The Future Management of Australian Native Forests

The Future Management of Australian Native Forests: Part 1
Executive Summary

It is, therefore, useful to reflect on how "unnatural" it actually is to assume that a preserved forest has some natural enduring order.

The concept of a "balance of nature", stable over time that will be achieved when human activity is removed, is a central underpinning of the environmental movement world wide, including Australia. It is erroneous. Nature is not balanced at all.

Locking up (many) most native forests in the modern environment could logically be defined as creating an artificial, man made ecological condition which, arguably, no more preserves forests compared with responsible sustained yield management.

United States experience suggests that public sentiment related to excessive restrictions on natural resources can change quickly, but locking up forests is generally a one way process that cannot be reversed.

There is no clear evidence of any linkage between invasive government control and healthy native forests.

Just as native forests are regularly subjected to violent, traumatic changes, so too are predictions of wood market demands, technological developments and regional wood fibre demands.

The usual analysis and reporting on the Australian forestry sector frequently restricts terms of reference to "within border" Australia only review, and to traditional market and product development trends based on an "import substitute" philosophy. To continue to do so will be unnecessarily restrictive.

Although Australia's role in the global forestry context is small - mostly less than 1% of global forest products production, it is one of only 4-5 countries in the Pacific Rim with potential to increase sustained harvest levels.

A recent comprehensive review of future global wood supply and demand has concluded that by the year 2020, a "gap" of 475 million cubic metres of softwood and 200 million cubic metres of hardwood per year will develop. These volumes are 28 times and almost 12 times the current total Australian wood production respectively.

Many global forests are in poor shape and will have to reduce wood production in future - for instance the native forests of Indonesia and Malaysia, two of Australia's closest neighbours will likely reduce production by 50 million cubic metres per year by 2020. This is five times the current Australian hardwood production.

While plantation areas continue to increase globally, their potential to replace native forest harvesting will continue to be surprisingly limited. Timber supply increases from these sources are estimated to be about equal to the projected marginal increases in demand, and will therefore not compensate for projected declines in the availability of wood from traditional sources.

A number of trends in international forestry have direct implications for the Australian forestry sector. These include:

• Previously unwanted or low priority hardwood species have rapidly gained international market acceptance, particularly in the last 5 years.
• There is a continuing trend for low grade hardwood (and softwood), pulpwood logs to be upgraded to saw/plywood logs, and to provide material for composite wood products.
• Reducing supplies of traditional species and increasing costs have directed the solid wood industry into developing an increasing array of composite wood products.
• Many hardwood plantations established for the purpose of providing short rotation pulpwood crops are expected to be "grown on" to produce solid wood products.
• International investors are increasingly realising that large scale plantation development is very expensive and requires a combination of favourable criteria, which can be found only in restricted areas.
• While medium-long term wood supply and demand predictions assume relatively smooth trends over time, in practice both supply and demand changes internationally occur much more suddenly and unexpectedly.
• Governments around the world, which control much of the world's forest resource, and have regularly subsidised local industries, are changing their previous practices.

It is likely that a major trend of international investment in Australia's softwood sector in future will result in much of the additional softwood wood resource being directed to overseas markets. It is therefore erroneous to assume that it will be available to substitute for native forest production.

Large scale international investment in forestry projects had largely by-passed Australia until the mid 1990's. Additional micro-economic reforms and a focussed, committed government/industry policy supporting the important criteria favoured by investors (for example sustained raw material availability, minimising restrictions on market options), would likely accelerate interest in international investment in resources, processing and product development in both the native forest and plantation segments of this sector.

In our experience and personal knowledge, it appears that the Australian State governments are, on average, managing their native hardwood forests to sustain a wide range of wood fibre, flora, fauna and water assets better than any other governments or organisations around the world.

As a result of past decisions and the development and implementation of professional management practices, the Australian native forest sector is in a superb position to contribute to the future wood demands of an expanded Pacific Asian community on a long term sustainable basis. We believe this can be achieved while maintaining, and further refining an international benchmark standard of excellence in native forest management techniques.

It would be a great pity if the decision makers in the debate on the future of Australian native forest management do not consider the wider international perspective, and the opportunities available to maximise the value to all Australians of the internationally important Australian native forest resource.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

We believe that the comments made in this review can be considered those of an "independent observer" in the context of the Australian forestry sector, in that they have not been influenced by NAFI, the Australian industry, nor indeed by the Department of the Environment Sport and Tourism, or any politicians or conservation groups in Australia.

The review has been written in light of our current understanding of the position of the Commonwealth Government in relation to native forest harvesting in Australia.

The examples we have used have not been researched specifically for this review, but ones which come from our own experience and/or existing data base. The review could be further developed or refined if required.

Disclaimer:

This report represents the best judgement of D.A. Neilson & Associates based on the information and data available prior to writing. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, no liability is accepted for any errors or omissions or any opinion expressed or recommendations made in the report.

The Future Management of Australian Native Forests: Part 2

2.0 NATIVE FOREST HARVESTING

2.1 The Role of Forest Reserves

The first section of this review considers some of these philosophical issues and how they relate to the trend in the management of Australian native forests.

The creation of reserves within native forests in Australia has been a major issue within the sector for many decades. With the allocation of large areas to World Heritage Reserves, National Parks and numerous other statutory and non-statutory reserves, the Australian public now has significant areas of forests reserved from commercial operations.

However, the pressure to continue to reserve further areas of native forest continues, and appears to have intensified in early 1995.

We understand that the current position of the Commonwealth government of Australia is set out in a discussion paper entitled: "National Forest Conservation Reserves Commonwealth Proposed Criteria".

The proposed criteria for a possible "end point" (at least for this round) include:

• A broad benchmark of 15% of the pre 1788 distribution of each forest within conservation reserves.
• Retention in reserves of at least 60% of existing old growth, or more than 90% where it is severely depleted.
• Protection of 90% wherever practical of high quality wilderness.

Conservation groups have generally been successful in persuading the public, and therefore State and Federal governments, of the danger of continued commercial management of native forests to the long term preservation of "natural" ecosystems.

We believe it is useful to reflect on how "unnatural" it actually is to assume that a preserved forest has some natural enduring order.

The idea of nature as something separate and pristine is a modern notion. It was less than 200 years ago that the perception of mountains and forests in Europe, for instance, was transformed from places of terror where wild beasts and thieves and monsters lurked - to places of beauty and spiritual inspiration.

This concept coincided with the global population movement into cities, away from rural areas where people regarded themselves as a natural part of the landscape, within a "natural" environment which was in constant flux from storms, floods, fires and other natural occurrences.

Since that time, and particularly since the Second World War, scientific ideas about how nature works have proliferated, but some are increasingly being challenged. One major premise, which has developed amid the collective guilt of developed nations caused by past excesses within the natural resource environment has been that nature has some "enduring" order. Thus, the almost unceasing demands to lock up increasing areas of natural resources, particularly forests, to preserve for all time the natural order.

This philosophy is increasingly being (correctly) questioned.

One principle of this philosophy is that over time, plants and animals in an eco-system will succeed each other over time to produce a "climax" landscape (commonly described as old growth forest), which will then persist indefinitely.

The conservation lobby has claimed that removing humans and human activity from forests will lead to this nirvana. With some very restricted possible exceptions, e.g. the existence of "pre historic" stands or individual trees in some parts of the world, (Huon pine for example in Australia), this steady state nirvana does not exist.

The concept of a "balance of nature" stable over time that will be achieved when human activity is removed, is a central underpinning of the environmental movement world wide, including Australia.

It is erroneous.

Nature is not balanced at all. Studies of tree rings, ice cores, and pollen in lake bed muds, paint a picture of an ever changing landscape in which climate swings and other events force competition and migration of plant and animal species with species succession rising and falling - much like human empires over time. Thus, the notion of "preserved forest ecosystems" is likely not to be what many conservationists claim, or what the public and politicians believe it to be.

This "balance of nature concept" is even less likely to occur in Australian native hardwood forests than in other forest ecosystems around the world. The major species existing in these forests today, including "old growth forests" are eucalyptus species. Most or all of these are not even climax species. With the propensity of the Australian climate to exhibit regular periods of severe fire hazard conditions, both historically and in recent times, Australia's forests have been and will almost certainly continue to be subjected to catastrophic natural and un-natural fire events.

In fact, the likely history of most of the area of Australia's native hardwood forests available for management to-day is such that a more apt definition of them would be "unplanted hardwood forests" rather than the other more common definition of "native forests". (We will continue to use the term native forests where applicable in this review, but would subscribe to a change in terminology on the grounds of logic).

We believe that it is premature and likely not based on sound scientific evidence to dress up large scale reductions in the active commercial management of Australia's native forests in the guise of "preservation".

For instance, the notion of placing 15% of the pre 1788 distribution of each forest into conservation reserves is likely at best to be based on subjective criteria. What is important, in an ecological sense about the year 1788? Prior to the arrival of Anglo-Saxon settlers in Australia, the Australian native forests would have likely been regularly disturbed by violent events initiated both naturally and by indigenous people. The species, age and type distribution of forests in 1788 would likely have been significantly different than in 1588, 1388, 1188 etc. Considered from a long term ecological state view point, the 1788 time frame is no more than a relatively random snapshot in time.

Likewise, the criteria of retaining 60% of existing "old growth" and more than 90% where it is severely depleted, is likely to be based on subjective decisions, many driven by an ever broadening definition of what is old growth and what is depleted.

In our personal experience, the "official" definition of old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest of the United States has reduced from several hundred years old in the 1970's to often less than 100 years old today. It has become increasingly apparent that the true objective of many influential conservation movements in the United States has been more radical than previously perceived, i.e. it has been to stop all human intervention in forests, and indeed the practically impossible objective of "removing" humans from the environment altogether, (except in mega-cities where most radical conservationists tend to be based).

As a result some of these groups try to prevent the balanced management of young stands - no minimum age needs to be stipulated - as if left "undisturbed" they will one day be considered as old growth.

The very concept of old growth forests needs to be critically examined.

There are a number of definitions of "old growth" forest used by various groups associated with the Australian forest industry. One example, we understand, used by the Victorian forestry sector is:

"Old growth forest is forest which contains significant amounts of its oldest growth stage in the upper stratum - usually senescing trees - and has been subjected to any disturbance, the effect of which is now negligible".

However, even this definition, which we understand to be considered as one of the more rational adopted by the sector, illustrates problems in the definitional process, especially when considered with the associated technical requirements, and even more so when the definition is used to further the preservation/reservation debate.

Examples of these definitional problems are illustrated below.

• The fallacy of a "sustainable state of nature" assumption is apparent in the definition above. To be an old growth forest, it must contain significant amounts of "senescing" or deteriorating trees - hardly a promising start for a stable future!
• In the technical requirements, the term disturbance is noted. Undisturbed forest is forest "for which there are no records of disturbance , even though wild-fires almost certainly occurred in the past." If "almost certain" wildfire is not a disturbance, one is left wondering what is. Records of such disturbances are likely to be found in "undisturbed" forest areas with appropriate site investigation.
• The notes on disturbance, to be read in conjunction with the formal definition, include the statement that "disturbances induced by indigenous people before European settlement are also treated as being natural". Again, from an ecological point of view this differentiation of "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" people disturbance into man-made and natural events is not logical. Both are clearly man-made events.
• While the imposition of such definitions may be useful, and indeed required to assist formulating management plans to best match forest harvest operations while maximising ecological sustainability, serious problems arise when conservationists/governments take the next step. This step is of course to lobby/implement legislation to lock up "old growth" forests in reserves.

Locking up many (most) native forests in the modern environment could logically be defined as creating an artificial, man made ecological condition which, arguably no more "preserves" forests compared with responsible sustained yield management, and has been shown that it can in fact be more destructive.

It is most unlikely that Australian authorities will allow "natural" fires to burn through large areas of preserved forest without attempting human intervention, especially in the vicinity of population or close to road/rail access routes. These same authorities are also unlikely to eliminate or manage other unnatural influences, for instance, introduced current or potential pests, especially if funding is not available for this purpose or importantly, if there is no commercial value attached to these forests.

In summary, the industry, politicians and the public in Australia may well have been duped by focussed single issue environmental lobby groups into a debate on old growth forest definitions within an overall sustained management context as a prelude to a pre-planned campaign to lock up vast areas of productive, sustainable forest once well meaning officials have accepted compromise definitions.

If international trends are followed in Australia, and they are likely to be, industry can rest assured that the next round of "negotiations" on new old growth and high value site definitions will involve younger and younger native forest, with ever increasing disturbance characteristics.

