Sustainable forestry

Sustainable... I've come to hate that word. What the hell does it mean? The dictionary defines it as "able to be maintained at a certain rate or level". That doesn't really mean anything does it? I mean I could club baby seals for the rest of my life and maintain it at a certain level. That wouldn't make it good, or morale or sensible or good for the species. Sustainable gets dropped like its the answer to the worlds woes and in forestry at least it's come to be an excuse to get away with anything that's not clear felling. Even that gets a run sometimes.

Check out the link below:

NSW Forests

It shows just how much timber is being taken to support the NSW Governments contracts with large timber companies who need timber for chipwood.  They agreed to supply so much that even with operations like this they still can't keep up the supply.

Forests NSW wood supply

But have a look at the Forests NSW website and the word sustainable gets a flogging. I counted 12 uses of the word sustainable on just one page Forest NSW Website

The forests in the video above can be sustained.  Australian forests grow back all on their own, but that doesn't make that type of forestry smart. As I've come to learn over the past 12 months forests don't fit into financial year calendars and electoral cycles. Smart forestry sticks to one simple principle as I see it "Grow more wood than you take". Yes, you need to think about many other things like soil health, biodiversity, wildlife, disease, stocking rates, machinery etc but if you stick to this simple rule and don't get greedy everything else should fall into place.  

Time will tell if this principle can work.

Setting the scene

Logging is bad! That's what I always thought. Forests are good and need to be left alone. I was brought up on a property almost covered in forest, the trees and the soil are in my bones. When indigenous cultures talk about being part of a place and the place being part of them I think I get it.

 When my father passed away in 2010 the romance of this notion was broken. Here was a property that had to pay taxes, rates, all the fences were broken and I had scored myself a nice cushy desk job in the city. Beyond starting a tractor and filling up the ute with diesel I had no practical skills and no time to use them if I did.

For the first time ever I considered that at some point we'd have to sell the farm unless we could come up with a viable solution to generate enough income to cover these costs. It would have to be something that didn't take up all my time, so when it was mentioned that the forest might have some trees of value I listened, though I was pretty skeptical when I spoke to a few logging contractors and consultants about it.

Me: "Hi I'm interested in a sustainable logging operation on my property"
Contractor: "Oh mate all logging is sustainable nowdays, the government makes sure of that"

I've seen forests that have been logged "by the rules" and they aren't very nice places.

So there is more to this story to tell along the way but in short I believe there is a way for the forest to pay its own way. To not only cope with harvesting but to thrive because of it. The trick is to know your forest and to not get greedy.

Stay tuned....