Greenwashing is now a refined political art. The Cook government is a hungry wolf dressed in the sheep’s (environmentalists’) clothing. Like most predators, it picks on the small and the weak. Most recently, the timber industry has been the government’s victim to prop up a populist green image whilst continuing its destructive activities.

The Cook government’s latest move has been to legislate sustainability out of the CALM Act, which governs how forests may be used. Sustainable forestry, the core of 100 years of successful forest conservation and timber industry activity, has been discarded. Driving this stake through the corpse of the timber industry was purely to appease the Greens because removing sustainable harvesting from the Conservation and Land Management (CALM) Act is unnecessary; the current Forest Management Plan already excludes timber yields until 2034.

The government’s pitch that it is necessary to do this to “protect our forests” fails by all tests. This is merely a slogan that does not match the Cook government’s destructive behaviour. There are four key areas that demonstrate the government’s duplicity:

No Conservation science

The WA government has failed to provide any science underpinning its logging ban decision. When asked in parliament to table any reports to demonstrate the science underpinning the ending of commercial native forest harvesting, the Environment Minister, Steven Dawson, refused to do so (QWN 736, 30/08/22). Even worse when asked to table reports to confirm the measurements of climate change on tree growth it was admitted that no such report exists (QWN 1490, 16/11/2023)

WA’s forests have been a haven for endangered species, even though they have been logged for 150 years. No species has become extinct. In fact, the forests have become the last refuge for species lost elsewhere.

The government’s own long term forest monitoring program, ForestCheck, has reported that forests are highly resilient to timber harvesting and that biodiversity recovers rapidly following disturbance.

Contrast this with mining. After 70 years of clearing of jarrah forests for bauxite, tens of thousands of hectares of rehabilitation have not been accepted back by the State. This failure to meet a standard of rehabilitation places a question mark over the loss of ecosystem values from mining.

Independent assessment supports timber production

Harvesting of WA’s jarrah and karri forests has been independently assessed against international environmental certification standards. Auditors examine the systems used to plan, manage and monitor the delivery of sustainable forest products. The WA’s state-government controlled forest manager has operated successfully under this scrutiny for 20 years.

Government announcements about the forest have failed to acknowledge the independent umpire, ignoring an inconvenient truth. Even as the government is legislating sustainable timber production out of the forests, the certification certificates are still proudly displayed on the WA state-government controlled forest manager’s website.

Timber harvesting has not stopped

Strangely enough, the ending of commercial timber harvesting does not mean the end of timber harvesting. Under the current Forest Management Plan, timber will be produced from up to 8,000 hectares per year of ecological thinning as well as from mine clearing. Prior to the announcement, between 6,000 and 7,000 hectares were harvested each year. Based on area, this represents an expansion of harvesting!

It is now impossible to consider log production as the WA state-government controlled foresr manager has refused to publish data on timber production since 2022/23. Based on information received, it appears that in 2024/25 the WA state-government controlled forest manager likely sold 300,000 tonnes of native forest logs as well as building stockpiles of around 100,000 tonnes. This is around 75% of the previous annual level of production as reported in the last published data in 2022/23.

Hiding the data does not disguise the reality that a significant level of log harvest is being maintained. It is necessary to keep some big businesses operating. The most unfortunate part of this continuation of timber production is that the government refuses to commit any logs under a binding contract, so no new industry can be developed to use the resource.

Forest destruction by mining is predicted to accelerate

The real deception behind the “protecting our forests” mantra is the scale of forest destruction that is continuing and expanding under the Cook government. Forest mining plans are continuously approved, most recently South 32, with Alcoa also looking to expand its bauxite mining operations until 2045.  The Greenbushes lithium mine is also planning to knock over swathes of jarrah/marri forest.

There has been a sad history of destroying forest for coal, gold, gravel, tin, mineral sands and bauxite. Each activity removes and fragments the forest into smaller patches and not one miner has restored the forest to meet the government standard. Contrast this with timber production standard of forest performance which satisfied independent assessments.

There is now a new wave of forest destruction being planned. The new demand for battery minerals and rare earths sees the entire forest between Nannup and Collie covered with exploration leases.  This will not be good news for the forests, yet the government remains impassive, not lifting a finger to “protect the forests”, implicitly supporting the impending destruction of thousands of hectares of prime forest.