The very structured, well funded attacks by the United States conservation movement on all forms of forest harvesting during the last 20 years, have severely limited harvesting but have also exposed the true objectives of these groups, have exposed a number of absurd results of their actions, and have resulted in a voter backlash in 1994/95 against what the public now perceives as excessive restrictions on natural resource management.

Observing the United States (and some other countries) experience in locking up vast areas of productive forest can provide some additional lessons which we have noted below.

1. It may indeed be a wrong assumption to believe that the clock can be turned back, and that eco-systems can be "restored" to their natural state simply by removing commercial operations.

   An example is the locking up of coniferous species on the east-side of the United States Pacific Northwest, while maintaining "unnatural" fire suppression services. The result is a build up of fuel which has resulted in major fires of unnatural frequency and intensity (and significant loss of life fighting them), and a huge increase in insect damaged areas. Neither the build up in fuel or major insect devastation would likely have occurred in nature to the extent that it has - smaller natural fires would have more likely moderated fuel build up and maintained the health of the forests - as would have active commercial management.

   The Agency Chief of the USFS, Mr Jack Ward Thomas stated at a recent North American Wildlife and Natural Resources conference that " .... better firefighting techniques and the elimination of fire as a silvicultural tool have created un-healthy forests." The USFS report that in 1994 some 52,000 separate fires burned 900,000 hectares of forest. The cost of firefighting in United States Federal forests alone last year totalled

   A$ 1,000 million, and 28 firefighters lost their lives fighting forest fires.

   The combination of locking up forests but being unwilling or unable to return the ecosystem to a pre-human condition, (i.e. no fire suppression, no roads, no introduced fungal/animal species etc.) itself creates an artificial environment.

   In our view this "forest lock up" approach which was scientifically in favour in the 1960's-1980's, and early 1990's, is increasingly being questioned, and should be.

   As more experience of the impacts of this policy become known over time, it is likely that its failure to deliver its intended purpose (usually a permanent state forest) will likely become more apparent, as will the unnatural state of these forests. For instance, locking up almost all of New Zealand's native forests from commercial management has not prevented significant areas being ravaged by introduced animal and plant pests. This process is likely to continue to worsen, without sufficient revenue to fund control programmes.

   Of probably more importance will likely be an increasing recognition in future that much of the world's native forests simply must be managed in a balanced, sustainable way to meet the reasonable expectations of a huge global population - we expand on this issue later.

2. Much of the practical, scientific knowledge and experience available to industry, government, and the general population around the world, is contained within the commercial government agency framework. While it takes decades to build and maintain this expertise, it can be quickly destroyed by imprudent government policy (which in fact may change later, as has happened in 1995 in the United States). In addition, the same governments which appear willing and able to succumb to environmental pressure to lock up forests are often unwilling or unable to continue to fund agencies once revenue drops off, (even if the net revenue from harvesting is exceeded by costs before lock ups occur).

   A classic recent example of the imploding of a major government forestry agency is the United States Forest Service (USFS). While often criticised for its imperfections, the USFS provided an international model for various government agencies for 75 years up to the mid 1980's. However, in only ten years, environmental attack, courtroom dramatics and government policy have wreaked havoc on the agency, to the point where:

   • It has had to undertake major surgical restructuring, and downsizing, officially entitled "re-invention".

   • It is now not capable of performing the task required of it by the new administration in the United States.

   Thus, recent legislation providing for the salvage of fire and insect damaged forest on the West Coast is unlikely to be achieved as the USFS is not capable of performing the task of planning and implementing the process. The remnants of a once competent, professional agency seem to have lost the will to achieve. Australian State and Federal governments might be advised to note how quickly public sentiment can change. Locking up forests, either legislatively, or administratively, through lack of strategic direction or purpose is generally a one way process which cannot be reversed. The loss of skills, expertise, future career options and funding is likely to severely limit the ability of the USFS to effectively manage US public lands under its control for years, if not decades - even after a reversal of government direction.

   This could quickly occur with Australian forest agencies, if the recent Government criteria are imposed without due regard for their implications - not only on employment, wood supply and import cost savings/export revenue issues, but also on non commercial programmes.

3. Sound science can change. For instance, in the 1970's in the Pacific Northwest, scientific evidence suggested all debris should be removed from streams to protect fish habitat, and companies violating regulations based on this premise could be prosecuted. Now the opposite scientific "facts" are in vogue, and companies are prevented from removing such debris, as now it apparently is required to ensure the health of the current generation of salmon.

4. Be cautious of blindly accepting the current natural resource "buzz phrase" of ecosystem management as the only way to consider native forest management, particularly by simply importing phraseology and systems from elsewhere. A cynic might suggest that the development of ecosystem management concepts in the United States has been initiated by the environmental lobby to achieve on private land what has already been effectively achieved on public land, i.e. to lock it up. The danger of adopting an ecosystem management philosophy, without understanding its consequences, is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to define. The Head of Oregon State University, charged with defining the term for the forestry sector stated in 1994 that his School could probably not help. The School had been unable to provide an adequate set of definitions for the process.

   Ecosystem management is whatever people want it to be. It can be sound management of plants and animals above the ground, or the management of earthworms beneath the soil; or it can involve management of millions of microscopic insects, or billions of bacteria living in a handful of soil. It can, and likely is, a convenient front for some conservation groups and politicians to ensure additional, if not complete lock ups of native forests (and then later plantation forests).

   Finally, the sector should heed the Oregon State University's Forestry School dean's recent quote "I haven't seen anyone talk about ecosystem management without talking about more Government". From the viewpoint of an independent observer, the Australian forestry sector has been subjected to far too much government intervention over the last 10 years, without the (expected) confirmation of clear, sustainable operating guidelines.

   There is no clear international evidence of any linkage between invasive government control and healthy native forests. In fact the opposite is more likely to be the case - the experiences in the United States Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, Indonesia and Malaysia can be contrasted with the experiences of the relationships between government and industry in Sweden and Finland. Both of these latter countries have sound environmental laws, a major prosperous industry based on forests of indigenous species and forest growth exceeding harvest levels - all achieved without invasive government intervention.

2.2 Specific Issues

• The comprehensive regional assessment (CRA) process.
• An expanded regional forest agreement (RFA).
• An integrated industry policy.
• The role of plantations.
• The export wood-chipping question and possible levy.
• Possible intensification of native forest management.
• Reviewing future supply and demand predictions.
• The impact of sawing, drying and other new technologies.
• An analysis of the state of the softwood processing sector.

