|
III CNR Proposed Sites of Significance and other protection measures
10 RAINFOREST PROTECTION 10.1 Proposed Sites of Significance Government policy recommends the identification of proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest and the preparation of specific management procedures for their protection (CFL 1987). Guidelines and protocols for the identification of proposed Sites Significance for rainforest were developed during the 1980's by staff in CFL and DCE (Cameron 1982, 1987, 1990). The criteria for assessing biological significance of a site include:
Parkes (1990) provided detailed explanations of these criteria,
and recommended protocols for assessing these values. The aim
of the recommended assessment procedures was to recognise and
protect important conservation values. The end product of the
procedure was intended to be Sites delineated on maps, together
with a description of the values that contribute to their status.
It was recognised that the Sites would necessarily include a
minimum or core area containing the attributes of highest conservation
value, and a management area surrounding the core area, for which
'sympathetic' management was recommended (Parkes 1990). The approach
recommended drawing boundaries based on current understanding
of the ecological requirements of species or communities, so that
the Sites enclosed 'rational environmental units' (Parkes 1990).
To manage proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest within
the framework of general resource management in State Forests,
it was necessary to assess and delineate Sites, to determine a
general rating for each Site, and lastly to specify appropriate
management prescriptions. Sites were assigned to one of four
classes, namely Sites of National, State, Regional and Local significance.
Parkes (1990) made the important point that the subjective nature
of significance, the complexity of biological attributes, and
the variable adequacy of relevant information are such that levels
of significance could not be determined using explicit, quantitative
procedures ('rigid rules and empirical formulae', p. 10). In
the absence of any reasonable alternative, the scheme outlined
by Parkes (1990) is the best available procedure to summarise
conservation value, to identify areas of highest conservation
value, and to provide a means by which resources devoted to conservation
may be targeted.
The draft report by CFL (1993) outlined prescriptions for timber
harvesting and related activities within proposed Sites of Significance
for rainforest. It was intended that these proposed prescriptions
be applied to Sites of Significance for rainforest within Forest
Management Areas. The report argued that the best means of ensuring
adequate protection for proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest
was to exclude harvesting and related activities from the catchment
or sub(c)catchment units which comprise the Sites. An alternative
approach providing a system of classification of risks from different
threats was also discussed. The report suggested two main prescriptions
for harvesting within proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest.
The first was that priority for coupe approval within a Site
be based on the likely impacts related to the location of the
coupe with respect to the core rainforest area. The second was
that consideration should be given to the location of the coupe
with respect to past disturbance, in an effort to consolidate
areas of disturbance, and consequently, to consolidate areas with
old(c)growth characteristics. Both these recommendations are reasonable,
and make sensible use of planning procedures without necessarily
'making substantial demands on other values. The report went further
to suggest that protection measures should be allocated taking
into account the conservation rating of the Site and the site(c)specific
risk posed by the disturbance, and that the nature of prior disturbance
should be taken into account in planning coupe placement and priorities.
The principle of the development of priorities outlined in the
draft report by CFL (1993) guided the development of the concept
of core areas within Sites of Significance for rainforest. Core
areas were the focus of rainforest conservation planning within
each Site in the East Gippsland Forest Management Area Plan (CNR,
1994).
The Flora Section of the Department delineated 181 proposed Sites
of Significance for rainforest throughout the State for consideration
in regional management plans (Cameron 1990). The description
of Sites on this list is not yet complete, and a thorough explanation
of procedures used in delineation and rating of these Sites is
not yet available. The Sites have not been subjected to peer
review. These documents are in preparation. It is impossible
to thoroughly evaluate the proposed Sites without this information.
These Sites and the associated ranking system were used in the
planning of Special Management and Special Protection Zones in
East Gippsland by CNR (1994). Notwithstanding the difficulties
inherent in delineation, classification and ranking of Sites on
the basis of qualitative attributes and in the absence of relevant
information, it is important from a planning perspective that
the processes that result in decisions be transparent and repeatable,
not least because it will improve confidence in the planning process.
The level of description should provide the opportunity to evaluate
critically the decision making process. The purpose of forthcoming
documents is to achieve these ends.
Recommendation
Determination of rainforest boundaries in the field is an important
component of rainforest protection. Implementation of plans depends
on sound interpretation in the field of definitions and prescriptions
made in management plans. In practice, CNR's field officers use
the presence or absence of typical species, together with the
crown cover of eucalypts, to determine rainforest boundaries (CNR
1994). The Flora Section has developed lists of 'differential'
plant species that best discriminate mature rainforest from other
forest types.
Recommendation
10.2 East Gippsland Forest Management Area planning proposals
As noted above, 'core areas' were identified within proposed Sites
of Significance in East Gippsland to bound rainforest areas of
high conservation value. The East Gippsland Forest Management
Area plan (CNR 1994) specified protection within conservation
reserves and Special Protection Zones, providing substantial protection
for the majority of the rainforest stands, and for the most significant
areas. A total of 34% of the rainforest stands are in conservation
reserves, 24% are in Special Protection Zones and Special Management
Zones with 100m buffers or better, and 42% are protected by the
Code of Forest Practice prescriptions. The most important stands,
from an ecological perspective, have been provided with considerably
better protection than is stipulated in the Code. Most stands
in State Forest in East Gippsland are in General Management Zones
(Table 3). Table 3 is a simplistic representation of the results
of the planning process, summarising rainforest protection measures
in East Gippsland.