There is no consistency between the government’s surprise execution of the timber industry and its unflagging support for the mining sector. The timber industry clearly demonstrated its sustainability whereas mining has failed to achieve base standards set by government.

How do we make sense of the government’s action? Perhaps we should heed “Deep Throat” who said “Follow the money!” The timber industry is small and lacks the financial clout of the miners. It was easy to kill off the timber industry to build the government’s false green credentials. It’s unlikely to stand up to the powerful mining lobby with the principle that “it is protecting the forest”.

Please Note: This is an opinion article and does not necessasrily represent the editorial position of Wood Central. From time to time, Wood Central will publish an opinion piece that it deems to be in the public interest – which it will fact check before publishing. For more information, visit Wood Central’s Editorial Charter.

The political pressure on native forest timber production is immense, and governments will crack, making a virtue out of their political decisions, spinning their reasons to sound pure, and confecting their motives to be solely for the country’s good. I have previously written on the six reasons the WA Government gave for ending timber harvesting, finding serious flaws in each and, in some cases, documentary evidence in government publications that contradicted their claims.

In the case of carbon, they claimed that by stopping forest harvesting, they would reduce carbon emissions. This is despite the WA government’s own data detailing the gain of carbon sinks (CO2-e) in forests harvested for timber production, which has been up to an additional 30 million tonnes over 10 years. (Between 3 and 5% of the carbon stocks) This was due to the regrowth performance as the planned harvest level remained unchanged.

We are now seeing the NSW government and conservation groups support models that calculate a reduction in carbon emissions from ending native forest harvesting but also seek to monetise it. Following that path would seem to involve a significant risk.  The latest State of the Forests update clearly indicates that forest managed for timber production have increased their carbon stocks over the past 20 years (about 3%) but that conservation forests have decreased their stocks (-1%).

If this data is correct, removing timber production from forests will result in a net reduction in carbon sinks of about 0.2% per annum (and between 0.3 and 0.5% if the WA data is used).

What happens then? Should governments responsible for ending timber harvesting pay the cost of the reduced carbon stocks compared to business as usual, i.e., continuing timber production?

In WA with forests carrying 200 – 300 tonnes of CO2 per hectare and Australian Carbon Credit Units being worth around $35, Premier Cook should be finding 400,000 ACCUs to compensate for ending harvesting in 800,000 ha of State forest, or writing a cheque for $14 million…each year. Faced with the real loss of carbon storage I guess politicians might be less keen to produce their own ‘alternative facts”.

Please Note: Wood Central doest not take an editorial stance on the Australian native forest debate. It will, however from time to time, publish opinion articles that it deems to be in the public interest. And will fact check all articles before posting.

The closure of native forest harvesting was meant to see a smaller industry based on mine site clearing and ecological thinning with no firm commitments to any customer. A number of businesses saw the writing on the wall, took the compensation on offer and closed their doors. Others carried on, believing the government’s promise that there would be a modest supply of logs.

The government’s reconstruction of the industry has allowed Big Timber to continue operating without constraint while small players struggle to access wood.

These are the areas where the Cook government has helped Big Timber.

1. Preferred access to timber

Big Timber has secured access to timber from government forests and plantations, so their processing operations can continue largely unabated.  Even ecological thinning, a program meant to be designed to reduce climate risk in a manner unrelated to timber supply, has been skewed to the supply of Big Timber.

The first areas thinned under the program were not forests at high risk of drought or low rainfall, but the highest rainfall areas in the southwest, the karri forest, where no climate effects have been noted nor are predicted. WHY? Logs from these thinning operations are being supplied as logs to a large processing plant.

In a similar manner, the jarrah from mine clearing previously said to be available for all industries, is now being segmented and preferentially supplied as logs to a large processing plant. Firewood operators and sawmillers who had been told that they would have access to this wood are instead being offered marri and karri logs that are not suited to processing.

The state’s forest manager no longer takes any interest in the quality of logs to be supplied to customers; this is handled by the big mining companies.

2. No need to compete

How were Big Timber companies able to get access to this wood? It seems that some companies could negotiate terms in private with the government without the need to compete or submit competitive prices. Small businesses have only had access to wood left over after Big Timber takes its cut, and only through competitive tender processes. Small businesses have had to bid on price, with the lowest prices likely missing out.

