Reforms to Australia’s nature laws have passed federal parliament. A longstanding exemption that meant federal environment laws did not apply to native logging has finally been removed from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Native forest logging will now be subject to national environmental standards – legally binding rules supposed to set clear goals for environmental protection. This should be a win for the environment, and some have celebrated it as an end to native forest logging in Australia.

But the reality is such celebrations are premature. We don’t have all the details of the new standards, or know how they will be enforced and monitored.

Business as usual?

Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt has told the forestry industry, including in Tasmania, that native forest operations will continue as usual. In an interview with ABC Radio Hobart, he said the changes keep day-to-day forestry approvals with the state government, but introduce stronger federal oversight.

If that is the case, the logging of habitat for endangered species, such as the swift parrot, will continue, pushing these species closer to extinction. The Tasmanian government has shown no signs of willingness to change its current approach.

And if “business as usual” logging persists, the environment reforms will fall far short of what Australia’s forests – and their plants and animals – need.

Uncertain standards

We don’t yet know what the national forestry standards will contain. But the draft standards for some threatened and endangered forest species aren’t enough to arrest ongoing declines, based on drafts I’ve seen that are yet to be publicly released.

Crucially, we can’t meet the habitat requirements for many forest-dependent species by simply replanting previously cleared land. This is because the trees in replanted forests won’t be mature for several hundred years. Many forest-dwelling species live in holes and hollows that occur only in mature trees.

In other words, allowing loggers to “offset” the forests they damage by replanting other areas is broadly impossible. This reinforces longstanding concerns about the limitations of biodiversity offsets as a way to conserve endangered forests and animals.

A parrots hangs upside down and eats a pink blossom.
Swift parrots are fast-flying migratory parrots. They are critically endangered, partly because the forests they nest in are being logged. Thirdsilencenature/Flickr, CC BY-ND

Industry pushback

Parts of the forest industry are already seeking to rebrand damaging practices such as mechanical thinning (the removal of large numbers of trees), as forms of so-called “active management” to create healthy forests.

The Australian government’s Timber Fibre Strategy makes extensive reference to the use of “active management”. However, the scientific evidence shows the opposite: such activities can degrade forest structure (by removing key understorey vegetation), facilitate the invasion of weed species, and undermine the ecological integrity of forests.

Different forests

Australia has a vast range of different forest types, and many support a variety of animals and plants threatened by forestry operations.

Effective national standards therefore need to be detailed and sophisticated to deal with such complexity. This will take considerable time to design. And it’s possible each species and forest type will need a different set of standards.

These will need to account not only for the direct impacts of logging – such as the death of animals when their habitat trees are felled – but also indirect impacts. For example, logging can increase fire risk, promote the spread of weeds and feral animals into disturbed areas, and trigger long-term changes in vegetation structure.

Developing national standards is only part of the challenge. Implementing them will demand significant new resources, as well as robust monitoring to ensure governments and logging contractors actually stick to the rules.

Better recovery

Many of Australia’s threatened species don’t have up-to-date recovery plans that will guide the best way to prevent their extinction. And when plans do exist, there is often a lack of resourcing to put them into action.

Without substantial investment, many plants and animals will fall between the cracks, and these new environmental standards will not deliver the change so desperately needed. They must be matched with careful monitoring of species in forests and properly-funded plans for their recovery.

A simple solution

There is a straightforward way to avoid the ecological, administrative, and financial problems created by native forest logging – stop it altogether.

The evidence shows ending native forest logging would deliver significant benefits for biodiversity, forest ecosystems, and reduce fire risks.

It also would benefit government finances because taxpayers would no longer need to subsidise an economically unviable industry that currently loses large amounts of money.

The environment law reforms are to be welcomed. But the devil will be in the detail as to whether hopes for better environmental outcomes and improved forest conservation are realised.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: David Lindenmayer, Australian National University

Read more:

David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Government, NSW Government and the Victorian Government. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a Member of Birdlife Australia, the Ecological Society of Australia, and the Australian Mammal Society. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, Fellow of the American Academy of Science, Fellow of the Ecological Society of America, and Fellow of Royal Zoological Society of NSW.