SELECTED TEXT QUOTES FROM:

REPORT OF PANEL HEARING ON APPLICATION BY AMCOR PLANTATIONS PTY LTD.

SEPTEMBER 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. THE APPLICATIONS
2. ADVERTISING
3. THE PANEL HEARING PROCESS
4. THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
5. OTHER REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
5.1 West Gippsland Regional Catchment and Land Protection
Board Draft Regional Catchment Strategy -
Phase 1, March 1996
5.2 Other Documents
6. THE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATIONS
6.1 The Amcor Submission
6.1.1 The DNRE Survey
6.1.2 Habitat for Native Plants and Animals is Protected
6.1.3 Ecological Processes and Genetic Diversity are Maintained
6.1.4 Carbon is Stored and Does Not Add to the Greenhouse Effect
6.1.5 Soil is Protected from Degradation, including Salinisation and Erosion
6.1.6 Adverse Effects on Groundwater Recharge are Minimised
6.1.7 Rivers, Streams, Wetlands and Water Resources are Protected
6.1.8 Land is Used and Managed in a Sustainable Manner
6.1.9 Visual Amenity and Landscape Quality are Preserved and Enhanced
6.1.10 Witness - Professor Peter Attiwell
6.1.11 Amcor Submission Conclusion

6.2 The DNRE Submission
6.3 EPA Submission
6.4 Wellington Shire Submission
6.5 Latrobe Shire Submission
6.6 Other Submissions in Support
6.7 Lake Wellington Rivers Authority
6.8 Other Submissions in Opposition
7. SITE INSPECTIONS
8. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS
8.1 Amcor's Role in Gippsland
8.2 Existing Forestry Operations and Management Practices
8.3 Processing of Applications by DNRE
8.4 Adequacy of DNRE Assessment
9. ISSUES CONSIDERED
9.1 Habitat for Native Plants and Animals is Protected
9.2 Ecological Processes and Genetic Diversity are Maintained
9.3 Carbon is Stored and Does not Add to the Greenhouse Effect
9.4 Soil is Protected from Degradation, Including Salinisation and Erosion
9.5 Adverse Effects on Groundwater Recharge are Minimised
9.6 Rivers, Streams, Wetlands and Water Resources are Protected
9.7 Land is Used and Managed in a Sustainable Manner
9.8 Visual Amenity and Landscape Quality are Preserved and Enhanced

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 Conclusions
10.2 Recommendations

p1 1. THE APPLICATIONS

In January 1996, Amcor Plantations Pty Ltd (Amcor) made applications to clear native vegetation from areas of land owned by it in the Gippsland area of Victoria in order to replace the land so cleared with plantation for forestry purposes. The clearing and conversion to plantation is proposed over a 10 year period.

The land sought to be cleared is within municipal boundaries of the Shires of Latrobe, Wellington, Baw Baw, East Gippsland and South Gippsland and totals some 1,955 hectares.

The permit of applications comprise individual lots of coupes of varying sizes totalling:

* Shire of Wellington, 472 hectares (Application 447/96)

* Shire of Latrobe, 1032 hectares (Application 96/003/PV)

* Shire of Baw Baw, 236 hectares (Application 39607)

* Shire of East Gippsland, 209 hectares (Application 95/00446(PV)

* Shire of South Gippsland, 7 hectares (Application 407)

Accompanying each application were maps showing block plans setting out the proposed native harvest coupes and documentation from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) . . .

p4 3. THE PANEL HEARING PROCESS

Following advertising and before each of the Councils had made a determination in respect of the applications, the Shires requested the Minister for Planning and Local Government to decide the applications pursuant to Section 97C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The Minister acceded to the requests and pursuant to the Act appointed an Independent panel under Part 8 to consider the applications, including all objections and submissions received, and to give any person who made an objection or submission a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Panel, so appointed pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act on 8 May 1996, consisted of Mrs Helen Gibson (Chair), Mr Ray Rooke and Mrs Pauline Semmens." . . .

"The submission by Amcor was made by Mr Bill Briggs, the Manager of Amcor Plantations Pty Ltd, assisted by Mr Angus Pollock and Mr Angus Borland. He called an expert witness, Professor Peter Attiwell, Reader and Associate Professor of Biology at Melbourne University" . . .

p5 4. THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The Panel considered the following statutory provisions as being relevant to the applications.

Clause 7-4.1 of the State Section of the Planning Scheme provides that a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation.

'Native vegetation' means plants that are indigenous to Victoria, including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses.

Clause 7-4.2 specifies guidelines for a permit which, before deciding on an application for such a permit, the responsible authority must consider.

Clause 3-8 of the State Section of the Planning Scheme regarding the retention and reestablishment of native vegetation applies to all land in Victoria.

Clause 3-8.1 states that

It is planning policy that native vegetation is to be protected and conserved and that in particular:

* Habitat for native plants and animals is protected.

* Ecological processes and genetic diversity are maintained.

* Carbon is stored and does not add to the greenhouse effect.

* Soil is protected from degradation.

* Adverse effects on groundwater recharge are minimised.

* Rivers, streams, wetlands and water resources are protected.

* Land is used and managed in a sustainable manner.

* Visual amenity and landscape quality are preserved and enhanced.

Clause 3-8.2 states that:

The major factors influencing this policy are the need:

* To restore the land, by arresting and reversing the decline of native vegetation in Victoria.

* To ensure that all Victorian species of flora and fauna, native ecosystems and communities can survive, flourish and retain their potential for evolutionary development.

* To control the spread of salinity of land and water resources throughout Victoria.

* To limit the impacts of the greenhouse effect on people and natural ecosystems.

* To manage catchments in a manner which takes account of all aspects of soil, water, flora and fauna conservation.

* To protect land and water resources from future degradation due to further removal or destruction of native vegetation.

Clause 3-8.3 requires that in implementing this policy, special attention must be given:

* To the importance of retaining, restoring and enhancing native vegetation.

* To the importance of sustainable use of land.

* To the benefits if using land management plans or works programs as a basis for making decisions about the management of natural resources, including native vegetation, and about the use and development of those resources.

* To replacing any loss of native vegetation by regenerating or replanting at least an equivalent area of native vegetation.

* To siting new buildings and works so that the area of native vegetation removed or divided up is minimised.

* To ensuring stock are controlled so that grazing of native vegetation causes minimum destruction.

* To ensuring fire prevention or fuel reduction burning is carried out in a way that minimises the destruction of native vegetation.

* To identifying and mapping existing native vegetation.

Clause 7-4-2 specifies guidelines which the responsible authority must consider before deciding an an application for a permit to clear native vegetation.

These include:

* The policy on retention and re-establishment of native vegetation.

* The conservation and enhancement of an area.

* The preservation of and impact on the natural environment or landscape values.

* The role of the native vegetation in:

- conserving the flora and fauna;

- protecting water quality;

- providing shade and shelter.

* The role of native vegetation in preventing:

- land degradation, including soil erosion, saturation, acidity and water logging;

- adverse effects on ground water discharge;

* The need to retain native vegetation:

- where ground slopes are more than 20%;

- within 30 m of a wetland or watercourse;

- where groundwater recharge occurs;

- on land subject to or which may contribute to soil erosion, slippage or salinisation;

- on land where the soil or subsoil may become unstable if cleared;

- in a proclaimed water supply catchment;

- in areas where removal, destruction or lopping could jeopardise the integrity or long term preservation of any identified site of scientific, nature conservation or cultural significance;

- if it is rare or supports rare species of fauna or flora;

- that forms part of a wildlife corridor.

* The conservation of native vegetation protected under the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.

* Any relevant permit to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation in accordance with a land management plan or works program.

* Whether the application includes a land management plan or work program.

* Whether provision is made or is to be made to establish and maintain native vegetation elsewhere on the land.

* The benefit of a condition requiring:

- planting, replanting or other treatment of any part of the land;

- the retention of a buffer strip of native vegetation within specified distances of wetlands, watercourses, roads and property boundaries;

- the fencing off of areas of native vegetation, in particular to exclude stock or vermin;

- the identification of native vegetation that is to be retained, including the methods to be used to protect and manage the native vegetation.

* In the case of timber production, the benefit of including a condition requiring operations to be carried out in accordance with any relevant code of practice under Section 55 of the Conservation, Forests and Land Act 1987.

Clause 3-10 sets out the policy which applies to timber production by establishing plantations and by harvesting timber from native forests or from a plantation, but not to agroforestry, windbreaks and small woodlots, and states:

It is planning policy that timber production -

* be conducted in accordance with the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production as in force from time to time and any additional requirements of this scheme;

* be expanded through the encouragement of softwood and hardwood plantation establishment on predominately cleared land.

Clause 8-6.2 provides that all timber production activities (except agroforestry, windbreaks, and small woodlots) must comply with the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production and that the Code must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Clause 8-6.4 sets out exemptions from the need to obtain a permit under Clause 7-4 for the removal of native vegetation if land is to be used for timber production. However, none of the exemptions apply to these cases and a permit is required pursuant to Clause 7-4.1

The Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production - Revision No. 1 (May 1989) was ratified in accordance with Section 55 of the Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987. It has been incorporated into the State Section of the Planning Scheme.

The Code lays down minimum standards for all timber production operations in Victoria and provides guidelines and Statewide minimum standards of environmental care which must be followed in compiling regional prescriptions and setting conditions for the control of particular timber production operations.

Compliance with the Code is mandatory for all timber production activities (Clause 8-6.2 above)

The Code is currently under review. The Panel was told that many of the changes currently proposed by DNRE to the current code are of a minor nature. They are designed to provide greater clarity and to help achieve improved environmental outcomes associated with timber production.

Some of the more significant proposed changes include:

* provision for wider stream buffers and drainage line filter strips in certain situations on public land, and for wider filter strips on private land.

* allowing the harvesting of areas of plantings adjacent to streams under strict conditions designed to protect water quality.

Clause 5-2 of the State Section of the Planning Scheme specifies that the responsible authority must have regard to the following matters (inter alia) when considering a permit application:

* the extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its destruction;

* whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or allowed to revegetate.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifies that one of the objectives of planning in Victoria is to provide for the protection of natural vegetation and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.

Section 6 of the Act states that a planning scheme must seek to further the objectives of planning and may make any provision which relates to the use, development, protection or conservation of land.

No permit is required to use land for the purposes of timber production under any of the local sections of relevant planning schemes.

p 10 5. OTHER REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

5.1 West Gippsland Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board: Draft Regional Catchment Strategy - Phase 1, March 1996

This board comprising 15 members including Council, community, Government department and Amcor representatives was appointed in January 1995 with its task being developing community based and owned sustainable land and water resources management plans. It has adopted a strategy consisting of two sections:

(1) Describes the nature and condition of the land and water resources; describes the problem issues causing resource degradation; and sets out the issues requiring priority attention.

(2) Prioritised integrated program of remedial actions and the methods of implementation.

The draft strategy relates to the first section above and was released for public comment with the essential aim of ensuring that the community, including the major stakeholders, has an opportunity to assist and guide the Board in deciding which resource management issues should receive priority remedial actions in Phase II of the strategy plan.

'Stakeholders'include residents, government agencies (EPA, DNRE, Planning and Development, etc), Local Government, River Management (Lake Wellington River Authority etc) Forest Industry (Amcor etc), Community Organisations (Land Care Groups etc), Tourist Industry.

Public comment was invited by 30.4.96 with Phase II due for completion 30.6.96 to be developed jointly by the community and key stakeholders.

The West Gippsland region comprises three recognised river basins - the Latrobe, Thomson and South Gippsland. The Latrobe, Thomson and Avon catchments flow into Lake Wellington, while the South Gippsland streams flow to the coast and adjacent inlets. The region includes the areas of the subject applications.

Issues identified contributing to degradation of the catchment condition include soil erosion, vegetation and habitat loss, waterway degradation, tourism and recreation pressues, with one of the problems identified as being forestry practices. However, it is also recognised that: Plantation forestry can have a high environmental value, reducing erosion, improving water quality, alleviating salinity and providing habitat for flora and fauna. (page 25)

Some of the pressures on the catchment (land use) are land and stream degradation caused by poor roading and forestry practices and clearing of native vegetation - loss of habitat and connection links. (page 28)

It is noted that:

Soil erosion can be exacerbrated by land clearing, alteration to waterways (straightening and desnagging) . . . (page 29)

Loss of forest cover and increased stream flow can, in some soil types, result in gullying and tunnel erosions . . . On the steeper slopes of the Central Highlands and Strzelecki Ranges, there is an increased risk of land slips, following the decay of the tree roots which tend to stablise the soil profile. (page 29)

To a great extent, the future of the tourism and recreation industries is largely dependant on the sustainability of a healthy catchment . . . the economic value of flora and fauna is largely derived from its value to recreation and tourism . . . Flora and fauna are also considered to contribute to the yield and quality of water in catchments. (page 27)

In identifying broad regional priorities reduced water quality was rated the most important issue, having high impacts on economic, environmental and social values. Habitat reduction by clearing or eradication of native vegetation and aquatic habitat was rated an important issue because of the high impact on environment and social values. (page 57) . . .

p 14 6.1 The Amcor Submission

Amcor Plantations Pty Ltd (former APM Forests Pty Ltd) is Australia's major plantation owner managing approximately 85,000 ha of freehold and leasehold land. It supplies pulpwood to the Maryvale Mill at Morwell from its plantations of hardwood and softwood and from sawmill and logging residues purchased from around the State and from State forests resources through Victorian Plantation Corporation.

The Maryvale Mill employs 900 people plus 75 direct employees in Australian Paper Ltd, the Australian arm of Amcor Limited's pulp and paper business. It also employs some 400 in wood harvesting and cartage and an estimated further 2,000 people are engaged indirectly in support industries. It operates 24 hours per day, 362 days each year, with 12 hour shifts. Its capacity is approximately 400,000 tonnes of pulp and paper per year, with the value of its total pulp and paper sales being approximately $400 million of which some $40 million is estimated to contribute to local goods and services.

It is planned to introduce a new $380 million paper machine (announced in March 1996) having a capacity of 160,000 tonnes p.a. of primary photocopy paper product. The addition of this new machine is estimated to provide employment for up to 350 people in the Latrobe Valley, together with another 25 directly employed during construction.

In order to increase the production of white photocopy paper, Amcor estimates 30,000 ha of high quality eucalypt plantation needs to be established within a 75 km radius of the Maryvale mill. Amcor's plantations currently supply approximately 75% of the Mill's pine pulp requirements and only 5% of its eucalypt requirements with 63% coming from State native forest. Increasing the eucalypt plantation to 30,000 ha will enable supply from plantations to exceed 50% in 20 years and reduce the company's reliance on State native forest.

To achieve the proposed 30,000 ha, it is necessary to convert approximately 10% of the native forest currently owned by Amcor to plantation, to reduce its pine estate to 34,500 ha and plant the balance on blocks which are currently pasture. As well as the conversion of 1,955 ha of native forest into either eucalypt or pine plantation under the current proposal under review by the Panel, 9,550 additional hectares of tree cover is to be established in Gippsland and 17,000 additional hectares of eucalypt plantation is to be developed. Of the 1,955 ha proposed to be converted, 413 ha will consist of pine plantings with the balance, mainly blue gum (Eucalyptus Globulus).

In support of its applications, Amcor made the following submissions in addressing some of the issues which must be considered under Clause 7-4.2 of the State section before an application for a permit to remove destroy or lop native vegetation is decided.

In particular, Amcor placed great reliance upon a survey by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE - formerly the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). The Department also naturally relied upon its own submission supporting Amcor's applications.

6.1.1 THE DNRE SURVEY

Amcor presented its proposal direct to DNRE as the referral authority prior to making its application to the Shires and included the result of the DNRE survey and conclusions as part of its formal applications.

Amcor and the Department adopted the following procedures in respect of each of the blocks or coupes under consideration once it had been established which coupes contained 'native vegetation' as defined.

Aerial photographs were studied to enable broad vegetation types to be identified within the coupe and on adjacent land. This enabled an overview to be made of the types and conditions of native vegetation to be impacted (EVCs - Ecological Vegetation Class), existing disturbance both in and around the coupe, and to determine the likelihood of Victorian Rare of Threatened Flora and Fauna (VROT). DNRE then selected representative sites for major species to enable vegetation class definitions. These representative coupes were inspected by Amcor District Foresters and Plantation Managers, Angus Borland and David Bennett and John Davies, Botanist Gail Gatt, Flora, Fisheries and Fauna Officer, both with DNRE. In the Departmental note of the 15 August 1995 attached to the applications, it was said:

'Four days of field work (July 24-27, 1995) were spent briefly visiting the freehold areas with Amcor personnel. Two days were spent finalising field data sheets and writing this report. Most of the time in the field was spent travelling between the areas with about 10 minutes typically spent recording dominant and common species present. Introduced weed species and obvious evidence of disturbance were also recorded. No quadrats were conducted because of the reconnaissance nature of the assessment.'

Following on-site inspections, described by Mr Davies as eyeballing the coupe, a coupe evaluation sheet was completed at the site.

Mr Davies also said:

All of the areas contained intact native vegetation with few if any introduced plant species. Most of the areas were damp or shrubby dry forest which are common vegetation types and most had a history of selective logging. The native vegetation targeted for conversion to pine/eucalypt plantation ranged in size and condition from isolated slithers (six) or blocks within pine and eucalypt plantations and/or agricultural country, to major areas of intact quality native vegetation continuous with that on adjoining crown land.

Although originally proposing to clear 3,069 ha, DNRE identified the 1,955 ha, the subject of the current permit application as containing common and well represented vegetation communities on which it felt there would be no constraints under the Planning Scheme to the development of hardwood plantations. It considered the remaining land required further evaluation or should not be removed.

Subject to the imposition of certain permit conditions:

(a) relating to strict adherence to the Code of Forest Practices regarding the forest harvesting and plantation establishment operation of each coupe particularly for the protection of soil stability and water protection and also the protection of common species of fauna, as well as rare and endangered species; and

(b) relating to the preparation and approval of an individual coupe plan for each block prior to the commencement of the harvesting operations on that coupe,

the Department approved the applications.

6.1.2 Habitat for Native Plants and Animals is Protected

As the referral authority, DNRE surveyed the areas in question. The 1,955 ha were endorsed by DNRE as unlikely to contain significant flora and fauna. All endorsed areas are well represented in the region and hence habitat is protected.

Because the applications are for the staged removal of the native vegetation over 10 years, impact on habitat will be minimal.

Because the Code of Forest Practices requires retention of stream buffers for habitat for plants and animals, 15% of areas will not be cleared, with more uncleared land in steep or special areas. With full permit approved, Amcor anticipated over 32% would still remain as native vegetation.

The whole of the Strzelecki Ranges is now good quality wildlife habitat due to reafforestation particularly since the 1950's which adds to the habitat of native animals.

Koalas, whilst not an endangered, threatened or very rare species, are protected and have benefited from the additional habitat formed particularly in the blue gum plantations.

The company's policy was to leave hollow bearing trees (stags) as habitat for hollow dwelling mammals and birds and in many cases the understorey in plantations remains mostly native.

6.1.3 Ecological Processes and Genetic Diversity are Maintained

A wide variety of flora communities are represented over the range of land types managed by Amcor and in the number of National and State Parks in the area.

The company is aware of its obligations under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

Following the screening by botanists from DNRE, the vegetation communities are well represented in permanent parks and reserves elsewhere in Gippsland.

The Code of Forest Practices will ensure areas locally within or adjacent to those planned for conversion remain undisturbed.

The numbers and variety of animals in existing plantations is proof of the benefits of the plantation forestry to endemic fauna.

The population of birds and animals will be maintained because of the long periods involved with low levels of disturbance.

Conversion of native forests to plantations of the same species will lessen the impact on fauna and is unlikely to cause any decline overall in either the number of species or overall population of faunal species in Gippsland. . .

P17 6.1.4 Carbon is Stored and Does Not Add to the Greenhouse Effect

In harvesting areas about 15% of the biomass will stay on site where it will decompose. The preparation and cultivation of the sites is designed to conserve organic matter in the soils and hence protect the carbon in the soil and the trees planted will assimilate carbon because of their selected high growth rate. The plantations will add to the carbon stored.

p17 6.1.5 Soil is Protected from Degradation, Including Salinisation and Erosion.

All operations are designed to minimise soil loss and degradation by reliance on detailed soil information, soil preparation, fertiliser application and weed control which are soil type specific. Again all operations will be conducted in accordance with the Code of Forest Practice.

p17 6.1.6 Adverse Effects on Groundwater Recharge are Minimised

Replanting of cleared areas will result in increased water use as a result of the greater number of trees per hectare, resulting in greater transpiration so reducing groundwater discharge and salinity. Tree planting is recognised as a groundwater recharge control measure in the Lake Wellington Salinity Management Plan.

p18 6.1.7 Rivers, Streams, Wetlands and Water Resources are Protected.