With the recent furore surrounding the future of non-plantation forest harvesting, it would appear that all these efforts have failed. One would have to be sceptical about the successful outcome of this latest programme, unless one restricts the definition of success to one component of the process - forest lock up.

It is likely to take several years to complete all of the requirements listed, and especially in reaching consensus among an expanded stakeholder base is likely to take years.

The sector should be wary of "interim measures" involving further preservation of managed forest areas before complete data is available to make informed, rational judgements on the issue. If existing harvesting operations can be shown to be sustainable, then they should be allowed to continue, with changes only made after a rigorous review and compelling reasons proven to change the status quo.

2.3 The International Market

Nevertheless, the future demand for Australian native forest wood products will ultimately be determined by the international (including Australian domestic) marketplace.

The analysis and reporting on the Australian forestry sector frequently restricts the terms of reference to a "within border" Australia only review, and to traditional market and product development trends based on an "import substitute" philosophy.

We believe if this philosophy is continued in the current debate over the appropriate levels of future native forest management, a "final" decision will:

• Likely restrict future harvest levels unnecessarily.
• Eliminate opportunities for the sector to contribute to a wider consumer base than just Australia in future years.
• Deprive the Australian industry of the ability to become an increasingly important international benchmark of excellence in the sustained management of native forests.

2.3.1 Australia's Role In the Pacific Rim and Global Context

Product                Global Production      Australian Production     
				      (Global Percentage)        

Industrial Wood        1,603,376, 640 m3      1.0                       

Sawlog                 933,627,648 m3         0.9                       

Lumber                 449,900,480 m3         0.7                       

Pulpwood               440,990,208 m3         1.8                       

Wood-based Panels      121,512,080 m3         0.7                       

Wood Pulp              153,739,376 tonnes     0.6                       

Paper and Paperboard   245,436,768 tonnes     0.8                       

• The total (hardwood and softwood) Australian resource is only one of perhaps four or five in the total Pacific Rim region that has the potential to actually increase sustained harvest levels in the future.
• With major traditional global (and particularly Pacific Rim) wood supply areas in a state of major flux and decline, it is likely that international interest in both hardwood and softwood wood resources in Australia will increase substantially in future.

This is not surprising with:

• Australia being a net importer of most products.
• A lack of "free trade" in raw material within the sector.
• Restrictive and often confusing State/Federal regulations and restrictions relating to fibre security and the export of forest products.

The extent of future international demand for Australian products is difficult to predict as so many factors are involved, including availability, cost, alternative supplies, product substitution, etc.

However, some major international trends seem to be increasingly recognised by industry observers.

Even with modest demand growth projections, a future wood supply "gap" is being predicted. The most recent comprehensive study on the subject is entitled:"World Timber Resources Outlook - Current Perceptions - A Discussion Paper".

This was published by the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries (COFI) in December 1994. The authors of the review predict an increasing annual gap between global coniferous (softwood) supply and demand of over 411 million cubic metres per year by 2010, and 475 million cubic metres per year by 2020 (Appendix 1).These gaps are over 24 and 28 times the current total Australian wood production respectively.

The authors also predict an increasing annual gap between non coniferous (hardwood) supply and demand of 142 million cubic metres in 2010, and 200 million cubic metres in 2020 (Appendix 2).These volumes are 8 and almost 12 times the current total Australian wood production respectively.

Growth in demand is likely not to occur as much in traditional higher per capita usage countries, e.g. United States, Australia, but in rapidly developing countries with current lower per capita wood usage. Many of these countries in Asia are close to Australia. In addition, increasing South American domestic demand will likely divert much of the surplus wood produced in Chile, Brazil and Argentina away from the Pacific Rim.

Examples of recent per capita wood usage are provided in Appendix 3 (comparing Asian and developed countries) and Appendix 4 (comparing South American and developed countries).

A combination of a major increase in population, especially Asia, and increasing gross domestic product (GDP) levels over the next 20-30 years, is likely to create a radically different regional wood product demand than has been experienced in the last 50 years, or even the last 5-10 years. A useful relationship to consider, for instance, is the linkage between paper consumption and per capita GDP (Appendix 5).

Major increases of demand for paper by a number of Asia Pacific countries in future will likely result in Japan being only one of a number of countries with huge pulp and paper industries requiring wood fibre, instead of playing the dominant role in woodchip trade that it does now.

2.3.2 Global Forests

The major "wood basket" forests of Asia are generally in a very sorry state, particularly in Malaysia and Indonesia. The authors the COFI report previously referred to, for instance predict a reduction in annual non-coniferous harvest in Malaysia from 45 million cubic metres in 1992 to 15 million cubic metres in 2020, and Indonesia's annual harvest will halve, from 40 million to 20 million cubic metres in the same period.

This predicted reduction in the harvest levels of two of Australia's closest neighbours alone equates to five times the current total Australian hardwood harvest.

The rate of Asia Pacific de-afforestation continues to be alarming (1.2% annually from 1981-1990). Appendix 6 graphically illustrates Asian forest cover - population trends.

After decades of denial that a problem existed, the British Columbian government has in 1994/95 been forced to admit to chronic over-cutting in its native coniferous forests (the government owns 95% of the forests in British Columbia), and the industry faces some very painful downsizing in the next 5-10 years, and/or the importation of very large volumes of logs to sustain production in its existing plants. At the time of writing, four major British Columbian companies were bidding on a large Alaskan resource, capable of supplying two pulp mills for a year, which is likely to be sold at a premium to current pulpwood prices of at least 20%.

A recent substantive review of the future production from United States South forests, by Resource Economics Inc. and Resource Information Systems Inc. (two respected United States forestry consulting/publishing firms) predicts that the future harvest of coniferous wood from the region, which is now the world's largest wood-basket, will have to reduce from 164 million cubic metres per year in 1993-96 to 107 million cubic metres per year by 2009-12. This reduction equates to 3.3 times the current total annual Australian harvest. If harvesting of this resource continues unchecked until the year 2000 (which it may well do), then reductions next century will have to be very severe, down an additional 50 million cubic metres per year if the resource is to be managed on a sustained yield.

