechnical expertise in relation to thescience/practices involved in ecologicallysustainable forest management. Processes toeffectively capture relevant information need to bedeveloped.

In terms of the forest resource, regional vegetationmanagement plans must:

■ assess effects of management practices onindividual forest values at an appropriate scale,which may be larger or smaller than the areacovered by the plan, when setting zoneboundaries;

■ include minimum targets consistent withregional determination of the comprehensive,adequate and representative (CAR) reservesystem for retention of forest cover;

■ indicate specific zones and proceduresessential to meet CAR reservation targets forforest communities that are inadequatelyprotected on public land;

■ maintain or increase the values related toecologically sustainable forest managementabove regional targets;

■ identify areas of forest suitable for restoration;

■ contain a requirement for monitoringcompliance with plans;

■ include coordinated cross-tenure plans forhabitat corridors and links in and betweenforests across all tenures; and

■ involve landholders at an early stage in theplanning process.


■ include systematic vegetation, habitat andfauna surveys as a foundation for planning;

■ implement standardised ‘clearing codes’ tomaintain forest connectivity across tenures;

■ maximise opportunities for development trade-offs in urban areas as an incentive forconservation.

Recommendation 3.25: Private forestmanagement plans and threat abatement plansshould be prepared to an approved standard andapproved by the forest regulator.

Recommendation 3.26: Compulsory codes ofpractice designed to achieve sustainablemanagement of private native forests must be putin place. An appropriate vehicle would be a Stateenvironmental planning policy.

Recommendation 3.27: The current program offorest inventory, growth plot measurement, andgrowth modelling should be maintained andimproved post-RFA. This is essential in order toachieve the key objectives of sustainable woodproduction. External peer review of systems, andthe use of expertise outside State Forests of NewSouth Wales need to be part of on-going efforts toimprove spatial prediction of forest growth,including the effects of contrasting silviculturalpractices on long-term forest production.

Recommendation 3.28: A silvicultural strategyshould be prepared for New South Wales forests.This should be based on an analysis of the presentforest condition and, for each forest type, address:

■ the environmental relationships of the foresttypes - and the relevance of this to silviculturalpractice;

■ the ecological and silvicultural attributes ofspecies and stand dynamic processes;

■ ways of achieving full site regeneration;

■ environmental and economic values of speciesand communities;

■ an appropriate mix of silvicultural methodswhich can be used to achieve a set ofmanagement objectives;

■ practices to restore degraded forest in anenvironmentally sensitive way.

Recommendation 3.29: State Forests of NewSouth Wales address the need to develop withinthe native forests the range of size classes (each ina dynamic condition) required to deliverecologically sustainable product yields.

Recommendation 3.30 State Forests of NewSouth Wales ensure that ecological andsilvicultural expertise, which its professional staffwill need in order to achieve managementobjectives and maintain ecologically sustainableecosystems, is enhanced through appropriatetraining and education programs.

Recommendation 3.31: That State Forests ofNew South Wales incorporate within its firemanagement strategy the principle that allavailable social, cultural, scientific and technicalknowledge be used in determining a sociallyacceptable balance between resource protection,

conservation, and cultural and productionobjectives.

Recommendation 3.32: That grazing in publicforests be provisional on preparation of planswhich address the protection of biodiversityvalues and delivery of ecologically sustainableforest management through mechanisms such asfencing and stock exclusion from environmentallysensitive areas.

Recommendation 3.33: Catchment managementplanning that incorporates the role of forestmanagement on water yield and quality needs tobe strengthened and expedited. Such planningmust link closely to the development of RegionalVegetation Management Plans that havebiodiversity as a primary focus, but which clearlyhave consequences for other catchment values.There is a need to clarify how CatchmentManagement Committees and RegionalVegetation Committees can effectively worktogether. Effective catchment management willrequire the development and implementation ofcodes of practice for major tenures and land-uses.The effectiveness of guidelines forming codes,and of other protocols (for example, the PollutionControl Licence) in protecting water values needsto be evaluated, as a matter of high priority,utilising research and monitoring.

Recommendation 3.34: Existing PreferredManagement Priority classifications used by StateForests of New South Wales should be reviewedas part of the preparation/revision of AreaManagement Plans following completion of theRFA process. Improvements would result from:

■ providing documented guidelines to aid moreconsistency in allocations

■ better documenting the reasons forclassifications

■ directly linking the requirements for specialmanagement prescriptions to the source of, orguide to, those prescriptions (for example,code of practice, management manual,conservation protocol etc.)

■ better involving ‘experts’ and the public indecisions.

Recommendation 3.35: The adequacy of theprotected lands classification in relation toerosion, and of mechanisms for ensuringcompliance with it, should be reviewed by a panelexternal to the Department of Land and WaterConservation.

Recommendation 3.36: Mechanisms need to bedeveloped to ensure effective protection of soiland water values on other private forested land.These mechanisms are best specified in a code ofpractice that applies to all private forest.

Recommendation 3.37: The National Parks andWildlife Service need to develop systematicprocedures for assessing threats to soil and watervalues, and guidelines for mitigating such threats.These elements should form part of a code ofpractice for management of conservation areas.

Recommendation 3.38: Further research, andtargeted monitoring of water quality is needed toevaluate the effectiveness of currently prescribedriparian buffer and filter strips. Further research isurgently needed to refine the local application ofguidelines for protecting water quality and aquatichabitat under a range of environmental conditions.

Recommendation 3.39: Testing of theeffectiveness of the new PCL protocols forassessing soil erosion and water pollution hazard,based on ground observation and monitoring ofwater quality, should be initiated immediately.Such testing must be given at least equal weightas given to auditing of compliance with the newsystem.

Recommendation 3.40: Data collection andmodelling should be initiated to enable the effectsof management on the carbon budget of the totalNew South Wales forest estate to be reliablyestimated. The approach adopted must provideinformation that can be interpreted by New SouthWales and within a national perspective; it is thusa joint NSW-Commonwealth responsibility.

Recommendation 3.41: There is an urgent needfor further development of economic researchcapability in the agencies responsible for forestmanagement and for the collection and analysis ofeconomic information on forest uses. Theformation of a social and economic researchgroup within the proposed Forest Research Unit toserve all agencies would achieve considerablebenefit through economy of scale and a broaderperspective on the issues.

Recommendation 3.42: That there be a survey ofthe private forest resource potential and economicprospects for its management. This functionshould be allocated to the Private ForestrySupport Unit.

