Forest Practices News – June 2015 vol 12 no 3 Contents ...€¦ · James Fergusson, Ferg, as we have fondly come to know him, started with FT in 2004 as a Sales and Harvesting Supervisor

Forest Practices News – June 2015 vol 12 no 3 ISSN 1441–1288

Tasmania’s independent forest regulator administering the Forest Practices Act • Advising • Researching • Monitoring • Enforcing

Banner photograph: Ross Waining entered this image of the morning after a hazard reduction burn into the Forest Practices Photographic Competition 2015.

Forest Practices Awards 2015Contents

Forest Practices Awards:

James Fergusson: Preparation of forest practices plans 2

Gareth Tempest: Inspection and supervision of forest operations 4

TP Bennett and Sons: Conduct of forest operations 6

KF Muskett and Sons: Innovation in forest practices 8

Sarah Munks: Innovation in forest practices 10

Tony Scott: Excellence in community relations 11

Errol Lohrey: Excellence in community relations and research 12

Graham Wilkinson: Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers and Innovation in forest practices 14

CFPO reflections 16

Updates from the Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer 20

FT increases focus on stakeholder engagement 22

Forico’s Vegetation Management Agreement for the control of pine wildlings 23

Eight people and companies were recognised for their outstanding contributions to Tasmania’s forest management at the 2015 Forest Practices Awards near Hobart this June.

The awards are the initiative of the Board of the Forest Practices Authority. A sub-committee of the board assessed the nominations and selected the award winners.

Chair of the board, Gordon Duff, said the Forest Practices Authority has long recognised that there were people working in forestry in Tasmania who excel in their particular field of work.

‘This is the third time that we have run the awards to highlight some more people who are a credit to the forest practices system,’ Professor Duff said.

‘Forest practices on both public and private land need to abide by the legislated

forest practices system. The objective of this system is to achieve sustainable management with due care for the environment, taking into account social, economic and environmental outcomes. The Tasmanian forest practices system is complex and sophisticated, and is based on continual improvement and cooperation between all parties. That can only be achieved through the high standards of those who put the forest practices system into effect.’

The winners were recognised for a diverse range of skills, ranging from a forest contractor who initiated practical harvesting innovations that help protect limestone caves, to former Chief Forest Practices Officer Graham Wilkinson who has implemented policy adjustments in the forest practices system as it adapted to the last 19 years of change in community expectations and forest science.

Back row, from left: Graham Wilkinson (ex-Chief Forest Practices Officer), Errol Lohrey (FT north), Sarah Munks (Forest Practices Authority), Gareth Tempest (ex-FT north-east, now Timberlands), James Fergusson (FT north-west). Front row, from left: Kevin Muskett (contractor), Adrian and Neil Bennett (contractors)

2 June 2015 Forest Practices News vol 12 no 3

Forest Practices Awards 2015

This award is made to Planning Forest Practices Officers (FPOs). It is judged on the basis of consistency, clarity, high quality, freedom from errors and innovation or excellence in dealing with complex or challenging issues for one or more plans.

The winner was James Fergusson, Senior Forest Officer (Forest Practices) at Forestry Tasmania’s Murchison District

Ferg was nominated by Craig Butt with Peter Williams and Nigel Foss acting as referees, all of them from FT, who said in their nomination...

James Fergusson, Ferg, as we have fondly come to know him, started with FT in 2004 as a Sales and Harvesting Supervisor after having worked in harvest contracting for some time. He became an FPO Inspecting, after having completed his FPO training, in 2006. He was promoted to Forest Officer (Harvesting and Sales) in 2008. His role changed in 2009 to Forest Officer (Forest Practices) and he was promoted to his current position of Senior Forest Officer (Forest Practices) in 2011. Ferg’s FPO Warrant was upgraded to planning in 2012 and his hands-on experience at the various levels of forest operation planning and supervision has been key to his effectiveness in this role.