3. Timber supply terms

The state’s forest manager sets the commercial conditions for small businesses at a level more onerous than previously, such as reduced log grade, no minimum quantity, indeterminate haulage distances and no control over the species. These are presented as “take it or leave it” terms. If operators want to be the state’s forest manager’s customers, they must accept the terms.

Big Timber has been able to negotiate their contracts. It’s hard to imagine Big Timber accepting the conditions imposed on the small guys.

4. Secrecy

Most of the Big Timber dealings with the government are secret, hidden behind the wall of ‘Commercial Confidentiality’. The opposite is the case for the small business contracts which are generally known as they are set out in tenders available to all bidders.

The lack of transparency over these dealings and the potential for public scrutiny has been further compounded by the state forest manager’s refusal to publish timber supply data – something that has been done for the past 105 years – so it is not known how much timber is being produced from the forests.

5. Financial support

The government is investing $350 million into supporting future softwood timber supplies for local industry in a move welcomed after years of neglect. However, the benefits of this will mostly be in the use of Big Timber. By the government forking out the cash Big Timber do not need to invest their own money in plantation timber, with all the risks of fire and climate change being borne by the government. Previous agreements have required that Big Timber take some responsibility for their own timber supply.  While some companies have been responsible, there is now a reduced incentive to take responsible action. Beyond this nothing is being done by government to invest in timber plantations suitable for furniture, joinery, flooring and firewood which require hardwood, not softwood species. These timbers are most helpful to small business.

6. Access to government

Small business has almost no access to government to plead its case, and there has been a drought in information provided to guide them. Big Timber – which often claims to represent the whole industry – has its feet under the table – while the family operations are left waiting to be told what is happening.

The failure of the government to supply suitable logs as promised is now straining the remaining small timber businesses. Of the five small hardwood sawmills which were offered contracts, two or three are already likely to close due to the lack of supply. And firewood merchants are depressed with the small size and species of logs being provided.

There is nothing wrong with Big Timber looking after its own interests and getting the best deal it can. It is however government’s role to ensure that all industry gets the same opportunity and are approached in an open and even-handed manner. Unfortunately, the decisions made discriminated against the small operators. Jackie Jarvis as Minister for both Small Business and Forestry has failed to meet the expectations for both portfolios. A parliamentary inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of the failure of the government’s badly named “Just transition” of the timber industry.

There was a time when government agencies responded to media enquiries, published documents to explain policy and, in the case of forestry, the science underpinning its decisions. Today, the Forest Products Commission is virtually silent, making just the occasional friendly announcement about a populist community activity such as sponsoring a bike riding event, supporting some firefighting crews or some other universally supported activity. All matters of forestry substance are handled by the Minister’s office.

The foundation of our democracy requires the Minister to be accountable to the parliament. This means answering questions asked by other Members of Parliament. Yet too often the answer is the same political sound bite starting with “The Cook government’s historic decision to end native forest logging under the next forest management plan will move from practices that are based on commercial timber production to ecological thinning based on forest health outcomes…” without responding to the substance of the question.

Equally important are the routine statistics which describe the rate of timber removal, the quality of the logs, the type of markets being supplied, the area of forest harvested, the area and species of plantations established, etc. Since 2022 the Forest Products Commission has indicated that it no longer wishes to inform the public about the status of the industry. The Minister has stated “Following the decision to end commercial native forest logging under the forest management plan 2024–33, production statistics will no longer be produced by the FPC”’, implying that the statistics were only required for compliance purposes.

This is far from the truth. Ecological thinning and mine clearing have the potential to produce 600,000 to 800,000 tonnes of wood each year from native forests and the FPC will continue to produce more than a million tonnes per year of softwood. The question is why the FPC wants to hide these numbers?

Could it be that, despite the claim of ending commercial logging, the quantities produced will continue to be substantial and attract criticism from the Greens?

By comparison, other primary industries are well serviced by their government agencies. The quantities of minerals, fish and agricultural products are made available in great detail and are readily available on their websites. Understanding the scale, status and value of activity of an industry assists in understanding the importance of that industry and the challenges it faces.

More importantly, the public has a right to know what is being achieved for the dollars being spent. The Cook government has decided to invest more than $500 million into forestry over the current decade.

Yet, three years into the pine expansion program, no one knows what has been achieved.