The company will adhere to the Code of Forest Practices which ensures that soil movement is minimised and limited to the area for conversion and that minimal sediment is released into streams. This also applies to internal road design, construction and maintenance.

Amcor conducts water quality monitoring which indicates its operations have had minimal impact on sediment loads in local streams. Similarly, Department of Agriculture and Gippsland Water monitoring of streams has never identified chemicals, e.g. Velpar, which are ground applied and spray plan controlled in Gippsland streams.

Machine operators are made aware of obligations under the Code and Amcor policies. A penalty system applies to them in the event of breaches of operations under the coupe plans.

The Code presently provides for harvesting of pine plantations to stream frontages. However, eucalypt replanting provides potential to restore riverside reserves.

p18 6.1.8 Land is Used and Managed in a Sustainable Manner

This is achieved in a variety of ways, e.g. operating within the Code, maximising the maintenance of organic material (carbon) on site, productivity increases between rotations, use of fertiliser applied relatively lower than conventional agriculture and lower levels of soil disruption compared with agriculture.

p18 6.1.9 Visual Amenity and Landscape Quality are Preserved and Enhanced

Although timber production operations have a significant visual impact during harvesting and replanting which takes place in a two year period over a 20-30 year cycle, tree growing generally improves visual amenity as evident through the reafforestation by Amcor and DNRE throughout the Strzeleckis. This requires particular care and attention to the visual impact in the vicinity of the Tarra-Bulga National Park and along tourist roads and highways.

p18 6.1.10 Witness - Professor Peter Attiwell.

Amcor called as an expert witness, Peter Attiwell, a Reader and Associate Professor, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, who is currently involved in collaborative research with Amcor on the nutrition of eucalypt plantations.

He had not inspected most of the subject sites and based his conclusions on his experience in forest ecology, on general observations of the area and the written reports of DNRE.

He observed that the forest types in the proposed areas are neither restricted in distribution throughout Victoria nor unusual, nor did they include any rare or endangered species. He said:

Conversion of the proposed areas to eucalypt plantations (in some cases using the same species of eucalypt) will therefore not result in significant decrease in protection of habitat for native plants and animals in that conformity to the Code of Forest Practices would ensure that steep slopes and riparian areas will not be cleared, and old age trees with nesting hollows will be retained.

He believed that establishment of the plantations will ensure that habitat for native plants and animals is protected and that ecological processes and diversity are maintained. Further, the Darlimurla Blocks consisting of some 335 ha should have more of its areas reserved than necessary under the Code as should the Grand Ridge Road Blocks, Balook consisting of some 220 ha due to their proximity to Tarra Bulga National Park to ensure the minimisation of visual impact.

p19 6.1.11 Amcor Submission Conclusion

Amcor in its written submission concluded as follows:

In conclusion, Australian Paper's continued investment in pulp and paper operations in Victoria is dependent on resource security. APL believes that the land it owns should be available for the purpose for which it was bought, namely timber production.

In summary, the consequences of APL's Native Vegetation Development Plan across Gippsland in conjunction with the adjacent public and private land, are that:

* the area covered by eucalypts is increased;
* habitat for native plants and animals is protected;
* ecological processes and genetic diversity are maintained;
* more carbon is stored;
* soil is protected from degradation including salinisation and erosion;
* groundwater recharge is reduced;
* rivers, streams, wetalnds and water resources are protected;
* land is used and managed in a sustainable manner;
* visual amenity and landscape quality are impacted on initially but preserved in the long term;
* pressure is reduced on State Forests for supply of pulpwood;
* potential for investment in growing and processing wood products is increased.

In its closing submission, Amcor suggested the imposition of certain conditions in any permit to be issued in addition to the ones suggested by DNRE mentioned earlier.

p20 6.2 THE DNRE SUBMISSION

. . . The submission by DNRE was presented by Mr Tom Speedie, Manager for Flora, Fauna and Fisheries Programs in the Gippsland Region with the support of Mr Michael Leonard from the Forests Service of the Department and Mr Brian Ward, the Central Gippsland Manager for Flora and Fauna.

Mr Speedie set out at length the history behind approval of Amendment S13 to the State Section of the Planning Scheme by the Minister in October 1993. This amendment is now incorporated into Clauses 3-10 and 8-6 of the State Section.

The Panel was also referred to the Department booklet Timber Production on Private Land - a Guide to Planning Requirements and Planning Guidelines for Native Vegetation Retention Controls (February 1996).

The latter contains a Section 7 headed 'Considering an Application to Clear' which includes in detail the matters a responsible authority must give consideration to before making a decision on an application to clear native vegetation.

Having considered Amcor's proposals prior to the formal permit applications being made and also following further examination after lodgement of the applications, the Department had no objection to the planning permits issuing provided the permits contained conditions relating to:

(a) strict adherence to the Code of Forest Practices during all aspects of the forest harvesting and plantation establishment operation in each coupe, particularly relating to protection of soil stability and water quality within the relevant catchments;

(b) protection of common, rare and endangered fauna during all operations in accordance with the Code; and

(c) the preparation and its approval of an individual coupe plan for each coupe prior to commencement of harvesting on that coupe.

DNRE had concerns about soil and water management in relation to land within the Shire of Latrobe adjacent to Rintouls Creek in the Parish of Boola Boola and adjacent to Traralgon Creek in the Parish of Callignee. Its concern was related to the potential increase in erosion and sediment transport posing a threat to public assets, such as the bridge on the Tyers-Glengarry Road. The Department therefore required that coupe plans for any works in those areas pay particular attention to slope and buffer zones adjacent to drainage lines, as well as the adequacy of drainage works associated with roading.

It was concluded that:

'The Department supports the approval of the Planning Permits by the respective Planning Authorities. The intention of the applications is in line with the principles of the S13 State Planning controls and the Government's intent to encourage plantation development to support a viable forest industry.

The flora and fauna work done by the Department has provided invaluable background information and supports the proposal that 1,955 ha could be converted to plantation forest without significant loss of conservation values.

As important, it identified 509 ha which it believed should not be converted to plantation and a further 605 ha which would need more detailed work before a change of land use should be considered. These areas have not been considered for conversion to planting by the company.

Provided adequate conditions are applied (and enforced), with particular reference to the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production, the Department believes the land can be safely converted to plantation timbers without significant conservation loss. This development proposal will provide vital support to the timber industry, particularly pulp and paper, and will make a significant and fundamental contribution to Victoria's economy and economic growth into the next century.

p22 6.3 EPA SUBMISSION

Whilst not objecting to the application, the EPA considered it important for its views to be taken into account and particularly the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) which applies to all surface waters of Victoria.

In the implementation of planning schemes, Clause 11 of the SEPP requires that special attention should be given to the policy. Clause 34 in part requires that polluted run off, both from specific sites and within the catchment as a whole, be reduced as far as possible. Clause 48 in part requires the control of forestry practices to minimise land disturbance and the impact of sediments, pesticides and fertilisers to surface waters by developing forest management plans and coupe plans in accordance with the Code of Forest Practices and adhering to the prescription in such plans, particularly as they relate to streamside reserves and filter strips along drainage lines, roading and harvesting practices on steep slopes.

The EPA considered that it is not sufficient to only require that Amcor comply with the Code of Forest Practice, but the company also needs to demonstrate that they are complying with the Code and that the beneficial uses of any waters, as set out within SEPP's are being protected.

It considered that the inclusion in a permit of a requirement for monitoring, assessment and reporting against the Code and SEPP is essential. The clearing program should be reviewed by the EPA prior to commencing clearing and that the results of the program be supplied to the Responsible Authority, West Gippsland Catchment and Land Protection Board, Lake Wellington Rivers Authority and the EPA.

Mr David Mackenzie, the EPA's Manager Gippsland Region in his submission to the Panel suggested that if any of the subject sites had slopes in excess of 30 degrees, they should not be cleared unless it can be demonstrated that the water values adjacent to these areas can be adequately protected. Also, if there are areas where highly dispersive soils exist, batters of roads should be mulched and seeded rather than to be left to revegatate as erosion and subsequent deterioration in water quality may result before natural revegetation occurs.

p23 6.4 WELLINGTON SHIRE SUBMISSION

This was presented by Mr Ray Smith, the Shire's Strategic Planner. The Council supported the application because of the increase in value-added product exported from Gippsland . . .

It considered the complementary work undertaken by Amcor and the Department preceding the applications followed by a public hearing to be a reasonable model to follow in similar circumstances. If it had had to determine the application, it would have placed significant weight on the decision by DNRE that the subject sites are well represented with ecological vegetation classes and a low probability or rare or threatened flora and fauna.

The Council further considered that objections to the Amcor proposal on the grounds that:

* plantations should only be established on the most marginal land whether it be steep, eroded, vegetated, difficult to farm or already cleared land;

* any loss of vegetation, flora or fauna is unnacceptable; and

* the proposal will result in loss of private, local or community passive or active recreation resource,

are not based on any reasonable planning grounds.

p24 6.5 LATROBE SHIRE SUBMISSION

This submission was presented by Mr Nick Kearns, Team Leader Development Approvals, assisted by Elaine Wood, Strategic Planner and Nicole Stowe, Statuatory Planner.

The Shire considered that the proposal to remove native vegetation of some 1032 ha within its boundaries should proceed subject to appropriate conditions relating to:

(a) a streamside buffer being retained from Rintoul's Creek to the internal east-west track north of the Creek in the proposed Rintoul's Creek plantation;

(b) a biffer to the Tarra Bulga National Park along Traralgon-Balook and Grand Ridge Roads for the proposed Grand Ridge plantation; and

(c) a roadside buffer along Vagg's and Ashford Roads for the Ashford Road plantation.

The Shire received some 110 objections to the proposal after it had been advertised . . .

The Council was largely guided by the recommendations of the DNRE in reaching its decision and admitted that, while each of the subject sites had been visited by its Development Approvals Unit Staff, only the largest plantation proposal has been examined by the Council's horticultural staff. It conceded that its investigations did not attempt to meet the rigours of Clause 7-4.2 of the State Section as it did not have the necessary expertise. Its investigations were basically confined to flora evaluation.

It found that each of the five major clearing areas consisted of native vegetation regrowth varying in age between 25-50 years. None of the five sites was considered to contain significant vegetation or habitat, except areas within and surrounding gullies and some internal logging tracks.

p25 6.6 OTHER SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT

The only other submissions in favour of the Amcor proposals were from the 'A' Team and Mr Oliver Raymond.