Recommendation 3.43: Consistent with theintent of the National Forest Policy Statement andthe nationally agreed JANIS conservation criteriafor forests, conservation targets should be met

through a combination of dedicated forestreserves, areas protected within State forests, andareas zoned for management by specialprescription. Increased consideration should begiven to the capacity of forest areas outsidenational parks and reserves, often referred to as‘non-dedicated’ or ‘off-reserve’forest, tocontribute to meeting conservation targets,because in some circumstances this ‘off-reserve’component can result in enhanced and morebalanced ecologically sustainable forestmanagement outcomes. Resources should becommitted to quantifying the potential of carefullymanaged private native forests to contribute toconservation objectives.

While establishment of a comprehensive, adequateand representative system of forest reservesrepresents a significant step in achieving protectionof conservation values, active on-goingmanagement of the reserve system is also crucial.Increased emphasis must be given to managing thebiological resource for specified objectives, takinginto account the contribution of all tenures.

Recommendation 3.44: Improved mechanismsare needed for collecting and using information toenable cost-effective decision making.Accounting practices that allow full costing of allinputs to forest management should be developed.Without efficient costing of management efforts,the delivery of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement components (environmental, socialand economic) is at risk, and opportunities todevelop more cost-effective procedures could belost. Systematic trials to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative operationalprescriptions should be undertaken. In particular,‘impact costing’ should be used to ensurestakeholders fully appreciate the cost implicationsof their expectations.

Recommendation 3.45: The preparation of aprivate forest management plan should berequired for each property and approved by theforest regulator before commercial operations areconducted.

Recommendation 3.46: Strategic planning inpublic forests must be strengthened. While theformat of plans prepared by the National Parksand Wildlife Service generally meetsrequirements for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, there is a need to complete planpreparation for all parks. For State Forests, a newstrategic management area planning model able todeliver ecologically sustainable forest

management needs to be developed. Suchmanagement area plans:

■ must be developed by the responsiblemanagement agency;

■ should initially draw on and be consistent withregional forest agreements;

■ must be approved by the forest regulator (seelater);

■ should require an annual report to the regulatoron achievements in relation to the plan;

■ must be subject to periodic review (forexample, at 5–7 year intervals) or as requiredby exceptional circumstances, and

■ after review, should be resubmitted to theforest regulator for approval.

The strategic management area planning processmust:

■ assess environmental impacts in sufficientdetail to allow management plans to replacethe environmental impact statement process;

■ set targets (for example, sustainable yields,size of animal populations, degree of sitedisturbance);

■ provide opportunities for public exhibition andcomment;

■ allow determination by the forest regulator;and

■ provide opportunity for review by the courts.

This process would be ongoing, providing a basisfor adaptive management and continuousimprovement, and represent the primary publicforum for discussion and involvement in forestmanagement.

Recommendation 3.47: Given the distribution offorest across several land tenures, National Parksand Wildlife and State Forests should coordinatetheir approach to the management of thecomprehensive, adequate and representativereserve system, often referred to as the CARreserve system (which is based on criteria definedby JANIS, the committee established to ensure theimplementation of the National Forest PolicyStatement) (see also recommendation 2.3).

CHAPTER 4

Recommendation 4.1: Section 25 of theEnvironmental Offences and Penalties Act shouldbe amended so as to allow an order to be maderequiring remediation of unlawful activity.

Recommendation 4.2: The expert working groupacknowledges the benefits of direct stakeholderparticipation in negotiated outcomes. Theopportunity for public comment in decision-making processes should be focussed at thestrategic planning level, for example:

■ environmental planning instruments (includingregional vegetation management plans);

■ strategic management area plans (includingboth forest and park management plans); and

■ cross-tenure threat abatement and speciesrecovery plans.

Greater attention should be given to ensuring thatthose nominated to membership of consultationcommittees adequately represent stakeholderinterest.

Regional managers should negotiate withAboriginal groups on the most appropriate waysfor them to contribute to the formulation ofstrategic plans.

Opportunities for public participation at otherlevels should be confined to situations where thereis likely to be a significant effect on theenvironment and where decision-makingprocesses have not been properly implemented.

In order to facilitate the regional forest agreementprocess and forest management after agreementsare negotiated, ongoing formal processes (such asregional forest forums) need to be strengthened toraise awareness and understanding of ecologicallysustainable forest management and how it can beachieved in New South Wales forests.

Recommendation 4.3: Legislation shouldprovide clearer guidance to enforcement agencieson the implementation of regulatory requirements.See, for example, Soil Conservation and LandCare Act 1989, s 29(1)(c) (SA), which providesthat one of the functions of a soil conservationboard is to ‘implement and enforce this Act withinits district and to endeavour to do so as far aspossible on the basis of first seeking the co-operation of owners of land within the district’

Recommendation 4.4: Section 75D of theIncome Tax Assessment Act should be reviewedas a matter of urgency, with a view to making itmore sensitive to the needs of ecologicallysustainable forest management.

Recommendation 4.5: The finalrecommendations of the Industries Commissionrelating to the removal of disincentives to privateforestry should be reviewed with a view to theirimmediate implementation.

Recommendation 4.6: Guidelines be prepared forinterpretation and implementation of theprecautionary principle for delivery ofecologically sustainable forest management.

CHAPTER 5

Recommendation 5.1: All New South Walesdepartments with direct forest managementresponsibility should develop and implement arecognised (and certifiable) environmentalmanagement system. Further details of therequirements for implementation of such a systemcan be found in Chapter 7 and Appendix A. Theenvironmental management system is essential toensure continual improvement of forestmanagement (‘adaptive’ forest management) andto permit effective audits that demonstratecompliance with principles and regulations forecologically sustainable forest management.

Essential components of adaptive forestmanagement that are currently poorly developedand need to be strengthened include performancemeasures that can gauge whether management isecologically sustainable and review processes thatwill lead to continual improvement in themanagement system.

The results of applying the environmentalmanagement system and the outcomes ofmanagement plans should be publicly reported toraise community confidence that ecologicallysustainable forest management is being achieved.Regulatory compliance should also be reportedand subject to independent validation.