Operational supervisors know better

than trying to put anything past Ferg. His experience and unwavering commitment to achieving the best Forest Practices outcomes have not allowed him to ignore even small failings of process or practice. He believes in the self regulating nature of the forest practices system and is therefore never prepared to compromise on standards when inspecting operations. Where practice or processes have let us down Ferg has been quick to not only identify the problem, but remedy and report on it as well. His unwavering approach to forest practices has aided Murchison District in maintaining a consistently high standard of planning and operational performance over a number of years. This can be attested to by the consistently high results achieved by the district in annual FPA audits.

Ferg completes a signif icant number of forest practices plans (FPPs) per year which are all to a high standard. More importantly Ferg’s role as mentor to other FPP preparers has in no small way inf luenced the standard of FPPs being delivered across the district as well. As gate keeper of Murchison District’s FPP preparation process he has maintained a level of rigour so as to ensure plans can be relied on to be of the highest standard, but yet practical in application.

I therefore have no reservations in nominating James (Ferg) Fergusson for the Forest

Practices Award for Preparation of Forest Practices Plans.

Forest Practices News caught up with Ferg to find out what the award meant to him...

How do you feel about getting this award?

I really appreciate this award, but I think it’s a result of good systems rather than me. The forest practices system and the internal systems in Forestry Tasmania (FT) are well developed. Also my work is really a result of a team effort, both within FT and also between FT and the FPA. But it’s a big honour – there are a lot of people preparing FPPs so to be picked out is big.

I got a real fright when I got the letter telling me about the award, because my first reaction was that it was a ‘please explain’ letter from the FPA!

How did you get to be preparing FPPs?

When I first started as a tree faller in 1984 my boss told me that we were in it to make a living but also to set it up for kids in the future, which was a great introduction to forestry. I worked in the east and south of the state as a tree faller for 12 years and then as a bush boss for about five years. I had lots of support from FT supervisors in that role, like Erik Martin, Trevor Seears and Terry Ware. The first time that I worked with Terry he asked me if I knew what a section notice was [issued for breaches of the Forest Practices Code] and when I said that I didn’t he said that I might be alright as I obviously hadn’t been issued with one!

In 2004 I moved up to the north-west to work with FT where I started developing harvesting plans. I had great training from the FT planners, like Dean Tuson, Ian Brumby, Tim Ashlin and Emma Barker.

I also had training on special values from the FPA, such as biodiversity, cultural heritage and soil and water. All the FPA specialists are so passionate about what they do that some of that rubs off. If I have any questions I can just ring them up and even if the question is stupid I’m not treated that way. There are no big egos there, just mutual respect.

Ferg accepting his award from Minister for Resources Paul Harriss at the award ceremony.

James Fergusson: Preparation of forest practices plans

3June 2015 Forest Practices News vol 12 no 3

What is involved in your job?

We have a group of five staff from various sections in FT and two consultants working on preparing FPPs. I prepare FPPs, I train others to prepare FPPs and I coordinate any issues about special values in the coupe. If there is anything that I can’t answer, then I contact the FPA specialists. The forest practices system has developed so that we can manage most values without continually contacting the specialists. The Agreed procedures play a big role in this – these are generic endorsed management prescriptions for threatened species that have been agreed upon between the FPA and DPIPWE. These prescriptions normally work well, so we only need to notify the FPA specialists for unusual species or on the rare occasions where we can’t make the prescriptions work.

What is involved in the FPP preparation process?

Once the special values have been identified and worked into prescriptions, we have a two-stage peer-review process to ensure that the FPP is up to standard.

The first stage is where the peer-review group meet with the FPP preparer and look at all the issues in the coupe. Each member of the group brings specific expertise: I consider the special values planning; Bob Knox looks at the fire management; Mitch Roberts assesses sales; Heath Ralston checks the native forest regeneration; and Jodi Cartwright deals with the roading. The preparer then sends off any necessary notifications to the FPA and then the preparer draws up the FPP.

The second stage is where we all individually review the FPP and go through the checklist to double check everything. It’s much easier to fix a bit of paper at this stage than to fix a major breach.

Can you give me an example of how this checklist works?

We developed the checklist because of a problem that we had where two prescriptions in the same FPP were contradictory. The earth sciences prescription for managing the class 4 stream was a 10 m machinery exclusion zone, but the prescription to manage for giant freshwater crayfish in the same class 4 stream was a 10 m streamside reserve. Now the checklist asks specifically what are the soil and water requirements and do these conflict with the biodiversity requirements.