The original decision to pump $350 million into expanding plantations was welcomed by industry, but there is a lack of any definition of the detailed purpose of the project, except that it was expected to achieve 35,000 hectares of new forests for timber and carbon. There is a serious lack of transparency regarding this project. The FPC published neither a business case nor performance indicators when it started the project and there has been no reporting of achievements. In parliament recently the Minister conceded that 85% of the expenditure to date had been on purchasing land. If this continues then the likely achievement will be no more than 26,000 hectares or a shortfall of around 25%.

The government is also pouring $40 million per year into the FPC’s implementation of the ecological thinning program. Again, there is no measured outcome or reporting as to the costs and achievements of this State “investment”. The latest FPC Annual Report indicates in the first months of the program $11.4 million was expended but only $490,000 was earned through log sales, amounting to a paltry4% cost recovery, with no sense as to what return should be reasonably expected.

As a public sector agency there should be some measure of how the FPC is working towards its mission of supporting the timber industry. And let’s not forget, this is actually the Commission’s raison d’etre!  As a supposedly high-flying commercial business focusing on management of money, it has removed all accountability for its management of forestry assets.

The new look Annual Report is more like a Sunday supplement than a serious presentation of a government agency. The level of information has plummeted, now only detailing financial KPIs of efficiency and effectiveness. These have been carefully chosen to avoid highlighting the fact that the FPC, once again, has operated at a loss: $8.7 million in 2023-24, despite this a 4% operating margin and a 1% return on assets have been reported.

The productive condition of the forests and plantations are of vital interest to the broader industry. As an example, one critical issue in WA arises due to the scarcity of timber resource and the plantations’ vulnerability to drought. It is therefore important that the thinning of plantations is on time. Previously, the KPIs indicated only 74% of the plantations were thinned in a timely manner, leaving the rest to be depressed in growth and vulnerable to drought. This reflects poorly on the quality of FPC’s management. Now that this KPI has been removed there is no exposure as to how well the plantations are being managed for this and other parameters.

Instead, the FPC now reports on meaningless financial performance data and corporate parameters like staff diversity and turnover. Their meagre information is about anything instead of the struggling timber industry it is meant to be supporting.

In June this year, the Minister for Forestry, Jackie Jarvis, was under the impression  that wood was being delivered, saying:

Yet, as of today (7 October), it seems that not a single sawlog log has been delivered to any sawmill.

The lack of urgency in establishing supply arrangements looks like gross inefficiency but could be part of a strategy of deliberate procrastination. It has been 11 months since the current management plan was signed off by the Minister for the Environment, and these businesses still wait.

The sloth-like speed of the administration indicates these small family businesses do not rank as a priority.

This treatment is in stark contrast to the service provided to some of the larger timber businesses.

A large veneer mill is getting gold-plate treatment by comparison. It was the first customer to receive logs under the new forest management regime from ecological thinning in the karri forest that started in March (7 months ago). It was not necessary to competitively tender this wood (unlike the small businesses), and it seems it is being supplied under private treaty arrangements.

The karri forest isn’t a climate protection priority according to the forest management plan yet it appears to be the priority area for thinning, supplying a big business.

The remaining small jarrah and karri sawmills have not been supplied for a 14-month period. In an unbelievable act of craziness, jarrah sawlogs were stockpiled or sold as firewood rather than supply these small sawmills.

If it is to be believed, firewood businesses face even greater difficulties.

Firstly, they are still awaiting contracts with tenders only recently being invited. The FPC has offered to supply firewood under a bizarre set of draconian terms:

• Contracts for up to three years, but no guarantee of supplying any wood
• Minimum quantity of 10,000 tonnes per year for 3-year contracts. Most businesses previously took in 500 to 3000 tonnes each year.
• Wood can come from anywhere at any price at unbounded cost-plus arrangements
• Wood down to twig size with no minimum size specified
• Must take any species, including karri which is renowned as a termite-attracting species

The Forest Products Commission states it will:

However, it has failed to consult with or meet the firewood sector in introducing these very significant changes that will see many businesses walk away.

You would think there might have been some discussion before introducing such drastic changes to commercial terms.  I doubt that big businesses being supplied with resources have been treated in such a draconian fashion. To survive, the small firewood operators will need to buy around $1.2 million worth of wood each year as well as providing a $200,000 security.

To store this wood, a much larger yard and significant processing costs will probably be required well before anything can be sold. Under the new tender terms, FPC has no obligation to deliver a single stick of wood.

The FPC is charged with “developing” the timber industry.

