Protest at FSC Australia’s AGM to demand probe into endorsement of logging WA global biodiversity hotspot

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY INC. MEDIA RELEASE May 28, 2015

The Wilderness Society has today called for an immediate investigation from world-leading wood certifier the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) on how UK-based auditor Soil Association Woodmark gave FSC endorsement to Western Australian logging company FPC, which is logging old-growth karri forests in south-west WA.

“Supporters of the Western Australian Forest Alliance have attended the annual general meeting of FSC’s Australian arm in Melbourne to demand an investigation into how a fly-in fly-out FSC auditor could have comprehensively ignored information from local stakeholders about how FPC is failing to meet FSC’s high standards,” said Wilderness Society national forest campaigner Warrick Jordan.

“It’s crystal clear that FPC is planning to log old-growth forest without even bothering to properly identify it. UK-based FSC auditor Woodmark has ignored evidence about old-growth logging, impacts on the threatened Forest Red Tailed Black Cockatoo, and hasn’t even considered that South West WA is one of 35 official global biodiversity hotspots.

“It’s clear the rules of the world leading FSC standard are being breached in WA. Local volunteer conservationists have gone to extensive efforts to provide information to FSC auditor Woodmark but have been ignored.

“Local conservationists have followed FSC’s complaint processes and the UK-based auditor has ignored their concerns. It’s now clear that FSC’s auditing body Accreditation Services International and the Australian FSC branch in Melbourne have to step in to sort out the mess Woodmark has created.

“When consumers see the FSC logo on tissue paper or a piece of furniture, they want to know that the product comes from forests where nature is being protected. What conservation stakeholders are asking for is for FSC to maintain its world-leading standards.”

For further comment contact:

Wilderness Society national forest campaigner Warrick Jordan on 0451 633 197

For more information, contact Wilderness Society media adviser Alex Tibbitts on 0416 420 168

Trees: the ultimate green investment?

Gregory Moore
Climate Spectator , 30 Jan 2012

The Conversation

Perhaps it is a pity that so many Australians think of our parks, gardens, streetscapes and urban landscapes only in terms of their aesthetics. While green spaces are beautiful and decorative, these attributes can mask the many functions vegetation serves in cities, to the point where its economic, social and environmental benefits are overlooked. Yes, trees are beautiful; but more than that, they save our cities a lot of money.

Cities are biodiversity hot spots because of the variety of habitats available in public and private open space, including front and back yards. Urban landscapes and trees have been wonderful but silent assets in our cities for decades and even centuries.

They are major urban infrastructure assets. I often hear it said that; “There are better things to use water on than plants and gardens”, but I challenge you to name them. What else delivers so many benefits immediately: benefits that last centuries into the future, which prolong healthy lives and make cities both sustainable and livable?

At a time of climate change, it is worrying that both private and public open spaces are threatened by urban renewal and development that puts at risk long-term sustainability. In many of these developments there is insufficient open space – public or private – to plant large trees, and the opportunities for vegetation to ameliorate the heat island effect, lower wind speed, provide shade and reduce energy use are lost. This affects the economic viability of such developments, as well as its long term environmental sustainability.
The shade provided by trees drops temperatures by up to 8°C: there is real economic value in that. Shade can reduce air conditioner use by 12-15%, which also decreases carbon emissions from our largely brown-coal-generated electricity.

When 11 million trees were planted in the Los Angeles basin, it saved US$50 million per annum on air conditioning bills. Large trees were removed from school grounds in the name of safety after the Black Saturday fires, without thought of the shade they provided. Consequently, large shade sails had to be provided to protect students from excessive summer sun.

It is more difficult to place a value on reduced wind speeds (up to 10%) due to the presence of vegetation, or on protection that trees provide from hail. However, we do know that under climate change winds will be stronger and that severe storms will be more prevalent. Indeed, Victoria has already suffered the effects of several major wind and hail storm events over the past few years.

Urban vegetation also removes atmospheric pollutants. It was calculated that the vegetation of New York provided US$10 million of benefit in pollution removal in 1994. Sadly there are few similar studies for Australian cities. However in the only study of its kind, economists found that each Adelaide street tree provides a minimum annual benefit of $200 per year and that it was an under-estimate of the real value.
Vegetation also holds and absorbs water during more intense rainfall events – unlike concrete and paved surfaces. The economic value of reducing localised flooding could be substantial.

Vegetated landscapes, especially those containing trees, improve human heath, extend life spans, reduce violence and vandalism, and lower blood pressure. Vegetation humidifies the air, easing breathing and reducing the need for medication in those with respiratory difficulties. In reducing the urban heat island effect, trees can also substantially reduce the excess deaths that occur, predominantly among the elderly, during heat waves. It is often forgotten that the fires of Black Saturday killed 172 people, but the heat wave surrounding it was responsible for 374 deaths.