The 'A' Team was represented at the hearing by Mr Derek Amos, an independent consultant for Amcor and AFME Union assisted by Mr John Campbell and Chris Moody, member and coordinator of the 'A' Team respectively and Mr Gary Blackwood, a third generation logging contractor. The 'A' Team is a body formed in the 1980s to coordinate and work on areas of mutual interest between Amcor, its employees and the Union. It consists of forestry and forest products industry employees 'working to preserve both jobs and the environment'.

Mr Campbell made a written submission. As well as being a forest technician employed by Amcor and studying for an Associate Diploma in Applied Science Resource Management . . .

The substance of the submission was that:

(a) the proposed conversations would assist Amcor to be internationally competitive in the area of timber production;

(b) jobs would be sustained and increased;

(c) 'industrial' tourism is increasing and includes not only visits to former SEC sites in the Latrobe Valley but also to logging operations and the mill;

(d) no adverse effects on flora and fauna from logging operations has been observed;

(e) contrary to the number of objections to the proposal, it is believed most residents, particularly in the Carrajung and Yinnar areas, support the proposal;

(f) observance of the Code of Forest Practices ensures proper environmental safeguards and protections.

Mr Oliver Raymond is a professional forester with Amcor and has 35 years experience. He has seen three cycles of plantation from Amcor forests processed. He showed a series of slides to illustrate his submissions that Australia's forest ecosystems are very robust and that naturally occurring forests of Eucalyptus Regnans (Mountain Ash), such as regenerated naturally after bushfires in 1939 and 1944, are a monoculture and comparison with eucalypt plantations show little difference in their respective understoreys.

p26 6.7 LAKE WELLINGTON RIVERS AUTHORITY

Mr Ross Scott, General Manager, presented the submission on behalf of the Authority which has a catchment embracing the land included in the current applications. The Authority is currently active in erosion control, streamside revegetation, water quality monitoring and water watch as a direct result of the effects of suspended solids and nutrient loads mobilised from the catchment and transported to wetlands (Dowds Morass, Heart Morass and Sale Common) and to Lake Wellington and Lake Victoria.

The Authority is concerned with Eaglehawk and Rintoul Creeks which are tributaries to the north of the Latrobe River and have been identified as major contributors of sediment to that river and to the Gippsland Lakes. Both creeks are described as deeply incised actively eroding streams in areas of highly dispersive soils.

Mr Scott told the panel that whereas Rintoul Creek was once a shallow stream that sheet flowed over adjoining land in times of high flow in the 1850s, it is now deeply incised (in some locations six metres) and totally captures the largest floods. The increased incidence and intensity of floods from this catchment are typically the results of clearings and change of land use practices.

The 253 ha of Amcor land adjoining Rintoul Creek proposed to be cleared has a two kilometre frontage.

Mr Scott described Eaglehawk Creek as being probably the most studied creek in Victoria. In the early 1900s a farmer guided it to its present position with a single furrow plough. Upstream of Glengarry it is now deeply incised and an average six metres deep with widths of up to 30 metres and captures the total flood flow.

The Panel was also told about Yorkies Gully. This 'infamous Gully' is situated close to Rintoul Creek and is in the same area of the intended Rintoul Creek plantation (253 ha).

It originated in the 1920s when a farmer ran a plough line to combat sheet flow across his paddocks. Yorkies Gully is now a total environmental disaster and a monument to man's folly. It is on average 10 metres deep, 15 metres wide and a kilometre long; and to this day continues its headward journey upward into native bush land through the highly dispersive soils that are representative of this area. Yorkies Gully is an example of non-applicable land use and demonstrates that some land should not be cleared. Some land should be retired.

Both the Rintoul Creek land and Isseppis land (112ha) are within catchments that discharge into creeks flowing through unstable and dispersive soils.

The Authority concluded that:

The clearfelling and replanting of these two sites would have a very high impact on Rintoul and Eaglehawk Creeks and the Latrobe and Gippsland Lakes.

It is our opinion that clearing would result in increased runoff and trigger massive erosion in the areas concerned. Existing large slips and gully erosion adjoining access tracks ably demonstrate this. It is extremely difficult to consider these areas are seriously intended for clearing in the view of the fragility of the areas and the environmental damage that would result.

p28 7. SITE INSPECTIONS

On 18, 19 and 20 July 1996, the Panel undertook three full days of site inspections to assess the land forming the subject of the applications . . .

On the first day, the Panel inspected the Rintoul's Creek block and Eaglehawk Creek and the Yorkies Gully areas, all of which are part of the Latrobe River catchment area which supplies the Gippsland Lakes. The Panel noted the extensive gully erosion which has taken place along the creeks and the significant landslides which have occurred adjoining the waterways. The areas include highly unstable and dispersive soils and the creeks are subject to incision during excessive floods through the catchment area, the incidence and intensity of which are exacerbated by land clearing and change of land use practices. The creek experiences high turbidity and the Panel was told a test of the Rintoul's Creek on 7 December 1995 indicated a turbidity level twice that of the Latrobe River.

The Panel inspected the proposed native harvest coupes at Isseppi's Block, north east of Eaglehawk Creek, several coupes adjoining the Bulla State Forest. The coupe areas total 112 ha, and include thick covers of native bushland with significant understorey, which are proposed for clearance and replanting with eucalypt plantation, principally blue gums. The Panel noted that the coupes contain large areas of natural vegetation which form significant and valuable adjuncts to the adjoining state forest.

The Panel also visited the Delphete's Block north of Moondarra, the northern coupes adjoining the Tyers River. The latter coupes contain substantial forest growth and are surrounded by native vegetation, including natural regrowth forest traversed by a number of creek gullies. . .

On the second day the Panel visited the Jeeralang North Blocks along Taylors Road and the Jeeralang Creek Road. The general area is crossed by the Traralgon and Jeeralang Creeks.

The Panel again saw evidence of significant land clearings throughout steep terrain of the Jeeralang Creek land system, where land clearing for plantations has contributed to land erosion and soil degradation. Steep areas of plantation subject to cable logging were inspected and the Panel experienced first hand evidence of significant land slips and silting along creek lines.

The Panel noted that many of the proposed coupes form valuable remnants of native vegetation. In particular, large tracts of land adjoining the Jeeralang North Road contain lush remnant riparian vegetation, including substantial fern growth and remnant tree species. Evidence of older trees exist which provide hollows that shelter local native animals. . .

The Panel travelled along Grand Ridge Road and visited the Tarra Bulga National Park. It inspected the coupes opposite the park, which will in effect result in only small pockets of land to be cleared and replanted.

Notwithstanding this, after allowance has been made for the vegetated buffers along the creek pursuant to the Code of Forest Practices, these coupes lie within native forest to be retained and the Panel believes that their clearance and replacement with single species plantation will fragment valuable fauna and flora habitat evidenced in these coupes, close to a National Park. Grand Ridge Road is an important tourist road in Gippsland, providing the main access to the Tarra Bulga National Park. Its adjoining landscapes are considered valuable assets which complement the inherent beauty and biodiversity of this major parkland. Clearing of adjoining bushland could severely compromise the landscape value of the park.

The Panel travelled further north west along Middle Creek Road through substantial natural regrowth forest and inspected the Middle Creek/Vaggs Creek block. This coupe, totalling 25 hectares, is situated close to the townships of Yannar and Boolara and is surrounded to the north by native vegetation to be retained. This land forms a valuable remnant of natural bushland in the Yinnar West area, providing significant local visual amenity and fauna retreat amongst the large areas of plantation, eg for koalas, goannas. . .

On day three the Panel travelled south towards Callignee, visiting the Callignee Road Blocks. These coupes form pockets of remnant vegetation along the Callignee Cormandale Road, surrounded by extensive tracts of eucalyptus plantation. The coupe close to Callignee North contains some large remnant tree species amongst the regrowth forest, which provide valuable habitat for the local fauna in this region. The Panel viewed scoured out steep creek lines where land had been cleared for plantations which contrasted significantly with undisturbed protected sections of the creek, further downstream.

The coupes bounding the Carrajung Lower Road and beyond contained natural regrowth tree stands up to 50 years old with a thick understorey and evidence of local biodiversity throughout.

The two coupes (e.g. Hughes land) outside the Carrajung township, totalling only 12 hectares, contain areas of land considered too steep for clearing. The clearance of these residual pockets of bushland will result in isolated patches of monoculture plantation, surrounded by either farmland or pine plantations. The Panel believes that they would currently form valuable safe havens and natural sanctuaries for a range of arboreal mammals and birdlife indigenous to the area. . .

The Panel inspected the two proposed coupes north of the Briagalong township. These coupes form substantial areas of natural regrowth forest, one totalling approximately 60 hectares and the other approximately 90 hectares. The Panel noted a range of tree species of significant age, e.g. box and stringybarks, throughout the area visited and also evidence of varied plant life. These areas are surrounded by existing native forest, farmland and partly by existing plantations.

The Panel continued north east towards Glenanadale and visited Coupe No. 372 7901. This area was previously cleared agricultural land which has reverted to natural bushland. The Panel again noted the thick forest and understorey cover which have evolved on the blocks, and a range of local flora was also recorded, e.g. native orchids.

In its inspections, the Panel covered the extensive areas of native forest throughout Southern and Eastern Gippsland whcih form the subject applications and experienced first hand (although in limited time) the diverse land systems, terrain and soil types found throughout the region. The Panel considers that all the areas under Amcor's proposals are valuable remnants of native vegetation, each having intrinsic landscape and habitat attributes and the inspections confirmed for the Panel the need to thoroughly assess each individual coupe area for its fauna and flora significance in both the local and regional context, and to also assess its overall landscape value as remnant bushland in the Gippsland region before any decision to clear and convert to plantation is made.

p31 8. Consideration of Applications

8.1 Amcor's Role in Gippsland

Amcor can be justly proud of its achievements in Gippsland, particularly in the Strzelecki Ranges where much of the land proposed for conversion is located. The Strzelecki's were once known as the Heartbreak Hills. They are steep and rugged and used to be covered with thick bush and huge trees, 90 metres and more high with a diameter of two to three metres, although some of the great eucalypts had girths of 18 metres and more. During the latter part of last century and the early 1900s much of the range was cleared for agriculture. However, the land was basically not suited to farming. Landslips and erosion devastated the bare hillsides. The steep slopes, the wet, cold climate, difficult access, rabbit infestation and spread of noxious weeds made life hard and farming unproductive. Gradually many of the farms were abandoned and became overgrown by scrub, bracken and blackberries.

Amcor has played a leading role in the reafforestation of the Strzelecki Ranges, together with the former Forests Commission of Victoria, replanting them with pine and increasingly, eucalypt plantations.