These tactics are clearly seeking the opposite. It is time the Minister, who is also the Minister for Small Business, required the FPC to produce a timber industry plan to engage with and inform all timber businesses on how to position themselves for the next ten years. In reality, we are more likely to hear  a “Marie Antoinette-ism” such as:

If they have no wood (bread), then let them wait (eat cake)!.

Both can’t be right, can they?

When Premier Mark McGowan announced an end to ‘commercial harvesting’ on September 8, 2021, under the smokescreen of climate change, the Minister for Environment admitted there were no reports to demonstrate this link and the government’s alternative facts have been shown to be populist opinions.

Despite this lack of scientific evidence, Jackie Jarvis continues spout the same talking points. The FPC has followed suit and mouthed the government line. However, their actions are very different.

Through all the anti-forestry propaganda, the FPC’s operations in the native forest have maintained their certification to the Sustainable Forest Management standard AS4708. They continue to hold this certification three years after we were told the operations weren’t sustainable.

When confronted in parliament with the FPC’s double standard, the Minister failed to respond to the substance of the questions:

Her answers fail to acknowledge the conflict between the political positioning and the day-to-day behaviour of her agency.

Responsible Wood oversee the implementation of this standard and ensure that there are independent auditors to check the FPC’s performance. By maintaining certification, the FPC is confirming the results of the certification that there is sound scientific evidence that WA forests are being sustainably managed.

If the FPC didn’t believe that was the case, they should have handed the certificate back in 2021.

Instead, the FPC have continued to have forest harvesting audited – in December 2021, February 2023 and August 2023 – confirming that they conform to AS 4708. These audits include a recertification in 2022 which gave the FPC the opportunity to remove native forests from the Defined Forest Area. It did not and certification continues until June 2025.

Under Standard 4708 sustainability needs to be based on science and includes maintaining, enhancing or restoring ecological processes, carbon, nutrient and water cycles and the biodiversity of forest ecosystems. Forest Monitoring under the acclaimed Forestcheck program has shown this to be the case since the 1990’s.

It is clear the left and right side of government don’t know what the other is doing. Independent Auditors for Responsible Wood say the forests have been sustainably managed for timber production based on systematic assessment against defined criteria. Jackie Jarvis says they aren’t based on ….. the politics?

The FPC sits is precariously astride a barbed wire fence. First, it must support the integrity of the Sustainable Forest Management standard, but as a servant of the Government, it has to publicly support the Minister’s position.

This certification fiasco follows Jackie Jarvis’s confession of being confused over the publication of forestry data, which she has subsequently confirmed will now remain hidden from public view.

This lack of transparency and accountability is totally contrary to the requirements of AS 4708 and pledges of open government. As can been seen from the audit findings the FPC does not deal with stakeholder complaints appropriately, another symptom of the secrecy surrounding the mismanagement of the forest industry.

• Please note: Wood Central does not take a stance on the debate over the future of Australia’s native forests. It will, however, publish an editorial that is in the public interest from time to time, which will be fact-checked before publishing. Wood Central invites all sides to contribute to the platform.

Faced with an Opposition looking to understand why the state is now heavily subsidising its loss-making forestry business, the minister’s responses only added to the thick fog surrounding the Cook government’s forestry mess.

•Confusion 1: Will the government produce forestry statistics?

Since 1918, the forestry agencies have produced annual statistics covering the timber industry, forest resources and timber production. Previously published in the Annual Report, they are now a separate online document. Under Minister Jarvis these statistics have been released nearly a year later than previously, and last year’s statistics are yet to be posted.

Statistics provide a valuable snapshot of the forest resources, the wood available and quantities produced by species and quality. Of course, it is also a measure of accountability for the government. It’s easy to find statistics for fisheries, agriculture and mining. So why is it so hard for forestry? As an FPC commissioner for five years you’d think the minister would find some idea, a clue.

When asked, the minister first claimed they weren’t being produced, then they were, then then there wasn’t enough resources to produce them. Really? With the FPC being flooded with government money it’s incomprehensible that they can’t produce a simple report requiring a data download from existing files.

Failure to provide this data makes you wonder whether there’s something to hide.

• Confusion 2: How many trees does $350,000,000 buy?

