16/06/2026
Native forestry bans based on misinformation
Four eminent scientists say the bans on native forestry in Victoria and Western Australia were based on a flawed interpretation of science.
We've become used to the word ‘contested’ being thrown around when it comes to the social licence for forestry in Australia. But, as an article in this month’s Australian Forestry journal outlines, a better word might be ‘misinformed’.
The four authors, who include three former CSIRO specialists, have looked at the arguments used against native timber forestry in Australia and concluded the published evidence does not support many of the claims.
In the abstract of the article, ‘Australia’s native forests can be sustainably managed for wood production together with other important forest values’, the authors write: “We reviewed the criticisms and assertions commonly made against native forestry using relevant science, the long-term practical experience of forest managers and field outcomes.
“These assertions converge to promote the view that all timber harvesting causes severe and irreversible damage to forests. We conclude that these adverse criticisms are based on poor evidence and lack a scientific basis. Evidence shows the contrary. Sustainable timber harvesting does not lead to deforestation or forest degradation and that small spatially dispersed harvested areas are, in general, consistently regenerated to healthy forests with a low threat to biodiversity, including to iconic species such as the koala.”
The authors, R.J. Raison, E.K.S. Nambiara, G.A. Kilea and L.J. Bren, focus their work on the 6.3 million ha of public forests managed for multiple values including wood production. These, they write, have been the target of “well-organised anti-forestry activism by a range of groups, which advocates that all native forests should be left untouched.”
Noting that forest industries are core parts of many rural communities, the authors flag the serious consequences of misinformed protest, even when well intentioned, saying: “These allegations have influenced and sometimes shaped views of the public and politicians, leading to pressures which have affected policies. Consequently, the management of native forests now is at a crossroads.”
Regular readers of Enews will be familiar with the pattern: an environmental group grabs headlines in the mainstream papers, TV and social media with a dramatic story of forest destruction, only for the actual experts to come along weeks or months later with the detailed analysis of why the headline-grabbing alarm fails to match up with the facts. Last week’s issue (Enews #901), for example, included findings from the Contested Evidence About Timber Harvesting and Bushfire Risk in Australian Landscapes report showing that one single type of forest and management system was erroneously generalised across the continent in public claims of fire risk in managed forest.
The problem is, of course, that errors or intentional lies hit faster and therefore harder than fact checks.
Opening with a review of multiple papers in which expert forest scientists and managers have interrogated what they considered to be questionable science and biased use of information to advocate anti-forestry positions, the authors then review the major criticisms and claims made against native forestry and weigh the evidence for each.
For the assertion that “Harvesting results in deforestation or forest degradation”, the authors detail the careful planning of harvesting operations including Australia’s minuscule proportion of clearfelling to selective harvesting, and that legislated codes of practice mandate regeneration of harvested coupes.
Where regeneration has failed to occur, the authors find natural causes (generally bushfire, drought and climate change) and note forest management intervention for repair.
“In Australia,” they note, “forest loss occurs because of clearing for farming or development of infrastructure, and recurring wildfires, but not from timber harvests (ABARES 2023c).”
They also note that almost all old growth forests around the nation are in conservation stands, save for a tiny percentage devoted to specialist timbers for arts and crafts and boat building, and that effectively everything that is currently harvested is regrowth from previously harvested forests.
The claim that “Harvesting native forests threatens biodiversity, especially endangered fauna” is similarly debunked. The authors quote the State of the Environment Australia 2021 report’s findings that primary threats being come land clearing for farming, urban development, feral pests and high-intensity wildfires.
This was the area where some of the most extraordinary claims have been made by activists. As the authors write: “Ward et al. (2024) assumed that if forests are harvested there will be negative impacts on threatened fauna. However, that analysis for northern NSW did not provide any map showing actual forest degradation after harvesting; they simply inferred major threats to fauna wherever there was an overlap between modelled species distributions and harvested areas. Further, no account was taken of the facts that only small areas of forest are harvested annually, that forests regrow, habitat is continually changing over time, and that harvesting practices are modified specifically to avoid or minimise any such impacts.”
The authors note claims that forestry is pushing koalas towards extinction in NSW and in rebuttal quote Dr Brad Law’s work monitoring koala populations at 224 sites over seven years, which “concluded that well-regulated timber harvesting or low-severity fire did not reduce koala occupancy rates, and harvesting prescriptions ‘provided sufficient habitat for koalas to maintain their density, both immediately after selective harvesting and within 5–10 years after heavy harvesting’.”
While we lack the space to review every section of the paper in detail, other myths tackled include Both harvesting and fuel reduction burning increase forest flammability and risk of wildfire; Harvesting causes large emissions of carbon, so forests are better managed without harvesting as carbon stores and for creation of carbon credits; Harvesting is a threat to water yields and quality; Expanding plantations can quickly and easily replace the wood sourced from native forests; and Planning, regulation, monitoring and enforcement processes are ineffective.
As the authors say, “Environmental and political activism based on misinformation is hampering development of rational policies for sustainable management of native forests for providing multiple benefits to the nation and future generations.”
They conclude there is a strong evidence-based case for reconsidering native forestry bans currently in place in Victoria and Western Australia and proposed in other states.
To read the full paper, you can download a copy via ResearchGate or click here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/udeiimzwk2jyban3y8ynu/Australia-s-native-forests-can-be-sustainably-managed-for-wood-production-together-with-other-important-forest-values.-Raison-Nambiar-Kile-and-Bren.-May-2026..pdf?rlkey=jokeryyy8dyroevfg7hdt3sff&dl=0
Source: Timber & Forestry Enews https://www.timberandforestryenews.com/issue-902/