CHAPTER 6

Recommendation 6.1: All New South Walesgovernment departments with a direct forestmanagement responsibility should implementlong-term monitoring programs so as to be able totrack changes in important forest values.Monitoring methods must be able to detectchanges at spatial and temporal scales that aresignificant for ecologically sustainable forestmanagement. A set of key indicators forecologically sustainable forest managementshould be selected, used and subject to ongoingimprovement. These indicators should becompatible with the regional framework and thecore set of indicators developed by the MontrealProcess Implementation Group, a nationalcommittee working to identify criteria andindicators for reporting ecologically sustainableforest management. Supplementary indicators that

cover additional locally important values shouldalso be used.

The setting of targets (for example, sustainableyields, size of animal populations, degree of sitedisturbance) essential to interpreting effects offorest management on forest values should occuras part of the strategic planning process.

Recommendation 6.2: A systematicmeasurement process should be introduced formonitoring the distribution and extent ofthreatening processes and the condition ofbiodiversity on all forests after completion ofthreat abatement plans.

Recommendation 6.3: A system of vegetationcover monitoring be introduced in areas subject tohigh risk of illegal clearing.

Recommendation 6.4: Steps should be taken toachieve better coordination and effective use ofresources allocated to research for ecologicallysustainable forest management in New SouthWales government agencies. Such action shouldlead to the formation of a single research unit thatservices the needs of both forest management andregulation. A single unit would improve researchco-ordination and strengthen the focus on meetingthe needs of ecologically sustainable forestmanagement , which are often generic acrosstenures. The unit should undertake formalcollaborative work with external researchproviders to enhance multidisciplinary research.There is merit in linking the proposed forestresource information unit to the activities of theresearch unit and in co-locating these two units.

Recommendation 6.5: Strategic plans for floraand fauna conservation research should bedeveloped. This should be undertaken by theproposed Forests Research Unit in collaborationwith the forest land managers,. Research intoreserve selection and management for protectingand maintaining biodiversity on private land as apriority.

Recommendation 6.6: Predictive models ofsuccessional processes for major forest typesshould be developed. These should be done by theproposed Forest Research Unit.

Recommendation 6.7: High priority should begiven to RandD to improve spatial prediction offuture forest growth, yield and quality in regrowthforests, and to incorporate the effects of a widerange of contrasting silvicultural systems on thesepredictions.

Recommendation 6.8: The agency responsiblefor wood production should document the

scientific basis for current silvicultural practices,establish demonstration areas for a range ofsystems and initiate specific multi-disciplinaryresearch trials aimed at resolving contentiousaspects of these systems.

Recommendation 6.9: The proposed ForestResearch Unit should prepare in collaborationwith the forest management units a strategicprogram of fire management research that coversall forest tenures.

CHAPTER 7

Recommendation 7.1: An independent expertreview of the operation of the forest practicescode system and its outcomes be undertaken at notgreater than five yearly intervals.

Recommendation 7.2 : A clear strategy todevelop and implement effective monitoring offorest management outcomes, leading to review ofmanagement practice (adaptive management)should be defined in regional forest agreements.

APPENDIX A

Recommendation A1: Senior management ofState Forests and National Parks and WildlifeService should:

■ commit to the development of environmentalmanagement system at the earliest opportunity

■ prepare an implementation plan for theselected system

■ identify, document and commit the level ofhuman and material resources necessary toimplement its environmental policy.

Recommendation A2: State Forests should:

■ establish and document a clear link betweenrelevant national and state governmentenvironmental/forest policy and theorganisation's corporate objectives;

■ commit itself to the development of thosegeneral and specific polices necessary andrelevant to implement national and stategovernment environmental/forest policy andthe organisation's corporate objectives;

■ develop strategies for the implementation oftheir corporate environmental policy and othermore specific environmental policies;

■ ensure that the development andimplementation processes are transparent andinvolve workplace staff; and

■ revise the environmental policy to betterreflect the requirements of ISO 14001.

National Parks and Wildlife Service should:

■ develop, promulgate and implement anorganisation-wide environmental policy whichcontains the core elements of its approach tothe management of its environmentalresponsibilities as both a regulator and forestmanager;

■ encapsulate in its environmental policystatement, or other document as appropriate,the organisation's perception of ecologicallysustainable forest management in the contextof its regulatory and managerial role;

■ review its existing environmental policies forcurrency and develop new environmentalpolicies to better reflect its commitment toecologically sustainable forest management;and

■ ensure the policy meets the requirements ofISO 14001.

Recommendation A3: State Forests and NationalParks and Wildlife Service should:

■ identify the activities, products and servicesperformed during the total forest processincluding compartment identification,planning, contractor selection, harvesting,reforestation etc., which management maycontrol or influence;

■ develop a procedure to list (and keep up todate) those significant environmental aspects,including those resulting from normal,abnormal and potential emergency situations,arising from its own activities, products andservices and/or those supplied by contractors;

■ ensure that any changes in their activities,products or services are reviewed for theireffect on the organisations’ impacts created byforest operations;

■ assess the contractual arrangements with theircontractors with a view to ensuring that theyidentify their impacts and, as a minimum,manage those impacts effectively and advisedistrict forest management before undertakinga new activity or changing an existing activitythat may lead to a change in theirenvironmental impact;

■ review all management plans to ensure thatthey contain or reference responsibilities,measuring/monitoring and implementationtimescales where appropriate; and

■ develop and document a risk managementpolicy and an associated implementationstrategy necessary for the implementation ofan environmental management system.

Recommendation A4: State Forests and NationalParks and Wildlife Service should develop andimplement procedures for the identification andongoing assessment of legal and otherrequirements which relate to the organisations'activities.


■ set objectives and targets that can be directlyrelated to the organisation’s environmentalperformance and specifically related to thesignificant aspects occurring at particularlocations; and

■ develop policy and procedures to formallyseek community consultation in the setting ofobjectives and targets.


■ develop environmental management programsbased on the objectives and targets set as aresult of the determination of theorganisations’ significant aspects; and

■ develop and implement procedures requiringthe consideration of objectives and targetsduring the strategic planning and budgetaryprocesses.


■ identify and continually review activities thatmay have an impact on the environment or oneffective environmental management;

■ amend position descriptions to include theenvironmental responsibilities of all thosepositions identified in 7.3 and 7.4 above;

■ amend all relevant position descriptions toinclude responsibility for the environmentalperformance of contractors, as appropriate andcommunicated to position holders;

■ assign responsibility for the implementation ofthe management plan or system to themanagement group as a whole, and for thefacilitation or coordination of theimplementation process, to an appropriateindividual; and

■ ensure total commitment of seniormanagement to the concept of an

environmental management system beforesuch a system is implemented, and ensure thatadequate resources are provided to implementand sustain the system.