It was originally planned to expand the pine plantations by around 35,000 hectares. However, the red-hot market for agricultural land has diminished the purchasing power of this investment. When asked, the minister first stated that 80% of the investment was being spent on land and the balance on trees. She then corrected herself claiming that 98.5% of the money would be used to purchase land. This is crazy stuff and so obviously incorrect that it’s a wonder the minister’s forestry minders didn’t protect her from this gaffe.

If only 1.5% of $350 million is to be spend on trees (i.e. $5.25 million), this will plant no more than 3000 hectares, meaning the land would cost $115,000 per hectare or $100 per tree. One certainly hopes not.

It’s time the minister found some forestry advisers who can do their sums.

• Confusion 3: Ecological thinning in national parks.

The policy of thinning the forests to improve its resilience to climate change is the cornerstone of closing the forest industry. If you believe the rhetoric, then not only are the state’s forests at risk, but all forests are at risk. When asked whether ecological thinning could occur in national parks, Jackie Jarvis categorically denied it. Yet in the newly published Forest Management Plan, thinning on all lands is clearly allowed, parks included. The minister needs to catch up with the government’s commitments on forests. After all, she is the Minister for Forestry.

• Confusion 4: What happens to the wood from ecological thinning?

No-one seems to want to take responsibility for the wood from the subsidised thinning operations. More than $40 million is being spent each year and massive stockpiles are being built. The FPC’s financial statements don’t include the stockpiles as an asset and wood sales aren’t included in its revenues. It claims the money is passed on to Treasury. Accounting standards would suggest that the FPC controls this process and needs to account for public money.

The minister also stated that the wood from ecological thinning would be sold through competitive processes. However, there don’t seem to have been any sales for such wood on the government tenders’ website, yet there has been a stream of karri logs coming north out of the southern forests. I think the minister needs to check whether or not these were sold by private arrangements and not by competitive processes, as she claimed.

• Confusion 5: Firewood sales.

After previously running the state out of firewood the government is decidedly nervous about ongoing supplies. When asked whether firewood supplies would be adequate this winter the minister deferred to her adviser. He claimed firewood would be OK as wood is now (mid-winter) being delivered to contractors. This obfuscated the point that firewood needs to be cut and dried for at least six months over the summer. There’s no point delivering firewood today – it’s illegal to retail green firewood.

The budget papers have revealed one thing: the Jarvis forestry administration is bumbling its way to becoming more secretive, inwardly focused and detached from the industry.

The McGowan/Cook government has been the first in 50 years to have failed to create conditions for new investment in timber processing, presiding over a massive decline in the industry.

It’s time to clear away the minister’s confusion—the fog—and look to new leadership to rebuild a sustainable industry with the massive renewable resources currently wasting in forestry stockpiles.

Hundreds of millions of WA taxpayer dollars are being poured into the government forestry sector without plans, detailed assessments or stakeholder engagement. The forest industry is asking why the laissez-faire approach doesn’t apply to the private sector.

The result of this bias is a distorted environment favouring the government sector.

It’s time for a consistent, unified standard for forest planning and management. The current government, however, is unlikely to limit its ‘might is right’ approach.

This distortion occurs both in the plantations and native forest sectors and results in the government bulldozing through its forest operations without the same oversight or consultation as private forests.

The massive government plantation program sees the Forest Products Commission (FPC) purchasing thousands of hectares of land in the southwest to grow pine trees. Much of this is concentrated in the Boyup Brook Shire.

Normally, local government has a say in the conditions for local developments so that social and environmental issues can be addressed. Issues like adequate provision for fire protection, impacts on local business and economic base need to be addressed by the plantation developer.

The WA Government has decided not to be answerable to local government and its plantation project is above the rules that apply to every other plantation grower. It has an exemption by claiming its activities are a “State Project under the Public Works Act” and is above such scrutiny.

No such free kick for private plantations.

The government’s approach contravenes its own commitments under the National Competition Policy to provide a level playing field.

Richard Walker, Boyup Brook Shires president stated: ”The community remains gravely concerned about the proliferation of state-owned pine plantations and the detrimental economic, environmental and social consequences locally, as the state government continues to purchase farming properties in the region without regard for that local impact.”

Discrimination in the native forests is just as bad. Private owners are being denied the opportunity to sustainably manage their forests while the state has carte blanche to pursue its program.

With a minimum of conditions from the Minister the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions is able to fell trees by thinning in 80,000 hectares of native state forest over the next 10 years.