What do you see as the strengths in the forest practices system?

We can’t afford to lose the system that we have as the alternatives just don’t bear thinking about and I think that it is respected by industry and the general public. Even during the Tasmanian Forests Agreement process there was never a call to get rid of the forest practices system.

The system is as straightforward as possible so we can normally complete the FPP in three to four months, compared to other states where it can take three to four years to prepare a plan. This is helped by the FPA being a one-stop-shop on the occasions where we have to notify the specialists. The FPA can handle most issues and if they can’t, they manage the consultation with other departments.

Self-reporting is also something that makes the system work. We report any problems and the system encourages learning from mistakes – it is a guiding process and the big stick only comes out when necessary. I’ve been involved with the FPA’s Compliance Program’s assessment of FPPs. That has taught me that sometimes what you write isn’t necessarily what people read as it can be interpreted differently to what you meant. That has made me write a lot more clearly to avoid problems.

Are there any improvements that you would like to see made to the forest practices system?

The system works well, but perhaps both government and industry should be promoting the system more. We tend to react to things that are fired at us, but it would be better if we were more pro-active in educating people about what we do. I sometimes have to explain our planning process to coupe neighbours who are initially antagonistic until they know how the system works and what the outcomes will be. Most people are surprised at how complex the system is. The unknown is scary for people. However, there are also people who see consultation as an adversarial process, with a winner and a loser, rather than a process of compromise and reaching consensus.

How do you see the forest practices system developing in the future?

I have phenomenal respect for the previous Chief Forest Practices Officer Graham Wilkinson. He has long been the kingpin in the system and will be a big loss. He has a very good understanding of where the industry has got to go to and he has led with wisdom and forethought. I think that the first act of the new CFPO should be to refuse Graham permission to move on! I’m developing respect for Acting CFPO Angus MacNeil. What we need in the CFPO is an understanding of the industry and the vision to pick up trends and react to them in a timely manner coupled with a deep understanding of the Act and its implications.

Ferg in action in the forest Ferg making a point on an FPA field day


James Fergusson: Preparation of forest practices plans

4 Forest Practices News vol 12 no 3 June 2015


The other nomination in this category was for Toni Ogilvie who works as a Forest Officer (Planning) in FT’s Smithton office alongside James Fergusson. Toni has worked with FT for 11 years, starting off in inventory in 2004.

Toni was nominated by the FPA’s Dydee Mann and the referees were the FPA’s Peter McIntosh, Mick Schofield, and Jason Wiersma, as well as James Fergusson from FT.

Her nomination said…

Toni has consistently shown good identif ication skills in f lora and fauna, and has discovered some quite signif icant sites.

The maps that Toni submits as part of her FPP preparation are detailed, clear and to a scale relevant to the operation. The biodiversity evaluations that Toni compiles

along with these maps are of a high quality and are always well completed. Toni has also gone above and beyond the expectations of her role in doing extra background research into biodiversity issues in the area of her coupes. The advice requests that accompany these maps and notif ications are similarly clear and concise.

We should add that Toni has also worked with the NW team to produce consistently high standard plans covering earth sciences issues, a stand-out coupe being a large and complex coupe in karst terrain.

The remarkable thing about Toni is that she is not yet an FPO, let alone an FPO (Planning). Although she is not strictly eligible for the award we were keen to acknowledge her excellent work and so she received a commendation. She is currently doing the FPO Training Course.

Toni Ogilvie: Preparation of forest practices plans – special commendationForest Practices News asked Toni for her thoughts on getting the commendation and she said...

I love working in the bush and feel lucky to be doing the things I do in my job. You are never too old to learn new things and I have so much more to learn in my planning role at FT. I am just getting started!

The planning tools we have available for FPP preparation, in particular Lidar, are invaluable, but nothing can replace a good ground recce to get a feel for a coupe. This is my favourite part of FPP preparation.

In receiving this special mention I would like to give a huge thanks to James Fergusson (who constantly helps me), Emma Barker and FT for the opportunities they have given me.