• develop competency standards for thosepersonnel who do work which can cause asignificant environmental impact;

• develop a training strategy which includes theconduct of a training needs analysis with theaim of identifying all those activities withinthe organisation that can have a significantenvironmental impact, and which deals withcommunications, motivation, andenvironmental awareness and technicallyrelated environmental

• develop and implement procedures tomanage, control and record the trainingprocess; and

• provide training to staff at each relevantfunction and level of the organisation,including contractors where appropriate, tomake them aware of the need to:

- know their roles and responsibilities inachieving conformity with environmentalpolicy and procedures, the requirements of theenvironmental management system, includingemergency preparedness and responserequirements

- understand the significant environmentalimpacts, actual or potential, of their workactivities and the environmental benefits ofimproved personnel performance

■ - know the potential consequences of departingfrom specified operating procedures.

Recommendation A9: State Forests managementshould:

■ give consideration to the development of ainternal, external and integratedcommunications strategy;

■ develop and implement procedures for themanagement and control of internal andexternal communications about environmentalissues; and

■ consider a layout defined in a recognised codeof practice for the annual reporting of theirenvironmental performance.

National Parks and Wildlife Service managementshould:

■ revise its internal communications policy tobetter reflect the requirement for upward andlateral communication;

■ develop and implement procedures for themanagement and control of internal andexternal communications about environmentalissues; and

■ consider a layout defined in a recognised codeof practice for the annual reporting of theirenvironmental performance.


■ develop documentation policies which meetthe requirements of AS/NZS ISO 14001; and

■ align existing documentation with thedocument hierarchy, subject to managementand control as defined in the documentationpolicy.

Recommendation A11: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldimplement a document control system for alldocuments related to the management of bothorganisations' significant impacts.

Recommendation A12: Process flow diagramsshould be developed for the forest operationsundertaken by State Forests and National Parksand Wildlife Service and these should be used tolink activities with their environmental aspectsand impacts.


■ develop and implement procedures including:

− the identification, management, control andassessment of the procedure and workinstruction development process; and

− those necessary to manage theorganisation's significant aspects.

Recommendation A14: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service should amendplans/procedures/quality control plans/workinstructions etc. to include the identification ofwork flow control points for environmentallyrelated issues, as appropriate.

Recommendation A15: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service ensure thatworkmanship standards are set, displayed whereappropriate, or documented and that senior staffrecord when inspections take place to monitoradherence to the standards.

Recommendation A16: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service should amendexisting procedures to include environmentalconsiderations in the introduction and control ofnew processes, materials or techniques.

Recommendation A17: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldconduct an assessment of equipment used inharvesting and other operations to identify thosepieces of equipment whose failure could have asignificant environmental impact. Equipment soidentified should be subject to a program ofpreventive maintenance based on soundengineering practices.


■ make a complete list of emergencycircumstances, including those likely to begenerated by non-operational activities andexternal sources;

■ develop plans to respond to suchcircumstances;

■ develop procedures to identify new andchanged emergency circumstances and toensure the development of plans for themanagement of any new emergencycircumstances that are identified, includingamelioration;

■ exercise emergency plans at regular intervalsand review the plans after such exercises orany real situations.

Recommendation A19: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shoulddevelop procedures to enable the identificationand maintenance of the appropriate environmentalparameters to be monitored to show conformitywith the relevant legal and other internalenvironmental standards and environmentalobjectives and targets.

Recommendation A20: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shoulddevelop and promulgate a non-conformity,corrective and preventive action procedure.

Recommendation A21: State Forests shoulddevelop policy and procedures in accordance withthe requirements of the standard for theidentification of environmental records to beraised and retained.

Recommendation A22: State Forests shouldstrengthen the scope of internal audits to include abroader range of higher level auditing task.

National Parks and Wildlife Service shouldimplement an internal audit program as soon aspossible to enable the organisation to demonstrateits commitment to environmental management.

Recommendation A23: State Forests andNational Parks and Wildlife Service shouldestablish and document a management reviewprocess to meet the requirements of ISO 14001.

26 March 2001 1

REFERENCES

The Reference section is in three parts:• Commonwealth and NSW State

legislation relating to forest managementin NSW.

• International Treaties to which Australiais bound with other countries.

• Reference material used by the expertwoking group, including documentsprovided by State agencies for describingtheir forest management arrangements.

Commonwealth and State LegislationFull versions of listed legislation can be foundat: www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html

Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander HeritageProtection Act 1984 (Cwlth)

Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975(Cwlth).

Catchment Management Act 1989 (NSW)

Clean Waters Act 1970 (NSW)

Commons Management Act 1989 (NSW)

Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW)

Endangered Fauna Interim Protection Act 1992(NSW)

Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cwlth)

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act1974 (Cwlth)

Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989(NSW)

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 (NSW)

Environmental Planning and AssessmentAmendment Bill 1997 (NSW)

Environmental Planning and AssessmentRegulation 1994 (NSW)

Export Control Act 1982 (Cwlth)

Forestry Act 1916 (NSW)

Forestry and Timber Bureau Act 1930 (Cwlth)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwlth)

Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (NSW)

Labor’s Forest Policy 1995 (NSW)

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

Mining Act 1992 (NSW)

National Parks And Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act1975 (Cwlth)

Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth)

Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW)

Pollution Control Act 1970 (NSW)

Protection of the Environment Administration Act1991 (NSW)

Protection of the Environment Operations Bill1996 (Draft) (NSW)

Quarantine Act 1908 (Cwlth)

Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948(NSW)

Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW)

Rural Lands Protection Act 1989 (NSW)

Soil Conservation Act 1938 (NSW)

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995(NSW)

Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Act 1992(NSW)

Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee) Act 1995(NSW)

Timber Plantations (Harvest Guarantee)Regulation 1997 (NSW)


Water Act 1912 (NSW)

Water Administration Act 1986 (NSW)

Water Legislation Amendment Bill 1997(Draft) (Extracts only) (NSW)

Western Lands Act 1901 (NSW)

Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports andImports) Act 1982 (Cwlth)

World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983(Cwlth)

International Treaties

China–Australia Agreement for the Protection ofMigratory Birds and their Environment(CAMBA), Canberra 1986, entry into forcefor Australia 1986