The EPA endorsement arrived after just three months of assessment and came without any specific environmental constraints, nor a prescription or clear definition of how its performance will be measured. Even the meagre condition requiring stakeholder consultation in annual planning has been ignored, and it is likely no action has been taken in relation to this breach.

Private native forest owners are given no such luxury.

Felling just one tree requires a permit under the existing clearing laws. But unlike other states there is no clear pathway to get a permit to thin private forest in Western Australia, and many private forest owners have been waiting years. Permits can be further delayed or denied due to appeal from the public.

Thinning of state forests, so easily allowed by the EPA, is considered ‘clearing’ on private land. The regulator, DWER, is currently placing a host of conditions on its permits, including detailed planning for cockatoo habitat and foraging. DBCA gained approval to thin 80,000 hectares without any such environmental constraint.

The WA government has forcefully argued that ecological thinning is essential to protect the forests from the impacts of climate change. Surely, private forests need similar protection.

The government is pumping around $5000 for every hectare of state forest to be thinned, yet it charges private forest owners up to $6000 before it will even look at an application for a permit – and unlike DBCA, farm foresters breaching their conditions face hefty fines.

John Clarke, a forestry consultant assisting private native forest owners apply for permits, is frustrated: “The system is a bureaucratic minefield. It is impossible to navigate and provide clarity to forest owners about how to manage their forests.”

One of Mr Clarke’s clients is seeking to thin 17 hectares of regrowth jarrah/marri forest.

“Forest thinning is being unfairly judged as if it were clearing,” Mr Clarke said.

“The owners paid the required $2000 application fee over 12 months ago but have yet to receive any indication from DWER whether they will be issued a permit or not.”

Forests should be governed by the same rules, no matter who owns them. For native forests, WA should follow the example of Queensland, NSW and Tasmania and develop a Code of Practice for managing native forests (as allowed under the Environmental Protection Act) to allow for a consistent approach and a simple, predictable path to approval.

The state’s plantation expansion must take account of local communities; there is no place for government to operate as if it is above the law.

Editor’s note: There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

Only trouble is … it’s goodactivity in state forests and a bad one on private property.

The good one gets gold-plated treatment – 80,000 ha approved for 10 years in one application dealt with in just four months; funding by government by at least $5000 per hectare (= $40 million a year); the EPA conditions have been set but ignored; no prescriptions or operational standards published; no public consultation; no routine external scrutiny; and minimal accountability.

The bad one is strangled before it can breathe. Felling one tree requires a permit, the applicant needs to navigate a convoluted bureaucracy, approvals have taken up to five years, there are no defined rules for getting approval, no set of guidelines to ensure that proposals are satisfactory, allowing information requirements to change, applicants have to pay up to $6000 to have their application read, anyone can lodge an appeal (at no cost) and defer a decision for years.

Keeping up with this?

How is it that there is such blatant discrimination between identical activities?

Clearing control legislation was introduced under the hot (green) breathe of the Gallop Labor government 20 years ago. The loss of native vegetation was considered an environmental disaster and the impact on biodiversity in Western Australia was profound.

Any cutting down of native trees now requires a permit from the central government. This heavy-handed control has snuffed out most clearing, except, of course, where there are approved exemptions. These exemptions include government business.

Mining is given special treatment with application processes dealt with in the Mines Department.

All the activities of the government’s forest managers were exempt. This could be argued as reasonable – no native species had been lost from the forests after 130 years of continuous timber production.

The threats to biodiversity were seen as total removal of vegetation – as had occurred in the wheatbelt – and feral predators.

The separation of the forest managers from timber harvesters proved the checks over activities. Moreover, both agencies were required to implement an environmental management system to ensure a systematic approach was adopted and it was to be independently audited (Forest Management Plan 2004).

The timber production agency successfully introduced an environmental management system, but the conservation agency did not, and its activities have only been subject to self-assessment.

With the new FMP, this system of checks and balances has been abolished.

The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions is now totally responsible for ecological thinning and there is no day-to-day oversight to its activities as occurred previously. It has just commenced operating without publishing its prescriptions. As indicated in Wood Central, forest governance is now based on a ‘trust-me’ approach.

In southwest WA many landowners have no such freedom. Areas of forest on their farms are governed by layers of bureaucracy that are almost impossible to crack. These were captured by the clearing legislation even when practising sustainable forest management, and they are thinning the forest – as does the DBCA.