Industry observers seem to becoming more and more gloomy about Russia's ability to supply more than a fraction of its potential. The World Bank is reported to be developing a policy that will require the Russian Far East industry to eliminate some 230 million hectares from its productive forest base, for ecological (mainly permafrost) and indigenous people protection reasons. A 400,000 square kilometre area around Vladivostok, which contains some of the most productive forest in Eastern Russia, is reported to contain more endangered species than the rest of the world combined. The cost of providing access to much of the "available wood" has recently been estimated at US$ 9-14 billion.

With a world population increasing from 5.7 billion to 11 billion people in 35 years time, it is understandably difficult to predict future wood use patterns, but it is likely to be a reasonable assumption that most, if not all, existing sustainable native and plantation forests will be in international demand to supply the demand for wood fibre.

In fact some observers suggest that the available global wood supply will not be able to meet natural demand past the turn of the century, and/or will be too expensive. Major substitution with often less environmentally friendly products than wood produced from sustainably managed forests is inevitable.

We would suggest that, as a result, very few governments will have the ability to manage their native forests on a sustainable basis from the turn of the century and beyond. Those that can will have an international moral obligation and indeed a responsibility to ensure they do so to maximum effect. Further more, conservation movements which often to date have only focussed on domestic natural resource issues will likely become more aware of newly developing international obligations in future.

2.3.3 The Role of Native and Plantation Forests

One significant feature of existing plantation statistics is that:

• In some major regions the claimed area of plantations have not been planted in the first place. This has occurred in Asian and South American countries.
• Many plantations planted up to the early 1990's were often established with unsuitable species and/or were not protected from invasive weeds and failed. Records have usually not been amended accordingly.
• While over 100 million hectares of plantations have been established, most are small, or off-site plantings which are unlikely to contribute significantly to Pacific Rim fibre supply.

Appendix 8 illustrates Jaakko Poyry's recent forecasts of the contribution that fast grown plantations will likely make to world supply in the next 20 years.

2.3.4 Industry Dynamics

Not surprisingly, the international industry is reacting to these changes in an equally tumultuous way, rendering many traditional concepts, perceptions and predictions about future trends obsolete. A number of these trends should be incorporated into any review of Australian forest industry strategies (native and plantation; hardwood and softwood). Indeed, they should be given at least as much, if not more, weight than trends apparent or predicted if the future Australian sector is considered in isolation to regional and global trends.

These include:

1. There is no clear pattern to regional preferences for softwood or hardwood products. A reducing supply of traditional hardwood species is forcing North Asian industry to substitute much of its hardwood raw material with softwoods. Conversely, a reverse balance is likely to occur in the US South. What is clear is that previously unwanted or low priority hardwood species have rapidly gained international acceptance, particularly in the last five years. For instance, red alder in the Pacific North West, until recently a weed species of no or very low value, now commands high prices. Sawlog prices are now US $70-90 per cubic metre.

   Recent predictions for major regional and global wood balances clearly indicate a "gap" in both softwood and hardwood supplies. Many hardwood applications are substitutable with softwoods, and vice versa. However, most of the predicted reductions in supply from Australia's close Asian neighbours in the next 20-30 years will be in hardwood supplies. The South East Asian countries have historically been the only regions of the world with a significant hardwood surplus. Therefore the continuing and accelerating reduction in removals from the region will likely have a considerable impact on the world hardwood supply/demand balance and trade flows.

2. There is a continuing trend for low grade hardwood (and softwood) pulpwood logs to be upgraded to saw/plywood logs, and to provide material for composite wood products. Thus, for instance red alder pulplogs are being diverted away from the Japanese woodchip export market in the Pacific Northwest to supply sawmills. The same trend is occurring in the United States South.

   The recent announcements by the United States company, FibreForm, to upgrade low grade eucalypt logs in Tasmania, and that of the Japanese panel manufacturer, Hokushin to manufacture panel products in Tasmania, are likely to be the first steps in a developing trend in Australia.

   Continued, or increasing government restrictions on native forest harvest in Australia could well discourage the progression of this trend, by denying both Australian and international investors reasonable security of wood supply.

   It is useful to note that the global consumption of hardwood sawn timber in 1992 was 129 million cubic metres, compared with the Australian consumption of only 1.5 million cubic metres.

3. Reducing supplies of traditional species, and increasing costs have directed the solid wood industry into a developing and increasing array of composite wood products, using a range of high quality, medium quality, and low quality raw material. These products include non-structural boards, e.g. medium density fibre board, particle board, and structural products, including (but not limited to) laminated veneer lumber, oriented strandboard, parallel strand lumber, laminated lumber and composite "I beams". To date, almost all of the development (and demand) for new forms of structural panels has been limited to North America, but Pacific Asia demand is expected to increase significantly from the mid-late 1990's.

4. Many existing forest owners/managers which established hardwood plantations for the purpose of providing short rotation pulpwood crops, are now actively working on, or investigating a change in their strategy to "grow on" these forests to produce solid wood products. Companies in South Africa and Brazil, are well advanced in this process. If expected trends continue, the result will be to:
   • Remove significant hardwood pulpwood volumes from the regional (and global) equation.
   • Create a major international eucalypt hardwood solid wood supply, and demand, which Australian sustained yield native forests could capitalise on.

5. A realisation that large scale plantation development (softwood or hardwood) is increasingly expensive and requires a combination of favourable criteria, including:
   • A large area of fertile, well watered land
   • A low population density
   • Suitable, well proven, fast grown species
   • A stable political system, sympathetic to plantations
   • Support of the local indigenous population
   • Support (or at least neutrality) of conservation groups

   The lack of one or more of these elements has significantly restricted plantation development, and is likely to in future. Many examples can be cited for both softwood and hardwood plantations (including one recent report that a eucalyptus plantation project in California may have to "close" because of wetland problems).

6. While medium/long term wood supply and demand predictions assume relatively smooth trends over time, both supply and demand changes in practice internationally occur much more suddenly, with often major, unexpected supply, price and demand fluctuations. These can quickly (within 5 years) change international interest in previously low priority resources.

   Examples include:

   • Japanese importers in the late 1980's suggested that the maximum demand for Radiata pine logs in Japan would never exceed 0.8 million cubic metres per year. New Zealand exports alone in 1994 totalled 1.8 million cubic metres.

   • New Zealand and Chilean exporters argued in the late 1980's about how to split up a "maximum predicted" Korean market of less than 1.0 million cubic metres. The market in 1994 actually exceeded 3 million cubic metres.