Convention for the Protection of the NaturalResources and the Environment of the SouthPacific Region (SPREP), Noumea 1986, entryinto force generally 1990

Convention for the Protection of the WorldCultural and Natural Heritage (under theauspices of UNESCO), Paris 1972, entry intoforce for Australia 1974

Convention on Biological Biodiversity, Rio deJaneiro 1992, entry into force for Australia1993

Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES),Washington 1973, entry into force forAustralia 1976

Convention on the Conservation of MigratorySpecies of Wild Animals, Bonn 1979, entryinto force for Australia 1991

Convention on the Conservation of Nature in theSouth Pacific, Apia (Western Somoa)1976,entry into force for Australia 1990

Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance especially as Waterfowl Habitat,Ramsar (Iran) 1971, entry into force forAustralia 1974

Japan–Australia Agreement for the Protection ofMigratory Birds and Birds in Danger ofExtinction and their Environment (JAMBA),Tokyo 1974, entry into force for Australia1981

United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change, New York 1992, entry intoforce generally 1994

Reference List

AS 3931(Nit):1995, Risk analysis of technologicalsystems – Application guide - see StandardsAustralia.

AS 4360:1995, Risk management - seeStandards Australia.

AS/NZS ISO 14001:1996, EnvironmentalManagement Systems – Specification withguidance for use - see Standards Australia.

AS/NZS ISO 14004:1996, EnvironmentalManagement Systems – General guidelines onprinciples, systems and supporting techniques- see Standards Australia.

AS/NZS ISO 14010:1996, Guidelines forEnvironmental Auditing – General Principlesof Environmental Auditing - see StandardsAustralia.

AS/NZS ISO 14011:1996, Guidelines forEnvironmental Auditing – AssessmentProcedures – Part 1: Auditing EnvironmentalManagement Systems - see StandardsAustralia.

AS/NZS ISO 14012:1996, Guidelines forEnvironmental Auditing – QualificationCriteria for Environmental Auditors - seeStandards Australia.

AS/NZS ISO 8402:1994, Quality managementand quality assurance – Vocabulary - seeStandards Australia.

Bowdler, S. 1983 (reprint), Aboriginal Sites on theCrown-timber lands of New South Wales,Report to the Forestry Commission of NSW,FCNSW, Sydney.

British Standards Association 1994, Specificationfor Environmental Management System, BS7750:1994, British Standards, London.

Bureau of Resource Sciences 1997 , CRA/RFAProject Specification - State-wide andRegional Assessment of NSW ManagementSystems and Processes for achieving ESFM -dated 20 August 1997, Canberra, unpub.

CALM 1993, Destruction or Injuring of Trees onProtected Land – A step-by-step guide to theapplication process, CALM, Sydney.

CALM 1993, Erosion Mitigation in LoggingOperations in New South Wales (Draft),(Version 5.3.93) CALM, Sydney.


26 March 2001 3

CALM 1993, Guidelines for Mitigation ofErosion and Land Degradation for PermanentClearing on Steep Protected Land (Draft),(Version 24.6.93) CALM, Sydney.

CALM 1993, Land Assessment Process forCrown Land in NSW – Land ResourceInventory and Assessment Handbook (Draft),Sydney, unpub.

CALM 1994, Local Environmental Plans (LEPs),Environmental Planning and AssessmentRegulation 1994, DLWC, Sydney

Centre for Agricultural and Regional Economics(CARE) Pty Ltd 1996, Socio-economic andRegional Impact Study (Draft), Report to theResource and Conservation AssessmentCouncil, RACAC, Sydney.

Commonwealth of Australia 1992a,Intergovernmental Agreement on theEnvironment (IGAE), AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1992b, NationalForest Policy Statement - A New Focus forAustralia’s Forests, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1992c, NationalStrategy for Ecologically SustainableDevelopment, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1996, The NationalStrategy for the Conservation of Australia’sBiological Diversity, AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1997, NationallyAgreed Criteria for the Establishment of aComprehensive Adequate & RepresentativeReserve System for Forests, ANZECC/MCFFA, AGPS, Canberra.

CRAIF 1996, Ecologically Sustainable ForestManagement in the Regional ForestAgreement Process, Draft Discussion Paperfor the Comprehensive Regional AssessmentImplementation Forum (CRAIF), unpub.

Department of Lands 1989, Licence LI 305281,LI306202 and LI 306719 – Crown Lands Act1989 – Section 34, Sydney, unpub.

Department of Lands 1990, Office PracticeGuidelines: Crown Land Management,Sydney, unpub.

Department of Local Government 1997,Community Land Management Green Paper,(September) Department of LocalGovernment, Sydney.

Department of Planning 1994, , South Coast –Lower South Coast Regional EnvironmentalPlan No. 2, DOP, Sydney.

Department of Planning 1994, Williams River –Williams River Catchment RegionalEnvironmental Study, DOP, Sydney.

DLWC - see also Department of WaterResources (DWR), Soil ConservationService (SCS), Department of Lands andDepartment of Conservation and LandManagement (CALM).

DLWC (Undated), Catchment Areas ProtectionBoard – Inspecting Officer's Report on anapplication for an authority under s21D of theSoil Conservation Act 1938, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC (Undated), Guidelines for AddressingSection 90(1) EPA Act Matters forConsideration, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC (Undated), Guidelines for the Preparationof Interim Regional Vegetation ManagementPlans – No 1 – Introductory Concepts andRegional Vegetation Committees, DLWC,Sydney

DLWC (Undated), Information to accompany alicence application Environmental Form forProposed Development, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC (Undated), KRA: Healthy and ProductiveEcosystems, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC (Undated), Sydney South Coast Region –Water Act Environmental Review – DraftInstructions for Officers, Sydney South CoastRegion, unpub.

DLWC 1995, Handbook of Trust Management ofReserves and Dedicated Crown Land, DLWC,Sydney.

DLWC 1995, Land Assessment Process forCrown Land in NSW (Draft), Sydney, unpub.

DLWC 1995, SEPP No 46 – Protection andManagement of Native Vegetation – summary,DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, (Untitled) Brochure describing thedepartment, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, Annual Report 1995/96, DLWC,Sydney.

DLWC 1996, Clean, healthy and productiveCatchments for the 21st century, DLWC,Sydney.

DLWC 1996, Getting involved in DLWC, DLWC,Sydney.