There is ample evidence that treed landscapes foster both active and passive recreation. Green and leafy environments will be one of the vital strategic tools in dealing with children lacking exercise and becoming obese, encouraging an ageing population to exercise and curbing ever-increasing health costs. The human health benefits can save society a truck-load on medical and social infrastructure costs.

Melbourne is one of Victoria’s biodiversity hot spots. The parks, gardens, streets and front and backyards provide a very diverse range of plant species that generate a myriad of habitats and niches for wildlife. High density urban developments and inner city renewal make it virtually impossible to grow trees in places that were once green and leafy. We rarely ever see the real costs of such developments.

In the past decade tree populations in many Australian cities have declined, particularly with the loss of private open space. While the costs, damage and nuisance values attributed to trees are widely known, the benefits they provide are often subtle and under-appreciated.

Urban vegetation provides economic and ecological services to society. They are assets which warrant the expenditure of resources such as labour, energy and water. Such expenditure is not wasted: trees and urban landscapes provide far more economically and ecologically than they use. In any comprehensive and fair calculation urban trees and landscapes are worth more than they cost.

Gregory Moore is a Doctor of Botany at University of Melbourne

Tackle deforestation

Doug Ralph, Castlemaine
The Age (letter), 17 September 2011

THE introduction of a carbon tax may help reduce emissions in the long term but the other important cause of global warming is being ignored. Deforestation through land clearing and loss of biodiversity are a major contributor to climate change.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature states that loss of biodiversity - the variety of animals, plants, their habitats and their genes - on which so much of human life depends is one of the world's most pressing crises.

It is estimated that the extinction rate of species is between 1000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be. The main drivers are caused by converting natural areas to farming and urban development, introducing invasive alien species, polluting or over-exploiting resources such as water and soils, and harvesting wild plants and animals at unsustainable levels.

Many scientists agree that restoring natural ecosystems could cool the earth and offset our present carbon emissions in the short term. Let's get our priorities right.

Species at risk 'need old growth forests'

Anna Salleh
ABC, Thursday, 15 September 2011

When it comes to protecting tropical species that are at risk from extinction there's no substitute for old growth forests, a new study has found.

The findings fly in the face of suggestions that loss of biodiversity can be tamed by the regrowth of forests in tropical areas.

Ecologist Professor William Laurance, of James Cook University in Cairns, and colleagues report their findings today in the journal Nature.

"This notion that we don't have to worry about the future of biodiversity in the tropics because there is forest regenerating in some areas is a very misleading argument," says Laurance.

"Most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on tropical biodiversity."

Old growth forests are those that have been undisturbed for centuries and contain enormous trees that in some cases are 1000 years old.

Laurance says about half of the world's old growth forest has been completely cleared, and much of the remaining forest is damaged.

"What we're witnessing in our lifetimes is a really massive transformation of the tropics," he says.

"An important question has been what the impacts are going to be on biodiversity."

Comparing habitats
Laurance and colleagues analysed 138 published studies that compared the abundance of species in old growth forests with that in other habitats, including areas given over to agriculture, regenerating forests, and selectively logged forests.

"When you compare these different types of habitat you find that the old growth forests are definitely the most important for sustaining biodiversity," says Laurance.

He says the findings feed into a recent debate about the importance of disturbed tropical forests in sustaining biodiversity.

Some biologists argue regenerating forests can sustain biodiversity. While this is true, says Laurance, they are no substitute for old growth forests.

He says old growth forests have 10 to 30 times more species of trees than other forests and have specialised habitats such as hollow trees.

Laurance and colleagues found that when it came to the species that are at greatest risk of extinction, old growth forests were the most important habitats.

"You tend to find the extinction-prone species almost exclusively in old growth rainforest," he says.

Laurance says a forest would need to be left undisturbed for around 300 years to qualify as old growth.

He says in the Brazilian Amazon, where an area the size of France has been cleared, a third of that is regrowth forest that is on average just six to seven years old.

Second best option
Laurance emphasises that while old growth forest is the most important habitat for at risk species, selectively logged forest may provide a second-best option.

In fact, Laurance and team found the least dramatic difference in species abundance between old growth and selectively logged forests, where only certain trees are cut out but much of the original habitat remains.

"That's important because it shows selectively logged forests should also be preserved as important habitat," says Laurance.

He says that Indonesia has 30,000 million hectares of selectively logged forests and most has been designated to be cleared on the basis it doesn't have any conservation value.

But, says Laurance, most of these forests are in areas where old growth has been completely removed and they represent the best hope for preserving biodiversity.

"To just write that stuff as being valueless is very bad policy."

No substitute for natural forests: study

AAP
Sydney Morning Herald, September 15, 2011 - 3:04AM

Natural forests undisturbed by humans are irreplaceable while degraded forests are a poor substitute, a new study has found.

The team of Australian and international scientists is strongly urging the protection of primary forests as a result of its findings.

The study, published in the scientific journal Nature, says most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on tropical biodiversity.

The report compared human impacts on biodiversity across key forested regions across the world.