This award applies to Inspecting FPOs and field supervisors. It is judged for special diligence in the inspection and management

of forest practices issues in the forest, resulting in the achievement of excellent outcomes.

The winner was Gareth Tempest who currently works as a Planning Forester with Timberlands.

Gareth was nominated by Peter Williams with Adrian Walls and Peter Bird acting as referees, all from FT. Gareth was primarily nominated for his work at FT on monitoring the wedge-tailed eagle (WTE) nest program. His nomination said…

Gareth has been the lead member in co-ordinating the WTE nest searching program in Bass District for the past f ive years.

This is a large program with over 400 nests in the district, balancing the harvesting and roading activities around the breeding season and co-ordinating the nest search and activity assessment programs. Gareth has always been diligent in his work and conducted himself to a high standard. This has been evident in the monthly harvest scheduling meetings and through his conduct with the FPA specialists. He has assisted the FPA in WTE research, which has contributed to this species management.

Gareth Tempest: Inspection and supervision of forest operations

Gareth at the award ceremony

Gareth has to use the latest technology, predictive mapping and monitor the weather to assist with planning the annual programme. He co-ordinates personnel to assist in the search and activity programs within the required timelines. This involves three staff for up to eight hours a day in a helicopter searching suitable habitat for nests. Up to six nests could be found in a day. This information is sent to the FPA, and through liaison, a reservation boundary is designed. Gareth then ensures all systems are updated and company workgroups are notif ied on any new WTE restrictions.

With upwards of 400 nests on PTPZL in the North East, this impacts on 40% of operations during the breeding season, which Gareth diligently co-ordinates. Gareth and his team on average have been finding eight to ten new nests each year since 2009, with 16 new nests recorded in 2013.

Gareth’s attention to detail has ensured a WTE nest has not been found during harvesting operation or nest breeding season, nor have restrictions been breached in the NE since this date. Gareth’s work in this area is well respected amongst his peers and is a constant reference point of knowledge within the district.



Graham Wilkinson, Tim Leaman and Mark Wapstra remember old times

Mark Leech and John Hickey catch up

Graham and Ann Wilkinson

Anne Chuter and baby Isabelle, Adrienne Liddell and Sheryl Wolfe

Angus MacNeil and Graham Wilkinson share CFPO experiences

Board member Meredith Roodenrys entertains Ken Felton and John Hickey

The awards were framed in myrtle, Huon pine, blackwood and sassafras

Award winners Sarah Munks and Errol Lohrey

Andrew Plank and Mick Schofield

Fred Duncan explaining the hidden meanings in Graham’s cartoon (see page 19)

The awards ceremony



This award applies to both contractors and business units and is judged on the basis of consistently good performance in regard to forest practices.

The winner was TP Bennett and Sons.

They were nominated by Matt Burch and the referees were Russell Rigby and Jono Rudd, all from FT.

The nomination said…

TP Bennett & Sons are a second generation family logging business in the Huon Valley. They have been contracted to Forestry Tasmania since 2008 and prior to this they worked for Gunns for many years. They initially operated one Madill cable logging crew, and have added a second cable crew in the last 18 months. They have also operated a small ground based crew as required. They are an important contributor to FT meeting sawmill and peeler customer requirements, and our need to access resource in steep areas.

Since commencing as an FT harvest and haulage contractor Bennetts have not had a signif icant environmental breach on any

TP Bennett and Sons: Conduct of forest operations to high operational standardsof its operations. Given the scale of these operations and the extra diff iculty of meeting special values prescriptions in steep areas, this is an outstanding achievement. Examples of good forest practices outcomes are as follows.

Coupe EP048C

This coupe was selectively, ground base harvested for special timbers in 2013–15, specif ically for the local boat building industry. It was a mixed eucalypt and minor species coupe, with a number of unusual challenges to overcome:

• Selectiveharvestofminorspeciesbeneath an overmature canopy posed a safety hazard. A detailed risk assessment was prepared, including GPS locations of all hazardous trees.

• Protectionofadjoiningstreamsidereserves, with thick understorey making visibility diff icult.