DLWC 1996, Guidelines for Clearing andCultivation Applications and HabitatAssessment, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, SEPP 46 Field Inspection Forms,DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, SEPP No 46 – ApplicationAssessment: CS/96/1 – Attachment 1 –Conditions of Consent, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, Succeeding with Plans ofManagement – A guide to the LocalGovernment Act and Crown Lands Act,DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, The Department of Land and WaterConservation works with the communitythrough these programs, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, The NSW State Rivers and EstuariesPolicy, June 1996 reprint, published byDLWC for NSW Government, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, The NSW Wetlands ManagementPolicy, prepared by DLWC for the NSWGovernment, NSW Government Printers,Sydney.

DLWC 1996, The Year in Review: How we madea Difference, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1996, Western Division Guide forPreparing Clearing or CultivationApplications – Hypothetical ClearingLicence/Cultivation Permit Application,DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1997, A Proposed Model for NativeVegetation Clearance – White Paper, DLWC,Sydney. Crown Copyright ISBN 07313 0332

DLWC 1997, A Proposed Model for NativeVegetation Conservation in New South Wales– A White Paper, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1997, Accounting Procedures Manual,Part of a 4-volume set,Sydney, unpub.

DLWC 1997, Chart 1 – Senior Structure, August1997, Proposed Organisational Structure,Sydney, unpub.

DLWC 1997, Communication Pack, DLWC,Sydney.

DLWC 1997, Definitions and Exemptions – StateEnvironmental Planning Policy No. 46 –Protection and Management of NativeVegetation – Amendment No. 2. Sydney,unpub.

DLWC 1997, Granting Approvals under theCrown Lands Act 1989 and the Department's

Responsibilities under the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979 (Director,Asset Administration – Memo 97/08) June1997, Sydney, unpub.

DLWC 1997, Guidelines for giving Owner'sConsent to Lodge Development Applicationson Crown Lands (Director, AssetAdministration – Memo 97/05), June 1997,Sydney, unpub.

DLWC 1997, Guidelines for the RapidAssessment of Environmental Significance ofLeasehold Land in NSW (Draft), DLWC,Sydney.

DLWC 1997, Guidelines on DevelopmentApplications for DLWC works on CrownLands (Director, Asset Administration –Memo 97/06), Sydney, unpub..

DLWC 1997, Library services, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1997, SEPP No 46 – ApplicationAssessment: BR-97-1, Attachment No. 1 –Reasons for Refusal, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1997, SEPP No 46 – ApplicationAssessment: NO/97/1 – Attachment 1 –Conditions of Consent, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1997, Water Reform Fact Sheet Number 3Water Resource Management Policies,Securing our own Water Future : NSW WaterReforms, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC 1997, Water Reforms : Information forWater Users, DLWC, Sydney.

DLWC, 1997, Protection and Management ofNative Vegetation, DLWC, Sydney.

DMR (1997), Management of Mining andExploration within NSW Forests by theDepartment of Mineral Resources, Report tothe NSW ESFM Expert Working Group,Sydney, unpub.

DUAP - see also Department of Planning(DOP).

DUAP (Undated), Induction Program, Sydney,unpub.

DUAP 1996, Annual Report 1996, DUAP,Sydney.

DUAP 1996, Customer Service – Minute to Staffand Comments Form, Sydney, unpub.

DUAP 1996, Is an EIS required? – Best PracticeGuidelines for Part 5 of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979, DUAP,Sydney.


26 March 2001 5

DUAP 1996, Report to Minister from DirectorGeneral – Eden Management Area –Variation to Conditions of Approval forForestry Operations, DUAP, Sydney.

DUAP 1997, About the Department, DUAP,Sydney.

DUAP 1997, Corporate Plan 1997/98, DUAP,Sydney.

DUAP 1997, Corporate Work Program – Bids tobe approved for the year 1997/98, Sydney,unpub.

DUAP 1997, Corporate Work Program – ProjectStatus Report for the year 1996/97, Sydney,unpub.

DUAP 1997, Executive Policy Forum, Sydney,unpub.

DUAP 1997, Human Resources Branch, SkillsDevelopment Framework for PlanningDivisions, Sydney, unpub.

DUAP 1997, Notes of the 15th meeting ofManager's Planning and Policy, Sydney,unpub.

DUAP 1997, Overview Statement (Draft), Reportto the NSW ESFM Expert Working Group,Sydney, unpub.

DUAP 1997. Regional Impact Assessment –Proposed Forestry Operation – Eden –Management Area, DUAP, Sydney.

DWR 1994, Urban Stream management – InterimInstructions for DWR staff, Sydney, unpub.

EPA (Undated), Harvest Plan Desk AuditChecklist, Sydney, unpub. .

EPA 1993, Prosecution Guidelines July 1993,EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1995, State Forests' 1994/95 – PollutionControl Licences – Justification of LicenceConcepts and Conditions, August 1995,Sydney, unpub (publically available).

EPA 1995. Regulatory Impact Statement –Pesticides Regulation 1995, EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1996, A new approach to EnvironmentalEducation in NSW. EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1996, Annual Report 1995–96. EPA,Sydney.

EPA 1996, Corporate Plan 1995–1998. EPA,Sydney.

EPA 1996, Environmental Matters – General 14 –Biodiversity. EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1996, Managing Urban Stormwater –Construction Activities (Draft), EPA NSW, forthe State Stormwater Co-ordinatingCommittee, EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1996, Pollution Control Licence. LicenseeState Forests 8/8/96–7/8/97, Sydney, unpub.,(on public record).

EPA 1996, Prosecution Guidelines, EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1996, Protection of the EnvironmentOperations Bill 1996 (Descriptive Pamphlet)(Document EPA 96/107), EPA NSW, Sydney.

EPA 1996, Protection of the EnvironmentOperations Bill 1996 – Impact analysis of thedraft Schedule of EPA – licensed activities,EPA NSW, Sydney.

EPA 1996, Protection of the EnvironmentOperations Bill 1996 – Public discussionpaper, EPA NSW, Sydney.

EPA 1997, About the EPA, EPA, Sydney.

EPA 1997, Agency Overview, Report to the NSWESFM Expert Working Group, Sydney,unpub.

EPA 1997, Compliance Audit Handbook EPA,Sydney.

Fisher, S. (undated), Public EnvironmentalReporting Initiative Guidelines, AMOCOHouse, Westgate London ,UK.

Florence, R.G. 1994, ‘The ecological bases offorest fire management in New South Wales’,in The Burning Continent: Forest Ecosystemsand Fire Management in Australia. pp 15–33.Institute of Public Affairs, Perth, WesternAustralia.