One forest owner has been trying to get a permit since 2019. This forest is in the Boddington area and, according to the Conservation and Parks Commission, is one of the most vulnerable areas to climate change. Therefore, it should be the highest priority for thinning.

Unfortunately, the wheels turn very slowly, and the landowner can’t proceed unless agreeing to onerous conditions.

Another landowner was asked to undertake an assessment for cockatoo nesting hollows, a need to assess the impact on cockatoo foraging.

How can private properties of 10 or 20 hectares bear responsibility for maintaining cockatoo nesting and foraging? 

The government controls about 2.5 million hectares or 90% of the forests in the southwest. There are around 140,000 hectares in private hands.

Consultant forester John Clarke has been assisting private landowners in applying for permits. He is frustrated by the process’s lack of transparency.

“How can the government give itself approval for 80,000 hectares of thinning in just four months, while my client is still waiting for approval for less than 20 ha after nearly a year?” he asks.

“There are no clear rules as to what a private landowner must to do. It seems they are made up as they go along.”

Worse news awaits private forest owners. If they are lucky enough to get a permit, this will be subject to public review. Anyone can appeal at no cost to the appellant. The process of appealing permits is standard for environmental groups, and this can delay a final decision for many more months.

“Some landowners have given up at this point,” notes John Clarke.

“It feels like there is a green mafia out there trying to stop sustainable forest activities based on an emotional ideology.”

The requirement that small private landowners take responsibility for cockatoo habitat when there is no assessment of the government’s own landscape scale activities is ludicrous.

It’s known that cockatoo numbers are much greater than earlier thought (counted populations have increased nearly threefold in the Great Cockie Count between 2010 and 2023), and thinning the forests is most unlikely to result in a long-term adverse effect. If the government is to be believed, thinning the forest will be good for biodiversity.

It’s time the government applied the same approval standard to private forests as its own. In this way all the forests of the southwest could be thinned and helped to withstand climate change.

The Environmental Protection Authority should urgently establish and approve a code of practice for forest thinning to promote consistency between government and private forestry. This would then provide an exemption to all sustainable forest management and bypass the green mafia.

• This is the third part of an exclusive series looking at the state of forestry in WA; click to read part 1, “The Great Ecological Thinning Lie: New Mantra for WA Forests”, and part 2, “Whitby Abandons Accountability & Transparency in WA Forests.”

New management settings approved by West Australia’s Environment Minister Reece Whitby for ecological thinning in state forests have removed the scrutiny, accountability, engagement and independent oversight against the tight controls for previous sustainable commercial timber harvesting.

The government will spend at least $200 million on the grand experiment of ecological thinning without transparency in what is a return to the ‘trust me, I’m the expert’ management style of the 1970s.

If you thought shutting down commercial and sustainable timber operations would ‘protect’ the forest, you have been misled.

The problem is that you wouldn’t know what is happening because, at the same time as ignoring timber as a legitimate forest activity, the government will shut down the processes established to ensure that there is a crosscheck on standards and external audit of forest management systems.

In 2000, the commercial timber agency (Forest Products Commission) was separated from the Conservation Department, then CALM, and now the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA).

This was a deliberate measure to separate the implementation role from that of the environmental watchdog.

Environmental groups had complained that “the fox was in charge of the henhouse”. This new arrangement worked successfully for 23 years and was difficult for the environmental movement to dispute.

The separation of roles saw the FPC develop an environmental management system that maintained international standards (EMS 13001) and supported certification with world-class standards at FSC and Responsible Wood.

Operating independently audited systems gave a high level of assurance that the environmental objectives were systematically achieved. No other state forestry agency in Australia managed to meet this level of certification.

When the Conservation and Parks Commission assessed performance against key performance indicators, the FPC’s operational performance was better than DBCA’s.

Now we have moved to an era where DBCA has taken responsibility for ecological thinning, and with the FPC demoted to being its agent, the separation of accountabilities has been lost.

The role of the forest steward has been muddied by the new role. The axeman cometh!

We are repeatedly told that we are now managing forests just for their health, but as shown in Wood Central (March 25), harvesting to supply a timber product remains a primary driver.

As the FPC has been removed from the primary role of harvesting forests to one where it just picks up the wood, it needs to be asked whether DBCA can open itself to external assessment and audit.

Early signs in the Forest Management Plan and the start of ecological thinning suggest that it remains a closed shop focused on self-appraisal rather than external review and meeting international standards.