Amcor currently manages a land base of 85,000 hectares in the Central Gippsland region. Of the 85,000 hectares:

* 42,000 hectares is pine plantation;
* 13,000 is eucalypt plantation;
* 15,000 hectares is native vegetation of which approximately 60 per cent is permanently unavailable for conversion to plantation due to conservation reserves and restrictions applied by the Code of Forest Practices;
* 2,000 hectares is scrub;
* the 13,000 hectares remaining is made up of roads, fire breaks, air strips, gravel pits etc.

Today, the Strzelecki's appear again as largely forested hills. In addition, much cleared former SEC land is also being planted with eucalypt plantations. All submitters expressed a very positive attitude to the reafforestation of the Strzelecki's by Amcor and its ongoing establishment of eucalypt plantations. However, the primary point made by the submitters was that this should occur on cleared land in accordance with State policy on timber production. It was neither appropriate nor acceptable to convert native forests to plantation forests, whether they be pine or eucalypt.

p32 8. 2 EXISTING FORESTRY OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

In the Panel's opinion, when dealing with these applications a fundamental fact needs to be borne in mind, namely that plantation trees are a crop in the same way as wheat, cotton or sugar cane are crops. The primary distinction is that trees have a much longer rotation cycle and, whilst growing, they bring subsidiary benefits such as:

* stabilising soil;
* high carbon uptake;
* reducing groundwater recharge
* providing habitat

Nevertheless, the ultimate purpose of growing any crop is that it will be harvested. An inevitable part of the process when trees are harvested is that their habitat value will be destroyed and short term environmental damage will occur.

This hearing has not been an exercise in ascertaining the extent of compliance by Amcor with the Code of Forest Practices, even though the Panel was shown numerous photos and heard various anectodal evidence purporting to illustrate breaches of the Code and the failure of the Code in preventing environmental damage.

It is generally acknowledged and the Panel accepts that:

* standards in forest management and harvesting practices are constantly improving; and
* the introduction of the Code of Forest Practices has been a major step forward in combating the environmental damage which harvesting causes.

On the other hand, the information the Panel has been given and its inspections demonstrate that:

* harvesting timber is an inherently messy operation;
* compliance with the Code of Forest Practices is not of itself a guarantee that environmental damage will not occur.
* the risk of environmental damage is enhanced where slopes are steeper than recommended in the Code, where trees are harvested to the edge of streams and drainage lines, and where there are areas of unstable soil;
* there is a mechanistic approach to compliance with the Code based on adherence to standards specified rather than a flexible approach based on principles and modified to suit particular conditions.

In drawing these conclusions, several observations must be made. First, in areas where harvesting has occurred on extremely steep slopes, close to streamside reserves and in areas of unstable soil, the Panel acknowledges it is better that these areas be planted and even ultimately harvested than that they remain bare, which would have occurred had Amcor not undertaken reafforestation . . .

Nevertheless, ESD (ecologically sustainable development) principles dictate that protective and permanent regenerative measures be instigated to ensure that in the long term the environmental damage created as a consequence of the physical characteristics of this type of land use is not perpetuated with every cycle being justified on the basis that wherever land has been planted it should always be allowed to be harvested. Just as farmers, miners and other land managers are required to carry out remedial works to counter the adverse consequences of past mistakes and poor land management practices, so should Amcor and other forest operators be responsible for remedial works. This may mean planting trees along streams and on very steep slopes then leaving them to function as protective buffers and soil stabilisers without harvesting them again.

Generally, ESD principles aim to address the wise use or reuse of resources. It is these principles which underly the whole Code of Forest Practices. Chapter 1.2 of the Code sets out the environmental care principles upon which it is based as follows:

-Discussion about Environmental Care Principles of the Code of Forest Practices.

p34 "The Code then proceeds to lay down principles and guidelines that apply to timber harvesting, timber extraction roading, regeneration and reafforestation in native forests, and the establishment and tending of plantations. Subservient to these principles and guidelines are a series of minimum standards applicable to various aspects of the issues dealt with. It is emphasised in the explanatory notes for the Code that wherever appropriate the minimum standards must be increased to protect environmental values.

The second observation the Panel would make relates to the fact that standards laid down in the Code of Forest Practices are in fact minimum standards. They are designed to make certain objectives. Compliance with them is not an end in itself and is not proof against criticism that those objectives or environmental care principles are not being met.

One of the difficulties Amcor faced in responding to submissions made about these applications was that it was unable to demonstrate how it was achieving the objectives embodied in the Code. Assertions that the Code is being complied with do not constitute such demonstration. They only lead to counter assertions that the Code is not being complied with.

Two of the aspects about production operations at the Maryvale Mill which impressed the Panel were the system of quality control and the ability to measure performance. These principles are applicable not only to the production of goods but are increasingly being demanded in terms of meeting environmental objectives. It is appropriate that they are applied not only to discharges to the environment, for example from the Maryvale Mill itself, but also to the actual timber production part of the process.

Any system of quality control depends on monitoring and self-auditing, leading to an ability to demonstrate positively the achievement of certain standards. It is an approach which sees standards being set to achieve certain outcomes. Coupled with this must be a recognition that in order to achieve those outcomes, the standards may need to be varied according to circumstances. This represents a departure from the type of approach which sees the standards as an end in themselves, rather than a means to an end.

The Panel recognises that Amcor has a fibre resources policy and an environmental policy and that it is engaged in a constant process of research to improve its raw product (trees) and its forest management. However, there is no regular monitoring, for example, of streams by either Amcor, the EPA or any other authority so it cannot be demonstrated:

* how turbidity varies as a consequence of harvesting operations;

* what is the actual degree of contribution which erosion during harvesting makes to downstream siltation, particularly in the Gippsland Lakes and associated wetlands;

* what is the increase in runoff which contributes to the type of streamside erosion referred to by the Lake Wellington Rivers Authority.

The need for monitoring and the need for Amcor to be able to demonstrate compliance with Code and SEPP objectives was emphasised by the EPA in its submission. It is not enough for Amcor to state:

As a result of implementation of the Code all plantation and native forest harvesting areas were rated in the higher water quality zones of the recent State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Review for Gippsland Waters, and the Water Quality Management Strategy to implement the SEPP did not include forestry as a problem/cause area. (Amcor submission, page 7)

Amcor referred the Panel to page vi of the Draft Central Gippsland Water Quality Management Strategy where, under the heading 'Problems and Causes', it was stated:

Problems and Causes

Recent evidence of inadequate water quality within the Strategy includes:

* major blooms of blue-green algae in the Gippsland Lakes and Lake Narracan, affecting recreation, tourism, fishing and ecosystems;

* poor drinking water quality in many towns;

* poor water quality for swimming and other recreation in many waterways;

* the limited range of native plants and animals in many waterways.

The major factors contributing to these problems are:

* excessive discharges of nutrients, especially phosphorous;

* high concentrations of suspended solids and associated turbidity (cloudiness), mainly from erosion;

* high concentrations of bacteria under some conditions.

Whilst forestry may not be specifically mentioned here, elsewhere in the document soil and waterway erosion are identified as significant sources of phosphorous (page 7) and it is stated that most of the suspended solids in waterways are due to sediment, from either eroded soil or erosion of waterway channels (page 8). Not mentioning forestry as a problem/cause specifically in the Strategy does not mean that it may not contribute to soil erosion.

In fact, this is implicit in the section of the Strategy dealing with forest land where it is stated:

Good forest practices in accord with the Code should prevent problems in most situations. However, local terrain conditions may require greater protective measures. Monitoring of water quality under high flow conditions is needed to determine whether sediment losses significantly above background levels are actually occurring. (Page 19)

In the Panel's opinion, Amcor needs to demonstrate not only its compliance with the Code, but that compliance is achieving the objectives and environmental care principles of the Code.

The change in approach which the Panel perceives is necessary to achieve this outcome is also one which needs to be embraced by DNRE. The Department needs to review the nature of the role it plays and to develop a demonstrably better understanding of the function of the Code and its relationship with native vegetation retention controls.

p37 8.3 PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS BY DNRE

In dealing with these applications, DNRE has displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the retention of native vegetation controls and the controls relating to timber production, including the Code of Forest Practices. The Department's assumption, which was adopted by Amcor and the Councils supporting the applications, has been that so long as native vegetation does not contain rare or endangered species, and that clearance is carried out in accordance with the Code of Forest Practices, then its removal is acceptable.

The Code of Forest Practices is the primary document referred to by DNRE and Amcor and both referred to it as their 'Bible'. Both seemed to consider that the need for a planning permit arose from the provisions of Amendment S13, which introduced the policy and controls on timber production into the State Section of all planning schemes and made compliance with the Code of Forest Practices a requirement for all timber production on public and private land irrespective of whether a planning permit is required. For example, in the report made by DCNR, which formed part of the information accompanying the applications, the opening words state:

As per amendment S13 to the State Section of planning schemes in Victoria, an area of 3,069 hectares proposed by Amcor Plantations Pty Ltd for conversion of native vegetation to plantation was referred to and investigated by Departmental staff.

This perception fails to appreciate that the referral to DNRE is made not as a consequence of amendment S13, or more properly Clause 8.6 of the State Section, but as a consequence of the need for a permit pursuant to Clause 7-4.1. In fact, no planning permit is required to use any of the land for the purpose of a plantation except for the land in the Shire of East Gippsland. Thus, the referral to DNRE is in respect of an application to remove or destroy native vegetation, not in respect of an application to use or develop land for timber production by establishing a plantation. This has important consequences in terms of the matters which must be taken into consideration and which are set out in Clause 7-4.2.

It is noted from this clause that the need to retain native vegetation if it is rare or supports rare species of fauna or flora is only one of an extensive list of matters to consider. Likewise, the benefit of including a condition requiring operations to be carried out in accordance with any relevant code of practice under section 55 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 - a provision which is now redundant given Clause 8-6.2 which requires that all timber production activities must comply with the Code of Forest Practcies for timber production. In the Panel's opinion therefore, to the extent that DNRE has looked only at the likelihood of the pieces of land containing significant flora and fauna, the Department has failed to properly carry out its function as a referral authority for this type of application.

Furthermore, the response by DNRE has not been in accordance with its own Planning Guidelines for Native Vegetation Retention Controls, February 1996, which state:

The fundamental policy is that native vegetation is to be protected and conserved. The starting position should be that all native vegetation is valuable. (page 25)

Indeed, the Guidelines specifically warn against making assumptions which have characterised DNRE's response to these applications. Chapter 9.2 of the Guidelines discusses principles to be applied in considering applications for timber production and states:

Unless exempted under Clause 8-6.4 of the Planning Scheme, timber production from native forests and land to be cleared for timber production continues to be subject to permit under the native vegetation retention controls. In other words S13 policy should not be used alone when considering an application to clear native vegetation. The native vegetation retention controls and policy apply to all clearing applications . . .

