The Rubicon Forest Protection Group (RFPG) seeks feedback from members and friends regarding draft policy principles for the ‘modernisation’ of the Victorian regional forest agreements (RFAs). Please write to info@rubiconforest.org.

In March 2018 the State and Commonwealth Governments announced that Victoria’s existing Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) are to continue until March 2020 when they will be replaced by new ‘modernised’ RFAs.

RFPG was sceptical at the time (see RFPG comment at the time) but the promised consultation[1] around the new ‘modernised’ RFAs provides an opportunity to progress the reform of the regulatory framework governing Victoria’s ash forests.

Background

Since its inception in 2015, the Rubicon Forest Protection Group has been striving on various fronts to protect the unique environment of the Rubicon State Forest from the onslaught of widespread clearfell logging that risk destroying the multitude of natural and social values of this extraordinarily diverse forest atop the ancient Cerberean plateau.

The inadequacies of Victoria’s forest management and planning system was highlighted in a 2013 report by the Victorian Auditor-General whose conclusions were that:

the environmental, social and economic sustainability of timber resource management could be enhanced by improving the way DEPI [DELWP] protects forest values, documents decisions affecting where harvesting can occur, and manages its backlog of forest regeneration from before 2004. VicForests can also improve its process for estimating sustainable harvest levels.

DEPI [DELWP] has not had the measures, monitoring and data to show what its activities are achieving, or how forest health and the condition of other forest values are faring over time.

In June 2018, the Auditor-General issued a follow-up report which amplifies these concerns and points to inaction by State Government departments in addressing the issues previously raised (RFPG comment here). In the interim VicForests sought – and failed – to gain basic accreditation under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for its forest management practices. The FSC is the world’s leading independent accreditor of sustainable forest management. The reasons why VicForests’ accreditation bid failed are yet to be revealed, but many forest conservation groups, including RFPG, highlighted multiple failings by VicForests across almost all assessment criteria.

The draft proposals for regulatory reform could go some way to tempering the ecological and social damage being wrought by current logging practices in eastern Victoria. Input welcome.