• Protectionofhighlyerodiblesoilsonavery wet site.

Coupe DN025A

This was a clearfall cable coupe harvested in 2014. The FPP required an old mill site within the harvest area be protected from logging,

In consultation with FT, the crew avoided snigging through the old mill by shovelling logs to the wire either side of the site, maintaining it intact. Also while harvesting this coupe, they identif ied an error in boundary marking, in advance of harvest, and reported it to FT. This avoided a potential boundary breach.

Coupe KD00F and AR018C

These were clearfall cable coupes harvested in the last 12 months. Both FPPs had tramline machine exclusion zones (MEZs). Crews hand felled trees from the MEZ and shovelled them to the nearest wire, rather than snigging through the MEZs. In these cases the crews willingly adapted their operation to suit the prescription, and fully met the special values requirements.

Mr Bennett catches up with the Minister for Resources Paul Harriss after the award ceremony

The Bennett brothers accepting their award at the award ceremony. From left: Gordon Duff (Chair of the FPA Board), the Minister for Resources Paul Harriss, and Adrian and Neil Bennett



Coupe AR016B

This was a recent clearfall cable coupe. The crew spotted a small pipe which they thought may have had historical signif icance, and immediately reported it to FT, who in turn reported it to the FPA. The fact such a small objectwasfound,andactedonquickly,isevidence of the crew’s responsible attitude

towards special values.

The above are typical of TP Bennett & Son’s environmental management, from the owners of the business to chokermen. Their willingness to adapt their operation to meet prescriptions, and their conscientious application of the FPP, are a credit to their standing in the industry. In particular, their precautionary approach in

advising or querying FT on any issue, however small, has contributed to their excellent environmental record.

Their performance when externally audited, by the FPA, the Australian Forestry Standard, the Australian Contractors Association and TasTAFE, has been very good.

The Bennett workers celebrating the award

TP Bennett and Sons: Conduct of forest operations to high operational standards

Course Contact Timing Duration Location Course content and cost

Biodiversity course [email protected]–26 June 2015

4 days South-eastInformation provided on request

Eagle habitat identification and management course

[email protected] 29 and 30 June 2015

1 day South and northInformation provided on request

Hybrid information day [email protected] 2015 1 dayLaunceston (to be confirmed)

Information provided on request

Masked owl habitat identification

[email protected] 2015 1 dayNorth, to be confirmed


Forest Practices Officer training course

[email protected] 2015around six months of periodic

VariousInformation provided on request

Cultural heritage course [email protected] quarter 2015

1 dayNorth, north-west south


FPA training program


This award seeks to recognise the development of new tools or methods to improve forest practices, such as the development of planning tools, innovation in equipment design, improved silvicultural techniques or the development of operational practices that provide improved environmental outcomes.

There were two winners in this category. The first winner in this category was BR and KF Muskett and Sons.

They were nominated by John Webb and Kevin Williams (Norske Skog) and the referees were Sandra Hetherington (Norske Skog) and Peter McIntosh (FPA).

The nomination said...

BR & KF Muskett and Sons is a family logging and transport business. Brian Muskett started working in the industry pulling logs with horses and bullocks. Brian grew his business and was the f irst contractor to use a skidder in southern Tasmania, the f irst to use a tree shear and feller buncher in Tasmania and a feller buncher in cable logging in Tasmania. Brian’s sons, Kevin, Geoffrey and Robert followed in the business and Brian’s daughter, Helen manages the off ice. Today, Kevin’s two sons (Matthew and Andrew) and Geoffrey’s two sons (Nicholas and Cassidy) are part of the harvesting teams as well.

The Muskett business has successfully integrated from native forest harvesting into pine plantation harvesting over the last 5 years with Norske Skog and in addition, they have a eucalypt hardwood thinning crew and transport crew working for FT Derwent. Below are a few highlights that the Muskett crews


KF Muskett and Sons: Innovation in forest practiceshave achieved over a number of years in the forest industry in Southern Tasmania.