Establishment of plantations on already cleared land is encouraged by the Government for its potential for economic and social benefits for the State. Applications for clearing of native vegetation for plantation development will need to be assessed on a site by site basis with consideration given to the policy influences in Clause 3-10 of the Planning Scheme. Clearing of native vegetation has direct and permanent impacts on biological diversity and species loss. The benefits of timber production and conserving native vegetation require comparison but as a general principal the retention of remnant vegetation should be considered of greater environmental benefit.

This extract also highlights the other aspect of State policy ignored by DNRE in handling these applications, namely that it is planning policy that timber production be expanded through the encouragement of softwood and hardwood plantation establishment on predominantly cleared land (emphasis added). (Clause 3-10.1) This rider relating to predominantly cleared land is reinforced by the exemption from the need for a permit to remove native vegetation set out in Clause 8-6.4. This exemption applies only in limited circumstances otherwise a permit is required under Clause 7-4.1. Failure to appreciate that the policy applies to predominantly cleared land, not all land, ignores the background and history leading to the preparation of the amendment detailed in the Panel Report in Amendment S13 in October 1992 which notes that:

As a result of the gradually increasing concern in the community about the clearing of native (unplanted) forests, in 1987 the clearing of publicly owned native forests for the establishment of plantations was prohibited.

In order to meet the TIS (Timber Industry Strategy) targets, it was decided that the DCE should move to purchase private land for timber production (page 8)

p39 The S13 Panel then went on to detail the community opposition this strategy also met with, the difficulties associated with encouraging private plantations on freehold land . . .

There are good reasons why the policy on timber production in planning schemes applies to predominantly cleared land based on historical circumstances and to avoid direct conflict with the policy on native vegetation retention. However, DNRE, Amcor and the Councils have ignored this fundamental qualification and the reasons for it. Instead, they have concentrated on the desirability of establishing new eucalypt plantations as part of the big picture for timber production in terms of Amcor's strategic plan . . .

No exception can be taken to these objectives, and indeed they were fully supported by all submitters to the Panel, but reliance on this 'big picture' as justification for the extent of clearing sought is misleading for several reasons.

The clearance of this amount of native vegetation needs to be seen in the context not of what it will contribute to Amcor's productive capabilities, but what it will remove from the State's resource of native vegetation. Whilst scattered in various localities, the cumulative total of land to be cleared is significant. Two thousand hectares is equal to the average rate of clearance for a whole year calculated by reference to the three year period 1990 to 1992 which followed the introduction of native vegetation retention controls. This compares to an average rate of clearing of 15,392 hectares per year of the period 1972-1987 when there were no controls over clearing.

The native vegetation retention controls were introduced as a response to the dramatic decline in forested land in Victoria from a coverage of 88% in 1869 to 35% in 1987, with 5% of freehold land in Victoria then remaining as forested land (Woodgate and Black, 1988). They have resulted in a significant reduction to the rate of clearing. These applications therefore represent the largest single proposal to clear native vegetation since the controls were introduced.

The sheer size of the areas involved has been used an an excuse by DNRE for the lack of a more detailed examination or assessment of the areas. However, it seems to the Panel that the very extent of clearing proposed warrants more thorough investigation and assessment, not less.

p40 8.4 ADEQUACY OF DNRE ASSESSMENT

The DNRE survey was strongly criticised by numerous submitters, including several who should be regarded as experts because of their practical expertise or academic qualifications.

No sampling quadrats were constructed which are normally used as an important and accepted method of determining the representative range of flora in a community. According to the Department, no quadrats were conducted because of the reconnaissance nature of the assessment.

It was submitted that even the limited eyeballing of sites by DNRE officers was grossly inadequate. For example, Ian Cornthwaite, who holds an Associate Diploma in Horticulture Amenity and is manager of a plant production nursery specialising in indigenous plants of the Strzeleckis, gave evidence that whereas the inspection sheet for coupe number 3090005 in the Darlimurla region along Ashfords Road lists 11 plant species, a 20 minute survey of larger plant species conducted by Mr Cornthwaite, mostly from a car, disclosed 40 species.

Further particular criticism was made of the very limited number of species listed in the DNRE proforma inspection sheet. Only four flora species are listed and one fauna species. DNRE stated that it relied on its existing database to identify likely rare or threatened species. However, Dr Barry Traill, giving evidence on behalf of Environment Victoria, provided the Panel with a list of endangered fauna species occurring in or near the subject sites taken from the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (DCNR), which is the database used by DNRE. Sixteen species are listed as having been sighted in or near (within a five kilometre radius) of the subject land . . . According to Dr Traill . . . of the 16 species listed at least 13 are known to regularly occur in the types of forest found in the areas proposed for clearing or in streamside habitats which could be affected by clearing of adjacent slopes.

Evidence was also given on behalf of Environment Victoria and by a number of individual submitters of recent sightings of the threatened Powerful Owl at one site (Darlimurla) and immediately adjacent to another site (Jeeralang North).

With respect to plant communities, Angela Gutowski, representing Friends of Tarra Bulga National Park, gave evidence that from her personal knowledge in coupe number 4306105, map 8, the species exist which are listed in the Flora and Fauna Gurantee, Scientific Advisory Committee final recommendation on a nomination for listing relating to the Cool Temperate Rainforest Community, which may therefore indicate the presence of a Cool Temperate Rainforest Community. This was not one of the blocks inspected by DNRE, nor was the Cool Temperate Rainforest Community one of the vegetation types identified by DNRE in their selection of representative sites.

Dr Traill gave evidence that during his inspection of one of the Middle Creek blocks he observed there was an overstorey of blue gum with an open grassy understorey dominated by grass tussocks which appeared to be Poa species. Although no detailed plant species list was able to be obtained, he judged this site as being an example of Herb Rich Forest, an extremely rare community in the region and a type of vegetation that has been mostly cleared throughout Victoria . . . However, again this was not a site inspected by DNRE, nor one of its identified vegetation types.

Environment Victoria was also critical about the lack of definition or detail about the 'region' used by DNRE in making its assessment about the representativeness and significance of the main vegetation types, in particular whether they are well represented EVCs (Ecological Vegetation Class) with a low probability of VROT (Victorian Rare or Threatened Flora and Fauna) species.

The Panel's finding is that the DNRE survey is cursory and inadequate for the purpose of giving a sufficiently accurate assessment of the fauna and flora to be found on land which is the subject of these applications. At best, the survey is a generalised assessment dependent upon an initial selection and assessment of sites made from examination of aerial photographs. This in itself is considered to be an uncertain method of identification. It has not been followed by any rigorous evaluation of the initial definition process which could be used to substantiate it. On the contrary, evidence has demonstrated that significant species of both flora and fauna have been overlooked, not only in practice but even in establishing the limited methodology employed.

The Panel's conclusion is that the DNRE survey cannot be relied upon as a basis for supporting the applications.

p42 9. ISSUES CONSIDERED

9.1 HABITAT FOR NATIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS IS PROTECTED

Whilst the Panel accepts that eucalyptus plantations will provide a better habitat for native fauna than pine plantations or cleared agricultural land, this habitat value cannot be compared with a naturally occurring forest with its diversity of species, range of maturity and fully developed understorey. The more diverse an ecosystem is, the greater the range of birds, animals and other fauna it will support. In terms of tree species, eucalypt plantations are a monoculture which could not be expected to support the same diversity of fauna as naturally occurring native forests, even where these have been logged in the past. Loss of habitat has been the greatest single impact on species loss on any threatening process. As the size of remnant patches is reduced by clearing of fragmentation, they become more vulnerable to edge effects and degradation, and populations of many species become less resiliant.

Plans submitted with these applications and aerial photographs tabled at the hearing by Amcor show that many of the blocks to be cleared are surrounded by existing plantation, and in some cases cleared land. They are already only patches, or parts of larger patches, of remnant native vegetation in a mosaic of plantation and cleared land. Their clearance will reduce even further the amount of native forest left in the Strzelecki's particularly in private ownership. . .

Given their status in relation to surrounding land use as important remnants of native vegetation, the blocks therefore provide valuable habitat for native fauna and as a recolonising source for surrounding eucalypt plantations. These plantations can only acquire value as habitat if there are sources close by and accessible from which native fauna can relocate and colonise. When eucalypt plantations are first established they have no ecosystem. It has to start again from scratch. This is unlike selective logging in native forest where, although aspects of the ecosystem may be damaged, it will not be entirely destroyed and will recover.

One of the major disbenefits associated with these applications is that in the short term the whole ecosystem of 2,000 hectares will be destroyed. Notwithstanding this will occur on a staged basis, the net result will be the same.

Fauna not killed during clearing operations must translocate. Tree dwelling species may have little opportunity to move given the type of mechanical tree felling operations . . . Koalas are particularly slow to move. However, even animals or birds which do translocate may subsequently die by roadkill or starvation. Most species of birds and mammals are territorial. If they survive the clearing and then attempt to move to adjacent remnant forest they are likely to be attacked and displaced by resident animals of the same species. According to evidence given by Environment Victoria, it is estimated that for every 100 hectares of woodland or forest cleared, 1,000-2,000 birds will die. According to estimates by Roger Martin, who also gave evidence on behalf of Environment Victoria, forests in this area of Gippsland support approximately one koala per hectare. So if 2,000 hectares of native vegetation is cleared, this is likely to result in the death of approximately 2,000 koalas.

This may be an over-estimation, given that Mr Martin agreed with Professor Attiwell that concentrations of koalas were higher in gully areas and that these areas would be left due to constraints imposed under the Code of Forest Practices. Nevertheless, these observations have been made when gullies have been surrounded by other bush. No evidence was presented to the Panel which would indicate that gullies are capable of supporting the same concentration of fauna when surrounding bush is cleared and the gullies are left isolated as narrow corridors. In the Panel's opinion, it is likely that the edge effect will affect fauna as much as flora.

This is the substance of the evidence given by Paul Ryan of Environment Victoria which indicates that the edge effect is a phenomenon which affects birds as well as vegetation. Some woodland species of birds are very edge-sensitive and consequently edges will advantage generalist species at the expense of woodland species. Even though the research upon which Mr Ryan's evidence is based was not carried out in Gippsland, the Panel accepts his opinion that the results are transferable in so far as there are consistent pattern and principles regardless of location and species.