   • Only three years ago neither North Asian buyers nor Scandinavian producers of lumber seriously entertained the possibility of a major trade developing between the two regions. However, shifts in supply and price since then have resulted in Japanese imports from Sweden alone rising from 700 cubic metres in 1992 to 200,000 cubic metres in 1994. Finnish lumber imports increased from negligible volumes in the early 1990's to 240,000 cubic metres in 1994, and are expected to be 600,000 cubic metres in 1995/6.

   To date a lack of an export driven philosophy within the Australian industry, lack of freely available resource, and an "over regulated" industry have not created conditions conducive to international trade. However, the international industry continues to be transformed from a localised one to a regional one to a global one, and Australia is most likely to directly or indirectly become affected by this trend in the next 5-10 years if not sooner.

   It is important to note that, even when there are clear signals that forests are being cut at an unsustainable rate, many governments continue to allow harvesting to continue for beyond a prudent time to enforce sustainability measures. Often countries literally almost run out of forest before controls are implemented, e.g. Philippines, Thailand. This pattern of overcutting has occurred, or is occurring in the United States South, Western Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, the US South, and likely in Papua New Guinea.

   One recent claim is that the world's hardwood forests are being destroyed at the rate of 30 hectares per minute, and if this rate continues for another 40 years, all global hardwood forests will be gone. Note that Australian native forest management does not result in de-afforestation. On the contrary it is regulated to ensure the sustainability of these forests.

   It is unfortunate that the Australian Commonwealth Government is sending conflicting signals to the international forest products industry. Previously, for instance it suggested that native forest woodchip exports would be phased out in favour of domestic processing. Now it appears to be signalling that they will be phased out in favour of forest preservation. The Wesley Vale decision is still fresh in the minds of the international forest products industry - what is it meant to believe?

   Another one or two Pacific Rim wood supply reductions and/or demand-price adjustments as have occurred in the late 1980's, and again in 1993/94, could easily transform the economics of exporting large volumes of Australia softwood, solid wood, and pulp wood products, and hardwood products. Such shifts are expected to continue. These events will likely occur long before Australia approaches self sufficiency in wood products.

7. Governments control much of the world's forest industry (often through resource ownership). This has regularly led to subsidised or artificially low raw material costs for local industries. The "hazy" boundaries between government and industry officials in major supply countries has probably contributed to this. However, this practice is changing and will likely continue as:
   • Easily accessible supplies are running out.
   • Governments no longer have the funds to do this.
   • Some governments are beginning to change their behaviour as a result of international pressure.
   • The globalisation of the industry is narrowing world wide regional raw material prices.
   • Costs of production are increasing, especially if the costs of land and plantations are accounted for, and/or the costs of management are accounted for, e.g. in British Columbia where log costs have doubled since 1987, and increased by 50% since 1993.

2.3.5 Woodchip Demand

Although wood supply issues have impacted on international solid wood demand and price trends for at least five years, it is unlikely that pulpwood fibre supply has had any global impact until 1995. The industry is witnessing the first signs of what is likely to become a major chronic factor in the industry for the next 10-20 years, and possibly for a much longer period.

The Australian woodchip export trade has been the only sustained, large scale export industry which has developed in Australia to date. The demand for Australian chip remained strong in the early 1990's, in spite of:

• The announcement by the Federal Government that woodchip exports would be phased out by the year 2000. This announcement required the Japanese industry to seek supply diversification in Chile, the United States South, South Africa, China and elsewhere.

• The international industry experiencing its worst recession for over 50 years.

• Major expansion in recycled paper usage reducing virgin fibre demand expansion.

Even as the industry eased off the bottom of the recession in 1994, Australian hardwood chip imports to Japan increased by 10% to 4.6 million cubic metres. Demand in 1995 could be 6.0 million cubic metres or higher, if fibre is available. Much of the current Japanese import volume is from likely unsustainable natural forests (unlike the Australian supply). For instance, more than two million tonnes of (we believe unsustainable) native forest chips were imported from Chile in 1994. New projects are under international environmental attack, with government restrictions already being imposed.

Japanese imports of hardwood chips from the United States totalled 4.7 million cubic metres from the US South and the Pacific Northwest. Both areas are unlikely to increase supplies - the opposite is probable in the medium term.

2.3.6 Coniferous (Softwood) Wood Fibre

We believe that major international interest in Australian softwood resources for solidwood processing has been limited to date by legislative and State Government and industry policy restrictions on the export of sawlogs. Major softwood sawlog trade has developed from the United States, Chile, New Zealand, and more recently from Brazil, South Africa and Finland. We make no judgement about this position in this review, although note that Finland, which has one of the most sophisticated (native) softwood forest processing industries in the world initiated a large (300,000 cubic metre) log export trade to Japan in 1994 as a prelude to developing major processed product exports in future.

While softwood sawlog exports may accelerate international interest in Australian softwood solidwood products, it is expected that in any event growing international involvement in the industry will develop in the Australian softwood resource in the next 5-10 years, as a substitute for Asian hardwoods and for North American softwoods, and in the medium term to meet an increased wood demand in Pacific Asia.

We have already illustrated the rapid increase in North Asian interest in Scandinavian wood during the last two years - this interest might have at least in part been focussed on Australia had the industry been geared up for export growth.

One important Pacific Asian trend which has only recently begun is for North Asian manufacturers to move their processing plants offshore to undertake processing close to the resource. Major hardwood solidwood processing facilities are owned by Japanese and Korean interests in South East Asian countries. Since 1991 a number of Japanese companies have developed processing facilities for softwoods in New Zealand and Chile. In New Zealand, for instance the Juken Nissho company of Japan has been the largest single contributor to the expansion of solidwood processing capacity in the last four years. With most of the output from these plants destined for the Japanese "domestic market" it is wrong to assume that the raw material they use is uncommitted and therefore able to be counted in the New Zealand surplus volume equation.

A similar trend is likely to develop in Australia, with Pacific Asian companies constructing facilities in Australia to service the processed wood demand back in their own domestic markets. This trend will accelerate as increased supplies are made available, and importantly as a more free market domestic trade in softwood raw material develops. Thus significant quantities of "surplus" softwood which wood supply demand experts have previously assumed will be available to replace Australian hardwood products, is indeed likely destined for overseas markets.

The recent acceleration in the international demand for Australian softwood woodchips is perhaps a graphic illustration of the changing wood fibre supply demand balance in Pacific Asia.