"The conclusion is very clear," report co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide said.

"Undisturbed primary forests are the only ones in which a full complement of species can thrive."

The team emphasised that until now some people believed that revegetation and other conservation programs in secondary forests would be enough to help preserve or return most species.

"It's not that secondary forests have no biodiversity value. They are just less valuable than primary forests. We should be focused on protecting primary forests as much as possible."

Professor Bradshaw's colleagues also emphasised that most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on biodiversity.

"The study shows that the impact of human interference in those forests is too strong. We're kidding ourselves if we think the damage can be reversed," Professor Barry Brook also from the University of Adelaide said.

South-East Asia is the worst affected area, suffering the greatest losses of biodiversity of any tropical region over the past 50 years.

The report's authors said that while South-East Asia must remain one of the top priority regions, that doesn't mean other areas can be ignored.

They suggest the expansion and greater enforcement of protected areas.

"We have already invested substantially in setting up parks. So expanding them and making them more effective might be practical," one of the study's leaders, PhD student Tien Ming Lee said.

AAP

Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity

Luke Gibson, Tien Ming Lee, Lian Pin Koh, Barry W. Brook, Toby A. Gardner, Jos Barlow, Carlos A. Peres, Corey J. A. Bradshaw, William F. Laurance, Thomas E. Lovejoy & Navjot S. Sodhi

Nature, 14 September 2011

Received 13 May 2011 Accepted 08 August 2011 Published online 14 September 2011

Human-driven land-use changes increasingly threaten biodiversity, particularly in tropical forests where both species diversity and human pressures on natural environments are high1. The rapid conversion of tropical forests for agriculture, timber production and other uses has generated vast, human-dominated landscapes with potentially dire consequences for tropical biodiversity. Today, few truly undisturbed tropical forests exist, whereas those degraded by repeated logging and fires, as well as secondary and plantation forests, are rapidly expanding.

Here we provide a global assessment of the impact of disturbance and land conversion on biodiversity in tropical forests using a meta-analysis of 138 studies. We analysed 2,220 pairwise comparisons of biodiversity values in primary forests (with little or no human disturbance) and disturbed forests.

We found that biodiversity values were substantially lower in degraded forests, but that this varied considerably by geographic region, taxonomic group, ecological metric and disturbance type. Even after partly accounting for confounding colonization and succession effects due to the composition of surrounding habitats, isolation and time since disturbance, we find that most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on tropical biodiversity. Our results clearly indicate that when it comes to maintaining tropical biodiversity, there is no substitute for primary forests.

Call time on subsidies

John Hermans, Clifton Creek

The Age (letter), October 25, 2010

NOT only are we losing our biodiversity, carbon stores, water runoff, honey production and tourism from our publicly owned native forests in Victoria, but taxpayers are subsidising this industry. I think, Premier Brumby, its time is up.

HERALDSUN: Rare species may be lost

Sarah Wotherspoon
Herald Sun April 07, 2008

Some of Victoria's most endangered species may be beyond salvation - and the State Government has suggested it may not continue to try to protect them.

About 1000 of the state's plant and animal species are at risk of extinction as key habitat areas continue to decline.

A damning report released yesterday reveals some endangered animals will be wiped out unless the Government invests more money and resources in saving them.

But the same report says: "Fundamental decisions need to be made about the level of resources that can be invested in this area and whether we want to continue to aim to protect all species."

More than half of Victoria's native vegetation has been cleared since European settlement, while 80 per cent of private land has been cleared.

Remaining habitats are fragmented and only isolated patches of vital and once vast ecosystems remain intact.

The report, entitled Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change, recommends pursuing private investment to restore crucial habitats.

Environment Minister Gavin Jennings denied the threatened species would not be protected, saying that assessment processes needed to be reviewed.

"The green paper explores potential opportunities for landholders to access new markets in carbon and biodiversity," Mr Jennings said.

"A lot of corporations are seeing investment opportunities in land management.

"There will continue to be significant support from the State and I hope from the Commonwealth as well."

The green paper will form part of the Government's climate change white paper to be released next year.

Other actions considered in the paper include:

USING public-private partnerships to manage public land.

IDENTIFYING and protecting priority habitats in the marine environment.

ENCOURAGING plantings in key areas for both biodiversity improvements and carbon sequestration.

CREATING north-south and east-west habitat corridors connecting national parks.

Environment groups welcomed the report as a major step in protecting Victoria's environment but said it needed to be followed up with major funding.

Victoria Naturally alliance project leader Carrie Deutsch said the Government needed to set clear targets backed with resources.

"We would like to see at least a tenfold boost in funding and that's specific funding to protect and restore habitat for our threatened species.

"The science is telling us that Victoria is the most damaged state in Australia and according to the CSIRO about one third of native plants and close to half our native animals are threatened with extinction.

"We need to reconnect our core national parks and reconnect large scale networks of habitat corridors across the state in order to give species room to move as the climate changes."

Article source