Geoffrey’s work in the Settlement area of the Florentine Valley shows the high level of commitment to achieve good environmental outcomes and the high operational standards that Musketts strive to achieve. This highly sensitive karst area has created numerous environmental and safety challenges for Geoffrey’s harvesting crew. As no one had operated under this type of environment in a plantation setting before, practical procedures had to be developed prior to harvesting. Geoffrey actively contributed to the development of the procedures and undertook a trial with the FPA in an attempt to gauge the impact of harvesting on sinkhole development in this landscape.

Geoffrey has successfully harvested and salvaged two mature softwood plantation coupes in the Florentine Valley over the past three years. In order to gain a perspective of the challenges on site, the most recent operation contained 177 known cave and sinkholefeatureswithinoradjacenttotheFPPboundary. In addition, there were additional

prescriptions to be followed to protect and manage the extraction tracks on surface bedrock (see attachment of harvesting map).

In 2012 windthrow of trees into the Tyenna River and Marriott’s Falls track caused some concern after a large wind event. Geoffrey successfully undertook the salvage operation with excellent outcomes and no obvious erosion occurring. He has also worked closely with the FPA’s Soil and Water specialist to remove debris (under salvage prescriptions) in the Humboldt River that threatened to seriously erode the stream bank.

Kevin Muskett’s cable and shovel logging operations also show a high level of operational excellence. Highly erodible soils in the Plenty Valley have been successfully harvested and resulting feedback from the FPA specialists has been good. Kevin has successfully utilised a mixture of cable, shovel and ground based logging in the Tyenna Valley to ensure landscape and soil and water values were protected.

Fuel management on site has also been something that Musketts have taken very seriously over a number of year. In order to get

Kevin Muskett receiving the award from the Minister for Resources, Paul Harriss

The harvest around the sinkholes had to be done with great care, for safety reasons as well as to protect subsurface watercourses. Here John Webb of Norske checks sinkhole dimensions after Musketts’ mechanical harvest around the sinkholes.


The Florentine Valley contains numerous karst features (such as caves and sinkholes) requiring great care by contractors when implementing the forest practices plan.

away from the construction of physical bunds, Musketts moved to a self contained truck that could cope with any potential spillages and leaks. This reduced the impact of their operations on site and the mobility of the unit increased their operational eff iciency.

The Muskett crews take an enormous amount of pride in their work and they strive to ensure that good environmental outcomes are achieved in their coupes. The forests of the Tyenna and Plenty Valleys, the Florentine, Dunrobin and Highcroft areas have presented the Muskett crews with a number of challenges from steep areas and highly erodible soils, coupes with numerous steep creeks and areas with complex special values. All have been tackled professionally and with good results. FPA audits in recent years support this with Muskett operations producing scores of above sound for harvesting, fuels, rubbish and emissions, and special values (DU006e 10z; DU007c; F012zyz; TN11/017) with most of these categories achieving the top score.

The FPA’s Peter McIntosh added to the nomination...

I endorse Sandra Hetherington’s nomination of BR and KF Muskett and Sons for an award. I have been involved with operations by both Brian and Geoffrey Muskett and they have both always been keen to follow the Forest Practices Code and guidelines, to achieve good environmental outcomes, and to consult with FPOs (and, where necessary, FPA specialists) in diff icult situations.

Conversations with Norske FPOs supervising Muskett operations in the Florentine Valley, and discussions with Geoffrey Muskett, were instrumental in developing the new Sinkhole Guidelines which have been endorsed this year by the Board of the FPA. The planning map for coupe F0012xyz, enclosed with the nomination, demonstrates the complexity of harvesting in karst terrain – this coupe contains numerous sinkholes and caves; the outcomes achieved have been first class. Geoffrey has also cooperated fully in harvesting an experimental area being monitored to assess the inf luence (if any) of pine harvest on sinkhole development.

Geoffrey also featured in an FPA video concerning karst management during forestry operations in the Florentine Valley.


KF Muskett and Sons: Innovation in forest practices

A complex arrangement of sinkholes that Geoffrey Muskett and his crew had to harvest around in the Florentine Valley – some of the sinkholes are over 5 m deep


The second winner in this category is the FPA’s Sarah Munks, who was nominated by Sandra Hetherington of Norske Skog for her work on the Threatened Fauna Adviser.