The international demand for hardwood chips has actually been growing faster than for softwood chips in recent years, reflecting industry trends to a higher hardwood wood fibre furnish. However, softwood chip demand remains huge in domestic Australian terms - over 15 million cubic metres per year in Japan alone.

Alternative sources for softwood chips, particularly from North America have been rapidly diminishing. As a result international (to date Japanese) demand for Australian softwood chip has been increasing. The trade from Australia only commenced in the mid 1980's and had grown to 1.1 million green tonnes in 1994.

The international supply and demand of softwood chips has been finely balanced, with only relatively minor changes in supply or demand required to radically alter a surplus/shortage position. Such a change has occurred in 1995 as increased pulp demand and production, coupled with reducing supplies from North America has outstripped the existing capacity of the Australian industry to supply. Exports from Australia to Japan in 1995 are likely to be at least 1.6 million tonnes, an increase of more than 40% compared with 1994. Australia has now become a major supplier.

An increasing number of countries are likely to be importing softwood (and hardwood) chips in future. The North American supply situation has, for example forced United States companies to consider sourcing woodchips from foreign forest resources in 1995. A major United States paper company, Georgia Pacific has recently signed a five year contract with a Chilean supplier to import almost 200,000 tonnes of softwood chips per year. A company spokesman is reported as saying "Historically pulpmills didn't have to go 25 miles from the mill for fiber. Now that the supply of fiber has dwindled, it's become worldwide." Such a suggestion would have been ridiculed only three years ago.

The next stage in the international interest in softwood pulpwood in Australia has already commenced with the Malaysian company Dominance planning to build a medium density fibreboard plant in Victoria. A number of Asian, American and European companies are actively investigating future processing possibilities, and a number of these bid on recent long term pulpwood sales offered by a State forestry agency. This trend is most likely to accelerate in the late 1990's and past the year 2000.

International interest in the Australian softwood resource has been relatively limited to date compared with the experience of the New Zealand, Chilean and Brazilian industries. A factor in this has been the structure of the sector with limited opportunities to secure uncommitted resources and the import substitution philosophy generally adopted by the industry. These limitations are likely to reduce in future. Australian domestic suppliers are likely to be increasingly in competition with international industry players. The very recent "discovery" of the Australian softwood pulpwood resource is likely to be mirrored by the solidwood resource before the end of the 1990's.

2.3.7 Summary

Technological innovations and market changes will likely provide a significant opportunity to utilise Australian native forest hardwoods to manufacture a wide variety of domestic and export products. The extent that this occurs will largely depend on State, and importantly, Federal Government support for sustained wood supply security mechanisms.

International demand for pulp continues to rise while the total production of hardwood log production is expected to remain relatively stable in the long term (Jaakko Poyry). The trend to higher recycled fibre content will abate for technical reasons during the next few years, as recovered fibre reaches about 40% of the furnish internationally (it is about 54% in Japan, which likely will not increase, even in that very regimented society). In addition there have been recent reports from the United States of a backlash against recycling from the public and municipalities as both groups realise that virgin fibre is actually a renewable resource, and the cost of collecting paper and producing recycled paper is high. Global pulp consumption in 1993 exceeded 160 million tonnes, with FAO predicting consumption in 2010 increasing to 283 million tonnes.

Recent Australian reports on future wood supply demand balances seem to over-estimate the ability of hardwood plantation forests to meet future international demand for wood fibre. While plantation hardwoods may provide more consistent fibre qualities than native forests, the international industry (both pulp and reconstituted panels), is unlikely to have the luxury of sourcing fibre from plantation forests only for the next 20-30 years at least, and probably much longer.

Wood demands by a global population of 10-11 million people, including billions of people with a likely per capita income equal or greater than that of Australia, is understandably difficult to fully predict, or even comprehend. It is difficult to envisage plantation and other fibre sources replacing native forest supplies.

Australia's hardwood plantation forests will be able to contribute perhaps 2-3 million cubic metres of wood per annum after the turn of the century, which will be a welcome but extremely modest contribution to a global demand likely to exceed 300 million cubic metres by 2015.

The Future Management of Australia Native Forests: Part 3
The Competitiveness of the Australian Forest Industry

Large scale international investment in the global forestry and forest products industries is a relatively new phenomena. It has largely mirrored the transformation of the industries from being regional domestic, to being regional international to being increasingly global in nature; from a raw material supply, a processing and from a market point of view.

As a result of these changes an increasing number of forestry companies have expanded their investment horizons from their home bases.

Since the Second World War, the source of international investment interest, at least in Pacific Asia has generally been initiated as a result of concerns about raw material supplies. Thus in the 1960's and 1970's, North Asian countries began organising the import of logs and woodchips. Often these companies invested modestly in handling and distribution facilities in the supply countries. This occurred in the Australian native forest woodchip industry.

As concessions in the native forests of South East Asia were opened up in the 1970's and 1980's, initial investment in log export infrastructure, and later in processing facilities followed - mainly from North Asian companies. Processing investment was invested largely as a result of employment concerns forcing governments to restrict the export of logs (it has been estimated that some 14 million people were recently employed in, or reliant on the Indonesian forest industry). We believe these restrictions were also justified as a means to develop a sustainable forest harvest policy - erroneously as it has turned out.

During the 1980's and particularly during the early-mid 1990's, an expanding number of overseas forest products processing and distribution/marketing companies have begun to seek overseas investment opportunities.

These now involve companies from not only Japan, which largely initiated the trend, but from the United States, Canada, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, China and a number of European companies, and recently South Africa, with one company becoming a major paper producer in Europe. It is expected that South American companies will increasingly become involved in offshore investments, both in their own and in other continents. Additional investment from new Asian countries is likely.

The companies involved have expanded in representation to cover not only the huge Japanese Trading companies or "zaibatsu" which initiated overseas investment, but now encompasses large multi-national corporations such as Shell, International Paper and Fletcher Challenge, large private companies with extensive holdings in various countries and medium sized family companies or trusts.

A new source of funds for overseas investment in the forestry sector in the 1990's is the huge (multi-trillion dollar) United States pension fund and insurance fund markets which now own significant investments in New Zealand and Chile, generally in conjunction with forestry companies.