Florence, R.G. 1996, Ecology and Silviculture ofEucalypt Forests. CSIRO, Australia.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 1995,Principles and criteria for natural forestmanagement, FSC, Oaxaca, Mexico. (E-mail:FSCOAX @antequera.antequera.com)

Forestry Commission of NSW 1985, Guidelinesfor the Preparation of Management Plans(DRAFT), Sydney, unpub.

Forestry Commission of NSW 1987, NativeForest Preservation Policy, Policy No 16,Sydney, unpub.


Forestry Commission of NSW 1988, ManagementPlan for Kempsey Management Area,FCNSW, Sydney.

Forestry Commission of NSW, 1976, IndigenousForest Policy, Forestry Commission of NSW,Sydney.

Forestry Commission Tasmania, 1993, ForestPractices Code, Forestry CommissionTasmania, Hobart..

Government of NSW 1995, State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy No. 14 – Coastal Wetlands(SEPP 14), Government Gazette No. 171,Government Printers, Sydney.

Government of NSW 1995, State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy No. 46 (SEPP 46) –Protection and Management of NativeVegetation, Government Gazette No. 96,Government Printers, Sydney.

Government of NSW 1995, State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy No.26 (SEPP 26)Government Gazette No. 22, GovernmentPrinters, Sydney.

Government of NSW 1996, State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy No.44 – Koala HabitatProtection (SEPP 44),Goverment Gazette No.1, Government Printers, Sydney.

Government of NSW 1997, ‘The TimberPlantations (Environment Protection)Harvesting Code’, Schedule 1 in The TimberPlantations (Environment Protection)Regulation 1997, Government Printers,Sydney. (see Legislation)

JANIS 1997, Nationally Agreed Criteria for theEstablishment of a Comprehensive Adequate& Representative Reserve System for Forests- see Commonwealth of Australia

Margules Groome Poyry Pty Ltd (MGP) 1995,The economic impact of the New South WalesTimber Industry, MGP, Canberra.

McClellan, Peter D. (QC) Memorandum ofAdvice in the matter of Rivers and ForeshoresImprovement Act 1948 – Application for Part3A permit on Brookvale Creek by AMPSociety, December 1996, unpub.

Montreal Process 1995, Criteria and Indicatorsfor the Conservation and SustainableManagement of Temperate and Boreal Forest.Canadian Forest Service, Quebec, Canada.

NPWS (1989), Law Enforcement Manual,Sydney, unpub.

NPWS (1989), Public Enquiries - A guide forService staff, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS (1990), Fire Management Manual, NPWS,Sydney.

NPWS (1991), Concessions and Leasing Manual,2 vols, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS (1991), Garigal National Park – Adoptionof Plan of Management – Financial ImpactStatement, NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS (1996), NSW Biodiversity SurveyProgram, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS (1996), Threatened Species ConservationAct Manual, NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS (1996), Threatened Species ManagementPolicy and Procedures Manual, NPWS,Sydney.

NPWS (1997), Draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy,NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS (1997), Publications Catalogue, NPWS,Sydney.

NPWS (Undated), Blue Mountains National Park– Draft Plan of Management – FinancialImpact Statement, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS (Undated), Model District PestManagement Strategy, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS (Undated), Plan of Management Process,Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1994, Internal Communications Policy,Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1996, Annual Report 1995–1996, NPWS,Sydney .

NPWS 1996, Corporate Plan 1995-96 to 1997–98, NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS 1996, Corporate Plan 1995-96 to 1997–98: End of year (1995–96) Progress Reviewand Update, NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS 1996, Corporate Plan 1995–96 to 1997–98: 1996 Update, NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS 1996, Plan of Management Review ProjectWorking Group – Project Brief, NPWS andSFNSW Conservation Protocols for TimberHarvesting on State Forests for the duration ofthe IFA decision, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1996, Strategic Management Cycle, June96 revision, Sydney, unpub.


26 March 2001 7

NPWS 1997, Agency Overview, Report to theNSW ESFM Expert Working Group, Sydney,unpub.

NPWS 1997, Biosis Research / CoronelConsulting, Performance Measures for theNSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS 1997, Draft Environmental ImpactAssessment (Fire Management Plan) –Crowdy Bay National Park, NPWS PortMacquarie District,Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1997, Fire Management Works –Environmental Impact Assessment – DraftProtocol, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1997, Information – Records Managementwithin the NPWS, August 1997,Sydney,unpub.

NPWS 1997, Lane Cove National Park – DraftPlan of Management, NPWS, Sydney.

NPWS 1997, Records Management Standards andGuidelines, August 1997, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1997, Threatened Species Protocol – Pre-logging and Pre-roading Survey Design,Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1997, Wallaga Lake National park, GouraNature Reserve, Bermagui Nature Reserve –Draft Plan of Management, Sydney, unpub.

NPWS 1997, Wildlife Conservation Policy,Sydney, unpub.

NPWS, Wildlife Atlas (powerbuild sybasedatabase), GIS Division - Hurstville, NPWS,Sydney.

NPWS/SFNSW 1996, Conservation Protocols forTimber Harvesting on State Forests for theDuration of the IFA Decision, Sydney, unpub.

Pressey R.L., Ferrier S., Hager T.C., Woods C.A.,Tully S.L., Weinman K.M. 1996, ‘How wellprotected are the forests of north-eastern NewSouth Wales? – Analyses of forestenvironments in relation to formal protectionmeasures, land tenure, and vulnerability toclearing’, Forest Ecology and Management85: 311–333 .

Rosewell, Colin J. 1993, Soiloss, A program toassist in the selection of managementpractices to reduce erosion, 2nd ed. SoilConservation Service of NSW TechnicalHandbook No. 11.

Scientific Working Party Workshop (R. Florence,A. Melzer and A. Smith) 1997, Koalas in PineCreek State Forest and The Formulation of aKoala Management Plan, Central QueenslandUniversity, Queensland.

SCS (Undated), Authority under s21D of the SoilConservation Act 1938, to injure or destroytrees on protected land, Soil ConservationService of NSW, Chatswood, NSW.

SCS (Undated), Application unders21D (2) of the Soil Conservation Act 1938,for an Authority to Destroy or Damage Trees,Soil Conservation Service of NSW,Chatswood, NSW.