Even when birds or animals are not prevented from translocating by the territorial imperatives of existing resident fauna, they may still die or be forced totally out of an area because there is insufficent habitat left to support their feeding or breeding needs. The threatened Powerful Owl is one example of a species vulnerable in this respect as a breeding pair of Powerful Owls require approximately 800-1,000 ha of forest which is dominated by old trees and has high populations of possums and gliders.

Large old hollow trees are required for breeding by many of the arboreal mammals upon which owls prey and by many birds. Although Amcor's company policy is to leave hollow bearing trees as habitat for hollow dwelling mammals and birds, from the slides shown by Mr Oliver Raymond and the Panel's own inspections, those trees which are left do not appear to be large enough or old enough to provide the sort of hollows necessary for the reproductive habits of many birds and mammals. Nor are large numbers of such trees left. One submitter, Mr Ian G. Campbell, who is a qualified civil engineer, estimated that in a recently cleared area in Creamery Road near Yinnar of approximately 500 acres (200 hectares), approximately one tree per 10 hectares was left.

The Code of Forest Practices does not specify any minimum number of habitat trees which must be retained during harvesting. According to Dr Traill, habitat trees left purportedly in accordance with the Code of Forest Practices will be ineffectual as around three quarters of mature trees left standing will fall within five years, affected by wind as a result of losing the surrounding protection and support of other trees. In his opinion, selective logging of areas is less destructive and can maintain suitable owl habitat. However, forests and plantations will eventually become totally unsuited for all owls, possums (except ringtail possums), most bats, parrots and cockatoos as those few stags which are left are lost and the cycle of harvesting precludes the evolution of new hollow trees.

The Panel's conclusion is that not only will a significant number of birds and animals be directly killed by the proposed removal of native vegetation, but many of the birds and animals displaced will also eventually die or disappear through a shortage of new territory to inhabit and insufficient food sources. Others will die by external means such as road kills. The habitat value of vegetation remaining, either along gully lines and on steep slopes or in remaining patches of vegetation, will be lessened because of diminution in size, increased edge effect and isolation. Breeding habitat will decline and the ability of remaining vegetation to function as a source of colonisation for surrounding plantations will diminish. Consequently, these applications are contrary to the planning policy which requires that habitat for native plants and animals is protected.

p45 9.2 ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND GENETIC DIVERSITY ARE MAINTAINED

Biodiversity refers to the variety of organisms and their variability, i.e the total diversity of life. It is self-evident that areas of naturally occurring native vegetation support a greater biodiversity than plantation forests. It does not matter that these may not be old growth forests. New growth forests, i.e. areas which have been previously logged, also support a wide cross-section of wildlife which live and breed there. They are part of the continuum of the ecosystem and should not be regarded as being unworthy of conservation because they are not old growth forests - an attitude expressed by both the Shires of Wellington and LaTrobe. In areas which are largely cleared or under plantation monoculture, forests displaying a full range of biodiversity assume even greater significance.

As eucalypt plantations grow to maturity the Panel agrees that the diversity of the flora and fauna they support will increase. But the diversity to be acheived over a 20-25 year period will be insignificant compared to a period of 50 years or longer. Suitable habitat for arboreal animals, epiphytic plants and certain understorey or climax species may take many times longer than 20-25 years to form. Some plant species also take many years to be mature enough to set viable seed. Repeated application of a complete harvesting cycle would significantly alter the diversity of native species in any plantation. The regeneration which may occur after the first cycle may not re-occur after the second or subsequent cycles.

Regular harvesting of timber also breaks the natural cycle of regeneration, maturation and decay that contributes to soil fertility, its micro organisms and stability.

Mr Ryan presented evidence about research he had undertaken, looking at birds in revegetated habitats (monocultures established for either groundwater control or plantation purposes), remnant vegetation (small patches left after clearing, e.g. along roadsides) and reference sites (intact native habitat). Initial results revealed not much variation in species richness between types of habitat. However, these results were further investigated by looking at groups of birds, namely woodland species and generalist species, which are those species which will inhabit farmland or generally anywhere. He found that mean species richness drops significantly for revegetated and remnant habitats and that woodland species are highly dependent on large areas of intact habitat. In revegetated habitats he found that 86 per cent of birds were generalised species and only 14 per cent woodland species. Very often the woodland species were only moving through. As soon as one moved away from the reference habitat, the proportion of woodland birds dropped off significantly.

Mr Ryan submitted that it was therefore important to consider where revegetated blocks will be in relation to reference blocks in considering the potential of plantations to support a bird population. In his opinion, up to the age of 20 years, revegetated areas will be of little value for woodland birds.

Thus, although many birds will recolonise plantation areas after the trees are established, they will only be a subset of the original diversity of native species. Those species consistently absent from plantations are at risk of local and regional extinctions.

It was submitted by Environment Victoria that birds and some mammals such as honeyeaters, lorikeets and the sugar glider, depend partly for food on nectar and seeds from eucalypts and some understorey plants. Nectar and seed production is highest in areas with large mature eucalypts as younger trees put more energy into growth instead of reproduction. Depending on the site, some or most understorey plants will be destroyed during clearing and will not regrow. Consequently, animals dependent on nectar and seed resources will be largely eliminated.

The Panel was advised that there is an endemic population of koalas in South Gippsland, genetically distinct from those originating from French Island which have been translocated into many other parts of Victoria since the 1940s. Mr Martin gave evidence that one of the perceived problems with translocating koalas from French Island is that it is a basically inbred population and inbred animals have less resistance to evolutionary change and new diseases. The greatest genetic diversity in Victoria's koala population exists in the endemic population in South Gippsland. It is these koalas which inhabit the areas of native vegetation subject to these applications. Consequently, clearing this vegetation would result in the death of numerous koalas (perhaps as many as 2,000) of the most genetically diverse type in Victoria.

In the Panel's opinion, the implication in Amcor's submission that eucalypt plantations support the same number of species and number of individuals as do native forests cannot be supported. The proposed clearing does not have to be threatening only to endangered species to contravene the planning policy that ecological processes and genetic diversity are maintained. The Panel's conclusion is that the proposed clearing is of such a scale, and the vegetation is so strategically located in relation to surrounding land and supports such a diverse ecosystem, that its destruction would be contrary to the policy which requires that ecological processes and genetic diversity be maintained.

p47 9.3 CARBON IS STORED AND DOES NOT ADD TO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The Panel accepts that the take up of carbon is much greater in a vigorous young crop of trees than in a mature forest. However, this needs to be offset against the addition of carbon to the atmosphere as a result of clearing operations, particularly buring of windrows. In the Panel's opinion, the greatest contribution to the uptake of carbon can be made by planting trees on already cleared land rather than removing existing vegetation for this purpose.

p48 9.4 SOIL IS PROTECTED FROM DEGRADATION, INCLUDING SALINISATION AND EROSION

The Panel was concerned that at no stage during the application process or the hearing did Amcor produce any information about slope or soil types in the various areas. Inspections reveal that many of the areas are very steep, which may explain why they have never been cleared previously.

The Strzeleckis are known for being prone to soil slippage and erosion. Even though adherence to the Code of Forest Practices has improved forest harvesting and clearing practices and reduced potential for run-off and erosion, these problems have not been entirely eliminated. No mention was made in the DNRE survey and report about any problems with soil stability. Whilst in the material accompanying its applications Amcor indicated that its entire soil resource had been surveyed in the late 1970s and that 34 soil types had been recognised, with 14 being extensive, no specific problems were raised about any of the areas applied for or details given. All that was said was that all operations are designed to minimise soil loss or degradation.

In its submission to the panel hearing DNRE said:

However, in considering the planning permit application for the Latrobe Shire the proposed conversion operations on land adjacent to Rintoul's Creek in the Parish of Boola Boola and adjacent to Traralgon Creek in the Parish of Callignee emerged as areas of concern in relation to soil and water management.

Rintoul's Creek in recent times has become an increasingly unstable stream. Significant downgrading has occurred in the middle reaches resulting in large deposits of fine sands and silts on private land below the Tyers-Glengarry road. The proposal has the potential to increase this erosion problem, which could then threaten public utilities such as the bridge on the Tyers-Glengarry road.

Likewise, but to a lesser extent, Traralgon Creek also reacts to changes in land management practices in its upper catchment, by increasing sediment transport and posing a threat to public assets.

In both cases, these rapid and sometimes severe reactions to change are due to the characteristics of the land system which dominates their catchments. The Jeeralang Land System is characterised by relatively steep slopes with generally shallow light textured soils which are prone to land slide activity. Loss of vegetation in the short term increases the risk of sediment movement, high overland flow and increased accession to groundwater, all of which significantly increase stream degradation.

Given the extremely high erosion hazard in this land system, NRE require that Coupe Plans submitted to the Department for any works in this area pay particular attention to slope and also buffer zones adjacent to drainage lines, as well as the adequacy of drainage works associated with roading.

The Lake Wellington Rivers Authority was particularly concerned about the proposed clearing of 253 hectares known as the Rintoul Creek land and the 112 hectares known as Isseppis land. Both areas of land are within catchments that discharge into creeks flowing through unstable and dispersive soils. Both Rintoul and Eaglehawk Creeks feeding from these catchments are main contributors of suspended solids to the Gippsland Lakes. According to the Authority:

Both creeks are eroding out of control at present and are currently being funded under NDF (Natural Disaster Funding) (Rintoul $65,000 and Eaglehawk $98,000). It is estimated that a further $650,000 will have to be allocated for works on these streams in the next two years to prevent further degradation.

The 253 hectares of AMCOR land adjoining Rintoul Creek has a two kilometres frontage and rises abruptly from the Creek into the steep dispersive soil country similar to Yorkies Gully.

Details of Yorkies Gully and other erosion problems along the Rintoul and Eaglehawk Creeks are set out in Section 6.7. Whilst inspecting the Rintouls Creek block with officers of the Lake Wellington Rivers Authority, the Panel was shown a landslip in heavily timbered native bush which is part of the land proposed to be cleared. . . The soil simply 'melts' in the presence of water.

Looking at this slip, the Panel finds it difficult to imagine what protective measures could prevent massive movements of this type of soil. Whilst DNRE draw attention to the potential problem and require that any works in this area pay particular attention to slope and also buffer zones adjacent to drainage lines, no indication is given as to what additional measures should or could be employed to prevent the type of massive erosion likely to occur should the Rintouls Creek and Isseppis blocks be cleared.

