Sound Science and Sustainable Solutions: Rethinking Carbon Emissions in Australia’s Native Forests
Australia’s native forests have become a focal point in discussions about carbon emissions, climate change, and sustainable management. A recent academic study, authored by former CSIRO chief research scientist Dr. John Raison and published in the peer-reviewed journal Australian Forestry, sheds new light on these complex dynamics.
Forestry Australia’s endorsed Raison’s findings, saying the study offers a robust framework for policymakers grappling with the environmental and economic implications of native forest harvesting.
Dailan Pugh (OAM), a renowned environmentalist and President of the North East Forest Alliance, did not agree with the industry’s findings.
“The logging industry relies on the extensive review of forest carbon by Raison to justify ongoing logging of public forests, which is not surprising given its distinct industry bias,” Dailan Pugh said.
“There are two aspects for forest carbon related to logging, one is the amount of carbon a forest stores in wood and soils, and the second is the amount of wood removed in logging and the time taken for its carbon to be released.”
“It is generally assumed that logged forests have lost more than half their carbon, which can be retained at that reduced level by repeated logging events. Though if logging is stopped the lost carbon can be slowly regained as the forest recovers its original carbon carrying capacity of some hundreds of tonnes per hectare.”
“This is why stopping logging can increase the removal of large volumes of carbon from the atmosphere and its storage out of harm’s way in wood and soils. Something we urgently need in the rapidly unfolding climate crisis.”
“Logging converts carbon stored in trees into forms where most of the carbon is rapidly released, with more than half of the biomass (leaves, branches, defective trunks, bark, stump and roots) left in the forest to decompose.”
“Of that removed in logs most will end up as short lived products (i.e. woodchips) or sawmill waste, with only a small portion ending up in sawn products. The industry relies heavily on the long-term storage of this small amount of carbon to claim it will offset logging impacts, though very little will retain its carbon for more than 15-60 years,” Dailan Pugh said.
“Logging does release significant volumes of carbon that would otherwise remain in growing trees that would sequester and store increasing volumes of carbon as the trees mature,” Dailan Pugh said.
A Scientific Lens on Carbon Emissions
Raison’s paper, titled A review of the impacts of sustainable harvesting, non-harvest management and wildfire on net carbon emissions from Australian native forests, critically examines claims that timber harvesting increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Raison’s analysis employs a full life-cycle approach to assess the carbon balance, encompassing:
- Changes in Carbon Stocks: Accounting for carbon dynamics in forest biomass, soils, and regrowth.
- The Role of Wildfires: Evaluating the outsized impact of catastrophic events like the 2019–20 Black Summer fires.
- Sustainable Harvesting Practices: Highlighting the potential carbon benefits of managed harvesting compared to cessation.
Acting President of Forestry Australia, Dr. Bill Jackson, praised the study for its depth and rigor. “This paper demonstrates the complexity in accounting for the impacts of changes to forest management on carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions from Australian native forests,” Dr. Jackson said.
Dailan Pugh said, “In keeping with his bias, Raison dismisses the numerous studies that have found that logging makes forests more vulnerable to wildfires and increases their flammability by drying them, increasing fuel loads, promoting more flammable species, and changing forest structure.”
“This includes increasing the risks of canopy fires by reducing canopy height, increasing tree density and increasing fuel connectivity from the ground into the canopy,” he said.
The Lifecycle Perspective: A Holistic Approach
The study emphasizes the necessity of a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) to accurately evaluate the carbon impacts of forest management. This means considering:
- Timber Recovery and Use: From harvest to processing, and ultimately, disposal or reuse.
- Substitution Effects: The environmental advantages of replacing high-emission materials like concrete or steel with wood.
- Wildfire Risks and Management: The interplay between forest regrowth, fire risks, and carbon storage over time.
Dr. Jackson highlighted the importance of getting the assumptions right in these analyses, noting that flawed assumptions can misinform policy decisions. He further stressed the need for “landscape-scale analysis using scientifically sound sampling and surveys of carbon stocks and dynamics” to inform methods under Australia’s Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme.
“The other issue promoted is that stopping logging of native forests will result in increased use of steel, concrete and imported timber. Though this denies the truth that softwood plantations already provide 91% of our sawlogs, and that we can better utilise existing hardwood plantations and the multitude of manufactured timber products as substitutes to complete the transition,” Dailan Pugh concluded.
Wildfires: A Carbon Game-Changer
The study underscores the critical role wildfires play in shaping the carbon balance of Australia’s forests. Events like the Black Summer fires release massive amounts of carbon—approximately twice Australia’s total annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions—vastly outweighing the carbon removed through timber harvesting.
Dr. Raison’s findings align with international studies he says, which consistently show that sustainable forest management does not increase wildfire severity or frequency.
Importantly, the paper also raises concerns about the long-term implications of halting native forest harvesting.
Without professional forest and fire management capacities typically associated with timber production, the risk of unmanaged regrowth contributing to future catastrophic fires increases, posing a significant threat to carbon stocks and biodiversity.
Policy Implications: Striking a Balance
The study’s findings hold significant implications for policymakers. Dr. Jackson urged decision-makers to consider both short- and long-term carbon impacts of reducing or ceasing native forest harvesting, particularly in light of wildfire risks. He emphasized the need for integrated approaches that combine conservation, restoration, and sustainable production.
“This paper has implications for the development of new emission reduction methods under Australia’s ACCU scheme,” Dr. Jackson said. He pointed to opportunities for improving forest management to enhance carbon benefits while supporting conservation and sustainable timber production.
Toward a Sustainable Future
Dr. Raison’s study challenges simplistic narratives about forest harvesting and carbon emissions, calling for nuanced, science-based approaches to forest management. Sustainable timber harvesting, when conducted responsibly, offers tangible carbon benefits while supporting economic and social goals.
The alternative—halting harvesting without addressing wildfire risks—could lead to unintended consequences for both carbon stocks and climate resilience.
As Australia navigates its path toward emission reduction targets, this report serves as a crucial reminder: sound science must underpin policy decisions. With integrated, landscape-scale forest management, Australia’s native forests can play a pivotal role in climate solutions, balancing conservation with sustainable resource use.
Related stories
Integrating Indigenous Knowledge into Bushfire Management
Koalas, Logging & Bushfires in State Forests: NSW Election 2023
Integrated Fire Management (IFM) for Wildfire Management
NSW RFS Aviation Fleet, NSW Rural Fire Service
RFS Firefighters Unite North America and Australasia
Advertisement:
