Mt Lofty Ranges Private Forestry questionnaire
Balance of trade
Australia currently imports $2b more of wood and paper products than is exported.
Do you think that we should reduce this $2b national deficit in wood and paper products by growing more of our wood and fibre crops in plantations?
I find it unacceptable that we export many of our raw materials to be processed overseas and then import the finished goods back. I have always felt we should have our own industry to process local raw materials to supply local needs rather than rely on imports. Although forestry is a major source of raw material for paper I actually believe Indian hemp should be grown as one of the alternative sources of fibre for paper production. I am concerned about current developments in plantation timbers and I think that we need to exercise care about which regions are used and the amount of planting that occurs in those regions. We must not over plant to the extent that supply of sub surface water is jeopardised.
Firewood
Currently tens of thousands of tonnes of red gum firewood are trucked >600km annually from remnant native forests in NSW and Victoria — well over 90% of that sold in Adelaide’s woodyards.
Do you think that Mayo should contribute to regional self sufficiency in firewood (rather than import it from NSW and Victoria), reduce use of fossil fuels and save greenhouse emissions associated with the transport?
I have a slow combustion heater and when possible I purchase plantation timber from a local supplier to burn. I totally support the use of plantation timber and am opposed to the cutting of old red gums to supply firewood. I would also support the use of Mallee in plantations as a source of firewood. My understanding is there is a net gain in removing carbon dioxide from atmosphere when plantation timber is used for firewood. I agree that any practise which reduces the transport of goods from one location to another should be encouraged. There are a number of areas in Mayo that could be used for plantations but again we must use the resources in a sustainable manner. As a member of the Adelaide Hills Council Development Assessment Panel I supported an agro forestry development at Mt Torrens.
Climate change
Forests planted on cleared agricultural land can remove 5-30 tonnes of CO2 per hectare from the atmosphere annually.
Do you think that reforestation should be supported in principle for its role in sequestering carbon and helping to address global warming?
I think that reforestation has a huge part to play in sequestration of carbon and with the same caveats as above I would support this action. We need to assess the best use of land before any reforestation occurs. Some land is marginal in its current use but could be made more productive by choosing an alternate use. It is the owner of the land who ultimately chooses the use to which the land is put but I think government should be more pro-active in encourage specific land uses in different regions. I am opposed to measures that are non-discriminatory like the approach used with MIS. Any approach must encourage sustainable levels of development in appropriate regions.
Habitat
The overwhelming threats to our biodiversity are the fragmentation of remnant native vegetation and overall loss of habitat. Studies continue to highlight the value of plantations in buffering remnant native vegetation, providing habitat and corridors.
Regardless of this contribution, the quality of the habitat can never be equivalent to that of native vegetation, but do you think it is fair that tree crops are often still be expected to provide the equivalent habitat to native vegetation when horticulture, viticulture and agriculture are not?
I do not see plantations as providing an alternative habitat to native vegetation and would never expect them too. I do feel that in any area where remnant native vegetation exists all land owners should be encouraged to create corridors to connect them. I would also encourage the rehabilitation of land to natural habitat status when it can be spared and will contribute in a productive way to increasing available natural habitat in an area. I understand there will be some areas where the amount of natural will not be sufficient to make a worthwhile contribution to sustaining biodiversity and unless a critical mass can be achieved any effort would be a waste of time.
Natural resource management plan
The A MLR NRM plan has targets to improve water quality, reduce water erosion and maintain primary production.
Do you think that partial reforestation can contribute towards the following NRM goals/targets in the? Do you support reforestation to:
Improve water quality in terms of nutrients, turbidity and pathogen levels? (Target 2)
Reduce water erosion and mass erosion? (Target 4)
Help reverse the decline of primary production associated with lifestyle properties? (Target 5)
The primary mechanism for reducing nutrient inflow to water ways is actually grass filtration and keeping stock away from direct contact with the water. The reduction in the use of fertilisers associated with reforestation will obvious assist in lowering nutrient levels in run-off but good farming practise with appropriate buffer zones can have the same effect. My understanding is that levels of turbidity and nutrients are general closely associated as nutrients are commonly bound to soil particles.
Reforestation can contribute to reduced erosion by reducing the force of impact of raindrops on the ground and by stabilising the soil and the lack of grazing animals in plantations obviously means less risk of pathogenic organisms from domestic animals but some native animals also a source of pathogens.
So although I agree that reforestation can contribute to targets 2 and 4 I think other solutions are available for those who wish to continue current land use practices.
I do not support the continued sub-division of rural lands into small life-style/hobby farms. I believe we need to plan for the future when looking at potential land uses. I am concerned about the constant loss of good quality viable agricultural land to residential developments. It is an unfortunate outcome of our continued population growth that demand for residential land often increases the value of good agricultural land to the point where more profit can be achieved by selling it for residential development than by continuing to farm it. I don’t think that reforestation can significantly change this but government policy can. If reforestation is part of a carbon sequestration program then tax incentives could ensure its continued use for primary production.
Water (Allocation Planning)
Whilst recognising that clearance of native vegetation increases runoff and flood peaks (and associated land degradation issues), partial reforestation would reverse this to some degree but also reduce inflows into Lake Alexandrina, do you think that forestry should be taken into account in the water allocation planning process by licensing or permitting non-irrigated forestry?
I don’t believe the clearance of native vegetation contributed as much to increase runoff as did the building of towns with their hard impervious surfaces as much of the Mayo electorate would have had woody grasslands where grass rather than trees were the dominant vegetation. Apart from this much of the Mayo electoral district does not drain to the Murray or the lower lakes. The Torrens and the Onkaparinga Rivers drain into Gulf St Vincent while areas below a line from Myponga to Victor Harbour also do not drain into the lakes. My analysis of the situation is that most areas likely to be involved in agro forestry will have little impact on the amount of water entering the lower lakes and that which does will have an insignificant effect.
I maintain the position stated previously of making sure the amount of agro forestry does not have a detrimental impact on the available water stocks. Reduction in run-off associated with increased tree cover will in most instances be a positive thing. In some areas of the upper Torrens increased salinity in soils had been experienced and a drop in the water table will help to stop further increases salinity and over time help to reverse the problem. So increases in agro forestry would contribute positively the environment.
Water allocation should allow for an equitable distribution of the available water and also take into account the best use of the land.