SCS 1987, Additional Standard Conditions forPermanent Clearing, July 1987, SoilConservation Service of NSW, Chatswood,NSW.

SFNSW - see also Forestry Commission ofNSW (FCNSW).

SFNSW (1995), Coffs Harbour and UrungaManagement Areas EIS – Annexures andCovering letter, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW (1995), Corporate Plan 1995/96 to1998/99, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW (1997), Forest Research andDevelopment Division, Business Plan F98–00, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW (Undated), Environmental ImpactStatement Summary – Eden ManagementArea, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW (Undated), Forest Facts – Forest fauna,SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW (Undated), Forest Facts – Regulationscontrolling timber harvesting in NSW StateForests, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW (Undated), Forestry in New South Wales– Planning for the Future, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW (Undated), Management Report – EdenManagement Area – Bridging Document toDecember 1995, Southern Region, SFNSW,Sydney.

SFNSW (Undated), Staff Statistics – GeneralTrend 1992–1997, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW (various), Forestry Commission’sSilvicultural Notes, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1993, Preferred Management Priority(PMP), Forest Planning & EnvironmentSeries No 2. Preferred Management Priority


Classification Circular 1100, FCNSW,Sydney.

SFNSW 1993, Soil Erosion Mitigation Guidelines(SEMGL), SFNSW Operations Circulars93/5, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1993, Special Emphasis Flora AndFauna Zones PMP Classification, ForestPlanning & Environment Series No 2.Preferred Management Priority ClassificationCircular 1100, FCNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1993, Special Management Areas PMPClassification, Forest Planning &Environment Series No 2. PreferredManagement Priority Classification Circular1100, FCNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1994, Gaps and Cluster Technique,SFNSW 1994 (withdrawn 1996), Sydney,unpub.

SFNSW 1994, Proposed forestry Operations inthe Eden Management Area – Volume A – EIS– Main Report, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1995, Corporate Plan 1995, SFNSW,Sydney.

SFNSW 1995, Environmental Due DiligenceStudy Report – Executive Summary –Environmental Management Systems ProjectTeam, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1995, Operational Circular 95/1 –Preparation of Harvesting Plans NativeForests, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1995, Procedures for External Approvalsof Operational Plans, February 1995, Sydney,unpub.

SFNSW 1995, Proposed forestry operations inthe Queanbeyan and Badja ManagementAreas – Volume A – EIS – Main Report,SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1995, Research Division – 1994/95Annual Research Report, FCNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1995, Tenterfield EIS Chapter 13,Wilderness and ESD Considerations,SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1996, EIA – Procedures in NorthernRegion, September 1996, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1996, Forest Agenda, October 1996,Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1996, Forest and Wood ProductsResearch & Development Corporation ,Technical Publication No 1 – Evaluation of

Santiago Declaration (Montreal Process)Indicators of Sustainability for AustralianCommercial Forests, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1996, Softwoods Region – HarvestingPlan Operational Map – Compartment 28,October 1996, Albury, unpub.

SFNSW 1996, Technical Publication No. 2 –Evaluation of Santiago Declaration (MontrealProcess) Indicators of Sustainability forAustralian Commercial Forests. A VictorianMontane Forest as a Case Study, jointCFTT/SFNSW publication, Sydney.

SFNSW 1996, Technical Publication No. 3 –Evaluation of Santiago Declaration (MontrealProcess) Indicators of Sustainability forAustralian Commercial Forests – A NewSouth Wales Alpine Ash Forest as a CaseStudy, SFNSW Research Division, Sydney.

SFNSW 1997, Aberystwyth Professional ServicesPosition Paper – Fuel Management PlanningFramework, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1997, Chart of Accounts – FinancialYear 1997/98, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1997, Forest Policy and Programs –Workshop Proceedings,Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1997, Forest Practices Code – PartThree – Plantation Establishment andMaintenance, SFNSW, Sydney.

SFNSW 1997, Overview of ManagementElements Used by State Forests NSW forPublic Forests in NSW in Relation toESFM/EMS, Report to the NSW ESFMExpert Working Group, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1997, Plan for the statewide audit of thePollution Control Licence, February 1997,Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1997, Southern Region Harvesting Plan –Compartment 664 – Nullica State Forest No545, Eden District, Eden, unpub.

SFNSW 1997, State Forest Representation ofExternal Committees, Sydney, unpub.

SFNSW 1997, The Bush Telegraph, August–October 1997, SFNSW, Sydney.

Standards Australia 1994, Australian/ NewZealand Standard Quality management andquality assurance – Vocabulary, AS/NZS ISO8402:1994, Published by Standards Australiaand Standards New Zealand.


26 March 2001 9

Standards Australia 1995, Australian StandardRisk analysis of technological systems -Application guide, AS 3931 (Int), Publishedby Standards Australia.

Standards Australia 1995, Australian StandardRisk management, AS 4360 :1995, Publishedby Standards Australia.

Standards Australia 1996, Australian/ NewZealand Standard Environmental managementsystems – Specification with guidance for use,AS/NZS 14001 : 1996, Published byStandards Australia and Standards NewZealand.

Standards Australia 1996, Australian/ NewZealand Standard Environmental managementsystems – General guidelines on principles,systems and supporting techniques, AS/NZS14004 : 1996, Published by StandardsAustralia and Standards New Zealand.

Standards Australia 1996, Australian/ NewZealand Standard Guidelines forenvironmental auditing – General Principlesof Environmental Auditing, AS/NZS 14010 :1996, Published by Standards Australia andStandards New Zealand.

Standards Australia 1996, Australian/ NewZealand Standard Guidelines forEnvironmental Auditing - AssessmentProcedures - Part 1: Auditing EnvironmentalManagement Systems, AS/NZS 14011: 1996,Published by Standards Australia andStandards New Zealand.

Standards Australia 1996, Australian/NewZealand Standard Guidelines forEnvironmental Auditing – QualificationCriteria for Environmental Auditors, AS/NZS14012: 1996, Published by StandardsAustralia and Standards New Zealand.

United Nations 1992, “The Rio Declaration onEnvironment and Development” in EarthSummit, Agenda 21, The United NationsProgramme of Action, UN, New York, ISBN :92-1-100509-4.

World Industry Council for the Environment –Environmental Reporting, InternationalChamber of Commerce, Paris, France.

Assessment of management systems and processes for ... · 2.6.2 Regional vegetation management...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of management systems and processes for ... · 2.6.2 Regional vegetation management...