The range of investment interest has expanded from largely raw material logs and woodchips, to encompass land and forest holdings, processing facilities including sawn timber, plywood, laminated solidwood products, medium density fibreboard, oriented strandboard, pulp and paper-making; and marketing and distribution companies servicing all of these products.

It is important to note however that the original demand for raw material remains particularly strong. This trend has been very rewarding for those companies that have chosen to continue to meet this demand.

With the exception of relatively modest investment in the woodchip industry, and some investment by New Zealand companies, much of this investment development had by-passed Australia until 1994/5. Investment funds had largely been directed to countries with inexpensive raw material, with governments which actively promoted international investment in the forest industry, and which signalled to the investment community that they considered the forestry sector to be important to their economies.

Up to 1992, resource sustainability was not necessarily a major consideration from either a processing or marketing point of view, especially in South East Asia.

Much of this investment has been very successful, but there have been many instances where overseas investment has been questionable to date due to political and commercial instability (for instance Venezuela), and environmental problems in both native forests (for instance Chile) and even in plantation forests (for instance Costa Rica).

Future international investment direction, however, is more likely to favourably consider a number of aspects of the Australian industry than has previously been the case.

The sustainability of both the hardwood and softwood harvesting sectors in Australia will likely play an increasing role in investment decisions. A number of international investors experienced in add value native forest wood processing, and in the international marketing of these products are likely going to need to re-locate to regions which can maintain sustainable supplies before the year 2000 and beyond.

Australia has one of the most stable political systems of any forest investment location. Sovereign risk is a major factor - consider the risks of a number of North American and Asian investors who are currently attempting to develop investments in Eastern Russia in the 1990's, with potential alternative investment opportunities in Australia if the industry and political climate is refined to be a little more "user friendly". The early 1990's euphoria of investing in high risk-high return Latin American countries is likely to be wearing a little thin in the mid-1990's.

While the Australian industry may consider that the resources are far from international markets, in relative terms they are not. Shipping distances to even North Asian (Japanese/Korean) markets at 4,000-5,000 nautical miles are similar to those from the West Coast of North America, and are much closer, for instance than from South Africa at approximately 7,500 nautical miles, from Chile at approximately 9,500 nautical miles and from Brazil at more than 10,000 nautical miles. Australia would have an even more significant competitive advantage in shipping to mid-south Asian countries.

Even today, the Australian forest industry sector exhibits a number of positive attributes to international investors, and is likely to increasingly do so relative to investment alternatives. The recent major investment in Australia by Carter Holt Harvey (now majority owned by the world's largest forest products company, International Paper) in the softwood sector is a sign of this trend.

Further micro-economic reforms, and a focussed, committed government/industry policy supporting the important criteria favoured by investors (for example sustained raw material availability, minimising restrictions on market options) would likely accelerate interest in international investment in resources, processing and product development in both the native forest and plantation segments of the sector.

It should be noted that domestic Australian industries are increasingly expanding their international horizons. For instance, James Hardie Industries is one of only nine companies from four countries to be awarded major house-building contracts in the Kobe rebuilding project.

4.0 Australian Native Forest Management

In the largest single hardwood forest region, the US South, which is producing 115 million cubic metres of hardwood logs per year - more than 11 times the total current Australian hardwood harvest, there is effectively no management control. It is said that the rotation age of forests in the region tends to be "the time between the reading of two wills".

In our experience, and personal knowledge gained from visiting forests and forest agencies in some 20 countries around the world, it appears clear that the Australian State governments are, on average managing their native hardwood forests to sustain a wide range of wood fibre, flora, fauna and water assets better than any other governments or organisations.

Many Australian States have legislated to limit harvesting to a sustainable basis. While past management excesses are acknowledged, and existing management practices can always be refined, relative to most if not all native forest hardwood management practices globally, current Australian practices are likely setting an international benchmark of excellence. Such benchmarks will become increasingly important in future as countries grapple with trying to establish the allocation of forest land and resources amongst competing interests.

It is not surprising that Australia has developed and refined its technical expertise in native forest management - it has been actively managing its forests for longer than most countries. It has developed a sound structure within most if not all State government agencies to sustainably manage native hardwood forests. It is unlikely that any other country will be able to effectively and efficiently undertake that role, at least this century, and probably well into the next.

The Australian Federal government is internationally recognised as taking a responsible leadership role in many difficult international issues, e.g. peace keeping, international fishing rights and Antarctica protection. It seems surprising for the government to be so easily capitulating to single issue minority interests by supporting, indeed directing, an apparent major reduction in harvesting from native forests just at a time when international leadership is required to set standards of excellence which can be adopted by other countries leading up to the year 2000 and beyond.

We believe that a major independent review of comparative sustainable native forest management regimes throughout the world, and particularly in Pacific Asia would confirm our conclusions, and suggest that a comprehensive scientific study could well form part of the review process.

If the Commonwealth Government are advocating the retention of at least 60% and up to 90% of "old growth" forests, and 90% of "high quality wilderness" in addition to existing World Heritage reserves, National Parks and other statutory and non statutory reserves, then they are in danger of eliminating a major component of what is an important industry to Australia, and which provides an existing and improving international benchmark in the management of global native hardwood forests.

A major forest industry consulting firm has recently stated that "the great fibre scramble seems to be underway", and in the same review has recommended that organisations that currently own or manage forest resources should not concede wood fibre control in the 1990's.

The current Commonwealth Government approach seems to be supporting a process which will indeed concede effective control of much of Australia's native forests in the future, at least from the viewpoint of balanced sustainable management for wood products and other assets.

We believe that Commonwealth Government politicians and officials (and indeed the Australian public) are presently focussing only on a narrow set of criteria which they are using to judge the debate on future Australian native forest management.

Viewed from a global forestry perspective, these criteria are far too restrictive.

As a result of past decisions, and the development and implementation of professional management practices, the Australian native forest sector is in a superb position to contribute to the future wood demands of an expanded Pacific Asian community on a long term sustainable basis. We believe this can be achieved while maintaining, and further refining the benchmark standard of excellence in native forest management techniques.

The importance and value of the ability to manage native forests will become much more obvious towards the year 2000 when international forest sustainability protocols, such as the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) protocol come into force. Only then will the true state of many of the world's native forests be exposed and the true value of Australia's native forest sustainable management systems will become apparent.

It would be a great pity if the decision-makers in the debate did not consider the wider international perspective, and the opportunities available to maximise the value to all Australians of the internationally important Australian native forest resource.

References