Table 3. The number of core
areas of proposed Sites of Significance for rainforest in East
Gippsland in different management categories (after CNR 1994).
Special Protection Zones refer to areas where conservation and
other non(c)wood values are the primary focus of management. Special
Management Zones refer to areas where wood values and other forest
values are managed together. General Management Zones refer to
areas where wood values are the primary focus of management, and
where rainforest stands are protected by the Code of Forest Practice.
These data exclude rainforest stands that do not fall into one
of the three categories of Significance (after B. Thompson, East
Gippsland Forest Management Area, pers. comm.)
A number of specific outcomes for rainforest protection in the
draft East Gippsland Forest Management Area Plan are illustrative
of more general aspects of the planning process for rainforest
protection. Rating of a Site as one of National Significance
does not automatically guarantee the inclusion of all core areas
within a conservation reserve or Special Protection Zone in State
Forest. Classification in a General Management Zone does not
mean that rainforest stands within the Site will necessarily be
exposed to clear fall harvesting in adjacent forest. Some areas
in General Management Zones around rainforest stands are inaccessible
and not suitable for timber harvesting. The level of protection
afforded to rainforest values depends to some extent on the economic
costs of implementing protection. For example, if planners considered
that the values of a proposed Site of National Significance were
well represented in nearby conservation reserves, and that the
values within a Site did not warrant the large scale of the proposed
Site, then harvesting operations were planned within core areas.
The disturbance history of a Site contributed to planning decisions.
For example, it was considered that in some circumstances, the
integrity of a proposed Site had been compromised due to adjacent
logging and road crossings through rainforest.
While there can be no absolute guarantees of complete protection,
the inclusion of rainforest patches in conservation reserves and
in Special Protection Zones in State Forest will provide substantial
protection for more than half of the rainforest area in East Gippsland,
and for the majority of the most significant sites. Prescriptions
in the Code of Forest Practice afford less protection to the remainder,
but the system allows the allocation of priorities for resources
devoted to conservation, and provides flexibility for protection
'planning at a landscape scale. Such a strategic approach is necessary
because the sizes of buffers prescribed by the Code of Forest
Practice (1989) leave little room for error in application of
the Code or in assumptions concerning their effectiveness for
rainforest protection. In cases where there is uncertainty concerning
the protection of individual rainforest stands, field operations
should be sufficiently flexible to enable field officiers to exercise
judgement, and implement more cautious protection buffers than
are specified in the Code of Forest Practice.
Recommendation
The planning process applied in the East Gippsland Forest Management
Area plan (CNR 1994) takes a broader view of rainforest than the
policy outlined by CNR (1987). The Department's strategy implemented
in East Gippsland accepts higher risks of impact for the least
important stands, and manages the most significant stands so that
risks are minimal. The plan demonstrates that within Forest Management
Area plans, the Department has the flexibility to provide greater
protection to any value. The plans also take the significant
step of assigning different levels of protection to different
patches of rainforest within timber utilisation areas, ranging
from buffers to sub(c)catchment protection.
The strategy adopted for the East Gippsland Forest Management
Area should be extended to all Forest Management Areas. Proposed
Sites of Significance for rainforest, and core areas within them,
should be identified, mapped, and ranked by staff from Flora and
Fauna in close consultation with Forest Planners and others with
relevant expertise because it provides a mechanism for targeting
conservation resources where they are most necessary, using the
skills of the most appropriate people. Proposed Sites of Significance
for rainforest should be fully documented in Forest Management
Area plans. Documentation should include a listing of values,
and a description of the reasoning behind the priorities assigned
to different stands, so that the process is repeatable and accountable.
Quantification may be difficult because of imperfect knowledge
and the subjective nature of the weighting of ecological attributes.
However, the process should be made transparent to facilitate
its use in forest planning. Prescriptions should be developed
within Special Protection and Special Management Zones to provide
more protection for important rainforest patches than is afforded
by the Code of Forest Practices. The least important rainforest
patches should be protected by the Code, but there should be more
flexibility in silviculture and forest planning to better protect
'these patches, where possible. Such prescriptions will leave
a greater margin for error against important threatening processes
including windthrow, moisture loss, light penetration, disease
and fire. These recommendations are detailed in the section on
Protection Management. The section on Research Needs focuses
on the provision of data concerning the most important processes
threatening rainforest, namely fire, windthrow, myrtle wilt and
edge effects. Priorities for sub(c)projects are intended to provide
the most critical information first, and they are designed to
be as cost(c)effective as possible. The results of the sub(c)projects
with highest priority may be used to guide subsequent research.
Recommendations
|