A question also arises about soil types in other blocks. The EPA acknowledge that there have been high loads of suspended solids entering creeks from areas subject to forest activities. Whilst not opposing granting of a permit, the EPA made the point that:

It is not enough to say that '. . . our operations have had no impact on the sediment loads in the Gippsland Lakes'. What the community needs is information upon which they can make judgements.

The EPA said in its written submission:

In considering this permit application EPA believes it is not sufficient to only require that Amcor Plantations Pty Ltd comply with the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production. The company also needs to demonstrate that they are complying with the code and that the beneficial uses of any waters, as set out within SEPP's, are being protected.

EPA considers that the inclusion in the permit of a requirement for monitoring, assessment and reporting against the Code and SEPP is essential. This program should be reviewed by the EPA prior to the commencement of any clearing and that the results of the program be supplied to Council, West Gippsland Catchment and Land Protection Board, Lake Wellington Rivers Authority and the EPA.

The Panel has already made the point in Section 8.2 that Amcor lacks the ability to demonstrate compliance with the Code of Forest Practices and other policy objectives such as SEPPs. Although Amcor state that: All operations are designed to minimise soil loss or degradation, there is evidence of land slips and erosion, not only in the Rintoul's Creek area but in other areas where forestry activities have occurred. There is evidence from bodies such as the Lake Wellington Rivers Authority and the EPA that degradation of streams is still occurring. The West Gippsland Regional Catchment and Land Protection Board Draft Regional Catchment Strategy identifies forestry as a problem (see Section 5.1).

Denying the problem is not addressing the problem and a first step in addressing the problem is to meaningfully monitor what is occurring.

The Panel's conclusion is that erosion will occur if this vegetation is cleared, notwithstanding compliance with the Code of Forest Practices. The Panel has no means of knowing the likely extent of this erosion but in places such as Rintoul's and Eaglehawk Creek catchments, it is unlikely to be massive. The environmental care principles set out in Chapter 1.2 of the Code of Forest Practices would themselves dictate that no clearing occur in these particular catchments.

It is widely acknowledged that the initial clearance of the Strzeleckis was a major environmental mistake. The Panel considers it would be wrong to allow this mistake to be repeated, particularly on the scale proposed, by allowing these applications. The lack of information about soils, protective measures to be employed and the likelihood of their success in all of the areas the subject of these applications, not just the Rintoul's Creek and Isseppi's blocks, lead the Panel to this conclusion and to the conclusion that allowing these applications would be contrary to planning policy that soil is protected from degradation, including salinisation and erosion.

p53 9.5 ADVERSE EFFECTS ON GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ARE MINIMISED

Salinisation is a problem in Gippsland. Whilst the initial clearance may affect recharge areas, if it is followed immediately by replanting it is unlikely to be a major contributor to existing problems.

Nevertheless, to allow these applications for clearing will send a very negative message to Landcare groups and landowners labouring to replant land in recharge areas and subject to salinisation. As Mr Graeme MacLennan, a farmer from McLaughlin's Beach whose property is affected by salinity, said: If Amcor clears 2000 hectares they will wipe out more than the Landcare movement has been able to put in over the past 10 years.

Therefore, although the applications may not be contrary to the letter of the policy that adverse effects on groundwater recharge are minimised, they are contrary to the spirit of this policy and will undermine community faith in Government strategies encouraging responsible land management and programs to combat environmental damage.

p54 9.6 RIVERS, STREAMS, WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES ARE PROTECTED

The effect of increased run-off and erosion on creeks and rivers has been discussed in section 9.4. A major concern of the EPA, the Lake Wellington Rivers Authority and the West Gippsland Regional Catchment and Lane Protection Board Draft Regional Catchment Strategy is the siltation of wetlands of the Gippsland Lakes system, and the effect this will have on beneficial uses of these resources. Prolonged algal blooms will also have a devastating effect on the tourism industry of the region.

The Panel received evidence from various submitters who were keen anglers and fishermen about the decline in fish numbers and species over the past 20 years following plantations being established around the headwaters of various streams. Evidence was given of creeks which had never been known to run dry previously, drying up during summer following clearing and plantation establishment in their headwaters. Springs are crushed by heavy machinery and this interference appears to cause permanent damage.

One example of the impact of clearing on the nature of a stream which the Panel observed during its inspections, was the dramatic difference in character of a small creek on one side of a road where pines had been clear felled to the creek edge. The stream was incising with deep pools forming compared to its character downstream on the other side of the road in native bush where the flow was much gentler and no incising was evident. Likewise, whilst inspecting a waterfall just below an area recently cleared during the harvesting of a pine plantation by VPC (Victorian Plantation Corporation), the Panel was told that the pool at the base of the waterfall used to be very deep. It is now shallow, full of rocks and silt and quite turbid.

Again, the evidence is that clearing in these areas will impact adversely on rivers, streams and wetlands and there is no evidence as to how effective protective measures would be. The Panel concludes that the applications would therefore be contrary to the policy that rivers, streams, wetlands and water resources are protected.

p55 9.7 LAND IS USED AND MANAGED IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER

The Panel has already referred to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in Section 8.2. Core principles aimed at assisting in the achievement of ecologically sustainable development are set out in the Inter Governmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) prepared in 1992 between Commonwealth, State, Territory and Local Government. They include the following:

* The precautionary principle - namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

* Intergenerational equity - namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

* Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity - namely, that measures which halt the non-evolutionary loss of species and genetic diversity should be pursued.

* Improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources - namely, that while prices for natural resources should be set to recover the full social and environmental costs for their use and extraction, many environmental values cannot be priced in monetary terms.

A common thread in many submissions was that values which this land has cannot be measured in monetary terms but, once destroyed, can never be recreated in a plantation environment.

In the Panel's opinion, ecologically sustainable development requires a balance. The work which Amcor has done in reafforesting the Strzeleckis and putting them to a productive use is highly commendable and brings benefits not only to Amcor but the community at large. However, ecologically sustainable development principles would not be met by allowing the clearance of this native vegetation as it would contravene each of the core principles listed above. For this reason the Panel considers that the policy that land is used and managed in a sustainable manner would be contravened by these applications.

p56 9.8 VISUAL AMENITY AND LANDSCAPE QUALITY ARE PRESERVED AND ENHANCED

Whilst the Panel accepts that Amcor will leave a buffer of vegetation along roadsides to obscure the clearing and plantations, it cannot accept Amcor's implication that there would be little visual difference in the outcome, i.e. eucalypt plantations compared with existing native vegetation. One submitter, Anne Garth, summed up the distinction between bush and plantations succinctly when she said:

. . . (The) community including me want to keep AMCOR in the Valley and I am very happy that they are using plantations as timber sources. I am also happy that they have retreed much of the Strzeleckis much of which should never have been cleared in the first place.

However I cannot call it reforrested. This word conjures up images of the Australian bush, which it is not. These areas are plantations and yes they are green. But people do not go walking through plantations, nor do they hang pictures of them up on their lounge room walls.

People know when they drive through these plantations that they are not driving through the Australian Bush.

The same point was also made in a written submission by John Wolseley who said:

The regrowth forest blocks such as the one in Middle Creek is despite its disturbed history still a real forest, with trees of various ages, a wide diversity of plants and animal life and bears little relation to the managed forest which will replace it which will have trees of similar age and size and a limited number of species. The small remaining areas are important because they have not been planted according to the current formula of clear felling, burning and controlled planting. A formula which provides a completely different kind of forest. There is a marked difference between regrowth native bush and regrowth controlled plantation.

Not all of the areas proposed to be cleared have the same dramatic quality as, for instance, the area opposite the Tarra Bulga National Park, but they all share the unique visual qualities of the Australian bush. These visual qualities are important to retain in an area where so much of the naturally occurring native forest has been lost. The fact that this is private land, not public, does not detract from this. Its presence contributes to the enjoyment and appreciation of the area by residents and tourists alike simply by the fact that it is there and that it enhances the qualities of surrounding areas.

The Panel's conclusion is that although Amcor may be able to largely hide the effects of clearing from view along roadsides, this does not address the wider issue of there being a significant loss of bush which has an impotant visual amenity and makes a significant contribution to the landscape quality of the area. On this basis these applications would also be contrary to planning policy that visual amenity and landscape quality are preserved and enhanced.

p57 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel's conclusions are that the removal of the native vegetation proposed in these applications would be contrary to the policy on retention and re-establishment of native vegetation set out in clause 3-8.1 of the State Section of Planning Schemes. Nor does consideration of the other guidelines set out in Clause 7-4.2 lead to a conclusion that the applications can be supported. They are not in accordance with the policy for timber production set out in Clause 3-10.1 of the State Section of Planning Schemes either insofar as the proposed plantations are not on predominantly cleared land. Compliance with the Code of Forest Practices does not overcome this initial non-compliance with either timber production policy or policy on retention of native vegetation.

Although the Panel is critical of the DNRE survey and considers it inadequate for the purpose it was relied upon, even if the survey had been more thorough the Panel would still recommend these applications be rejected as they are contrary to the whole spirit which underlies the planning scheme in terms of both native vegetation retention and timber production.

The work undertaken by Amcor in the reafforestation of the Strzeleckis and its move to reliance on timber production from plantations rather than native forests is commended and has strong community support. However this is no justification for clearing 2,000 hectares of native vegetation for conversion to plantation, even eucalypt plantation. Native vegetation has an inherent value fundamentally different to a plantation in terms of habitat and biodiversity. In many instances, the areas to be removed are the only remaining patches of native vegetation in areas surrounded by plantation or cleared land. Consequently, they have great significance in terms of being refuges for native fauna and a source of recolonisation for surrounding plantations. Even where they are adjacent to native vegetation not proposed to be removed, any reduction in size of vegetation reduces its value in terms of critical mass and increased edge effect.

Whilst the proposed clearing of this vegetation and its conversion to plantations will assist Amcor to increase its timber production, it is not critical to the success of these plans. Other cleared land is available, even if some must be purchased. In any event, any need to clear this vegetation is a private need as distinct from a community need. Even if it was a community need, it is not so great that it would outweigh all the disbenefits associated with allowing the vegetation to be removed.

p58 10.2 RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation of the Panel is therefore that the Minister disallow the following applications and not grant any permits.

* Shire of Wellington (Application 447/96)
* Shire of Latrobe, (Application 96/003/PV)
* Shire of Baw Baw, (Application 39607)
* Shire of East Gippsland, (Application 95/00446(PV)
* Shire of South Gippsland, (Application 407)

5 September 1996

Helen Gibson (Chairman)
Ray Rooke (Member)
Pauline Semmens (Member)