QUEENSLAND farmers are calling on the Palaszczuk government to ensure existing vegetation thinning codes do not become unworkable, and in some bio-regions, illegal.
The rearguard action comes as the Palaszczuk government presses on with plans to overhaul self-assessible codes despite the defeat of its controversial vegetation management laws in parliament on August 18. (Click here for the story.)
Richard Bucknell from AgForce’s vegetation management committee said thinning was a small, but critically important on-farm activity.
“Thinning totals are actually so small because it is difficult work, expensive and has a low return on investment,” Mr Bucknell said.
“As expressed by other AgForce members, many machinery operators loath thinning in some bioregions and regard it as a WHS issue with sticks, falling branches, flying spears from split timber and broken windows on machines a common occurrence.
“Unfortunately, green groups are generating media coverage and based on misleading information.”
Draft revisions of the of the self-assessable codes are on the DNRM website.
Mr Bucknell said the draft Self-Assessable-Code (SAC) put forward by the Palaszczuk government was very much a mix of the current SAC and the mostly unworkable Regional Vegetation Management Code.
”The better way forward is to retain, and where applicable, improve the current SACs rather than revert back to the failed the old Regional Vegetation Management Code.”
Mr Bucknell said the proposition that thinning could not occur below a threshold of 50 per cent of ground cover of low shrubs, or immature trees beyond the 5m no-thinning area around the trunks of any mature tree, habitat tree or tall immature trees was nonsense.
“Clearly, the benchmarks of bio-condition, upon which thresholds for thinning should be based, are recent assessments that do not reflect long-term regional ecosystem floristic stability or trends at a landscape scale,” Mr Bucknell said.
“The proposed tree-by-tree approach is not conducive to effective landscape scale management of vegetation and ecosystem health.
“Leaving a 5m buffer around mature, habitat or tall immature trees is counterproductive for the success, health and longevity of the larger trees, due to the competition from suckers, and leads to their ultimate demise. Where this 5m buffer is a practice in existing SACs it should be deleted.”
Mr Bucknell said AgForce has recommended that simple code outcomes were required from DNRM and the methodology was made the responsibility of the landholder.
In its submission to government, AgForce has suggested the current tree-by-tree approach may be replaced by landscape scale vegetation management that takes into account broader ecological processes.
“A landscape approach requires a paradigm shift by all who are involved in the vegetation management debate,” Mr Bucknell said.
“Fire should not be the only maintenance option on previously thinned country. Maintaining pre-thinned country with a re-thinning operation should be permitted without restriction of 10pc of the lot size. Thinning can be a carbon sequestering activity if fire is minimised.”
Mr Bucknell said the SACs appeared to have been reviewed by “non-practical scientists and policy operatives”, with limited engagement from regional DNRM staff.
“The decision makers need to be on the ground,” he said.
“It appears this has not happened with this Draft Thinning SAC. DNRM needs to ensure these non-practical scientists and policy operatives, WWF and QPWS on-ground with the practicalities of the code.”