Joan Lindros Geelong Environment Council    "The history of the Otways is a sorry saga of lost opportunities, for flora and fauna conservation and the protection of biodiversity, for the production of water for the 250,000 people in this region, and for social and economic development through tourism and education. The RFA (Regional Forest Agreements) document cites the following objectives: to protect environmental values in a world class reserve system to provide forest industries with the certainty required to create jobs and opportunities to ensure the whole forest estate is managed sustainably for future generations Here is one of the problems - there is no definition for sustainably managed forests, if you are talking only of trees, they can be managed sustainably for a variety of uses and ages, for saplings, for 20 year old trees, for 60-80 year old trees for a true ecosystem. I believe that the latter is not happening, and that there is no intention of it being implemented. To produce a functioning ecosystem is too difficult, too much discipline is required, and as a society we would have to have a vision for a longer period than the few years of our own lifetimes. There is evidence to suggest that an ecosystem does not start to function for at least 100 years. We know that tree hollows do not form until then, or for120 and more years for the larger bird and animal species. How then can the forest be called a functioning ecosystem if a whole suite of species are excluded by 'sustainable management' on short rotation times? The RFA material produced by NRE states that there will be a Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) looking at environmental, economic, social and heritage values of forests. Where are the draft reports, where is the inventory of existing studies, how do we know who is doing what, if anything. Where are the public meetings - not in Geelong. Congratulations to the Geelong Community Forum for convening and organising this meeting, but why aren't the State or Federal Departments doing it also? Have the environment groups been asked for their assessments of the effects on the present level of logging and woodchipping on biodiversity or on water production? The answer is no. It has been mentioned by Mr Phil Fitch, the Federal Government spokesperson, that there may be obstacles to the completion of the RFA for the western forest by the end of 1999 - perhaps conservationists are seen as obstacles. The slender information on the RFA provided by NRE also talks about the Comprehensive, Adequate, and Representative (CAR) Reserve system for the protection of biodiversity. This is to include: 15% of each forest ecosystem as existed by 1750 60% or more of existing old growth forest 90 of wilderness Habitat of threatened species I could say what a joke in relation to the Otways. How much is left; only about 300ha of forests never touched by white settlement. There are areas of old growth but these are fragmented and rapidly being reduced. There has been and is a policy of getting rid of the 'old' and 'defective' trees to promote the growth of the new forests. There trees are the habitat of many old growth forest dependent species. The Otway Forest Management Plan set the scene for the continued degradation of the forests. The process took a considerable time, involved many meetings, reports, discussions and documentation of values, always though with the aim of allocating timber resources. There were two rounds of public submissions and a much more transparent process than this RFA. Despite a huge amount of input from the conservation bodies, local, regional and statewide, the status quo was the end result, i.e., no decrease in logging allocations. There was a great opportunity to maintain the existing logging levels until early 2000, and then to reduce the quotas as the stream of pine already planted came onto the market. Jobs and benefits would have been maintained and the timber towns or companies would not have lost out. The lobbying of the timber industry and the department successfully ensured that there would not be any decrease in hardwood logging in the Otways. The OFMP identified 60,000 tonnes of woodchips to be produced annually. The bulk of the hundreds of submissions were opposed to the woodchip production, euphemistically called residual roundwood. The only good point from the process was that the level of knowledge of the Otways had increased, as had the awareness of the values. There was a strong campaign to protect the west Barham Catchment from logging, for its intrinsic values and water values for Apollo Bay. There was a moratorium on logging for 5 years, with no recognition that this area should have been set aside for a secure conservation research, together with many others. What have we seen, - soon after the finalisation of the Otway FMP, woodchipping was introduced to the Otways. Previously the GEC had campaigned vigorously against woodchipping, with 13,000 signatures being presented to Parliament, as well as a number of government reports accepting that there would be environmental effects, all of which assisted in postponing the advent of wood chipping but he long term result is devastating for the forests. What do we have now - We have the same level of saw log production, plus extensive licenses for woodchips. There are 3 woodchip ships in the Port of Geelong at the moment and how often do you travel in Latrobe Terrace without seeing at least one log truck; very infrequently! There are no flora and fauna studies of the coupes to be clearfelled prior to the start of operations, as the Otways are not 'pristine' forest and have been changed by utilisation since white settlement. We have no definition available from NRE or the Forest Division of what a saw-log driven industry really is. Is it 1% of sawlogs from any given coupe, is it 50% or what? No answer to these inquiries is not good news, and I know that OREN will give you the figures of what is actually happening. There are now significant areas of the Otways which are not economic to log for sawlogs but are viable to produce woodchips; how tragic is the destruction of the forests for short term products, like paper and packaging. As other speakers will agree, the value of the water from these forests is almost treated as a by-product. Melbourne Water research clearly showed that water production dropped considerably in young, vigorously growing forests. This research was in the Healesville catchments after the 1939 fires when the new and vigour young forests were shown to use more water than the original old growth forests. The reduction in water production was the equivalent of the quantity stored in the Thomson dam. The logging of the Otway catchments therefore must significantly reduce the quantity of water released from the forests to the storage's and also reduces the quality of the water. The GEC had lobbied for the LCC, now the ECC, to carry out a review of the land use in the Corangamite district, which includes the Otways, but was unsuccessful, with the excuse being that the reserve system would be looked at when the Forest Management Plan was reviewed, with timber production again obviously being the major priority. This review has not occurred, but the RFA process is underway, once again with little hope of an increase in reserves or any change in the protection of the catchments. The GEC has taken a pro-active course in the protection of Otway Forests in areas which we know have a huge value for flora and fauna, water production and of course, tourism. We have produced a report which has been properly researched to identify areas of the Western Otways which should not be logged, and which should be added to the reserve system. Ideally we should do similar research on the Eastern Otway forests but the availability of money is always a problem. The proposal to extend the Otway National Park wouldadd 25,000ha of significant forest and heath land to the Park system. The area is home to 39 species with a known conservation status, including the Tiger Quoll, Powerful Owl and Australian Grayling. The extension would protect more than 6000ha of significant rainforest surrounding the park and 11,500ha of old growth forest. About30% of the land covered by the proposal is considered unsuitable for timber production, being excluded by timber harvesting prescriptions. 45% of the proposed area is designated for water supply, so that with the increase in the value of the water and the increased tourism which would be expected, an economic gain and increased jobs would be expected. We trust the RFA decision makers will at least consider these proposal. Sadly, I believe that the RFA process is yet another process driven by an ideological aim to utilise all resources, of maximising profits in the shot term, and by paying lip serviced to tourism by the 'marketing' of places of beauty in a superficial manner, indicates a lack of any understanding of the intrinsic value of other species or of the complexities of the ecosystems which sustain not only the species in them, but ourselves as well. We continue on at our own peril."