SarahMunksjoinedtheFPAastheSenior Zoologist in 1996 shortly after the commencement of the RFA. The RFA heralded an era of increased scale and intensif ication of forestry activity combined with an increasing focus on the management of threatened species. As a result she was faced with a huge increase in requests for advice from Forest Practices Officers on the identif ication of habitat for threatened species and the management of that habitat. It soon became apparent that planning tools were urgently required to assist FPOs. In discussion with the CFPO it was decided that as far as possible standard management prescriptions should be developed and made available to FPOs in a user-friendly form. It was estimated that up to 80% of requests for advice from FPOs could be eff iciently addressed through standard prescriptions, freeing up the time and resources of the FPA zoologists to resolve more complex situations.

Sarah set to work to develop a planning tool, which became known as the Threatened Fauna Adviser. The work involved a large number of scientists, computer programmers and practitioners who freely contributed their expertise and practical experience in implementing management prescriptions. The prescriptions needed to be scientif ically rigorous and practical to apply by forest planners and operators in the forests.

The f irst TFA appeared in CD form after two years of development and testing and Sarahandhercrewlaunchedamajortrainingprogram for FPOs as the users of the system. AmajorreviewoftheTFAcommencedin2009 and this resulted in an updated web-based version being released in 2014.

The TFA has been a story of great success. It has brought scientists and practitioners together; it has cemented the close working relationship between the FPA (as the forestry regulator) and DPIPWE (as the lead conservation agency); it has given FPOs a critically important and useful tool; and it has vastly improved the eff iciency of advice from the FPA biodiversity team. Most importantly, it has vastly improved the awareness about

threatened species within wood production zones and it has contributed to the long term management of their habitat.

The TFA is a story of success with a cast of many; too many to mention individually in this nomination, but particular note should be made of Sarah’s team who have supported herthroughoutthisproject.However,throughout the long development and implementation of the TFA Sarah has been an unrelenting champion. Despite the challenges and setbacks, the TFA stands as a testament to Sarah’s professionalism and dedication.

Forest Practices News asked Sarah about her award...

I was surprised to get this award, and really want to thank all those who worked with me on the project over the years. It was definitely a group effort. The first version came out in 1998 and many people were involved. Peter Gillard built the program and numerous foresters’, students’ and specialists’ research went into the development of the management actions delivered. These included Sally Bryant, Jeff Meggs, Mark Wapstra, Karen Richards, Phil Bell, Nick Mooney, Ray Brereton and Kevin Bonham.

I really want to thank Graham Wilkinson, our CFPO, for taking on the risk and committing funds and my time to the first version.

The team involved in the development of the second version included consultants Mark Wapstra and Niall Doran, and DPIPWE scientists Phil Bell, Claire Hawkins and Karen Richards. In addition lots of specialists, foresters and policy makers also contributed

I’ve just come back from a holiday in the UK where a huge amount of money is being spent on restoration of habitats in the implementation of a very ‘top down’ Habitat Directive. I realised how fortunate we are to have a more collaborative system in place here in Tasmania to manage values across the landscape in order to mitigate the impacts of development in the forestry context. The Threatened Fauna Adviser plays a part in this planning system.

The development of the Threatened Fauna Adviser hasn’t been easy. The aim was to develop a decision support


Sarah Munks: Innovation in forest practices

Sarah and fellow award-winner Gareth Tempest after the ceremony.

system to streamline advice provision and avoid delays in planning FPPs whilst ensuring species’ requirements are taken into account. I think it has done this to a certain extent but the main benefit has been the clarification of what needs to be done to manage each species. Developing the Threatened Fauna Adviser involved reviewing the available knowledge and the likely impacts of forestry for each species. Whereas it was initially assumed that forestry would have a negative impact on every species, it became clear that this was not always the case. We now have a much clearer process for managing the impacts of forestry on threatened species. There are also benefits in knowledge organisation and the continuity of information – individuals may come and go but the knowledge remains.

Developing the Threatened Fauna Adviser was also been a great example of the collaborative approach that underpins the forest practices system, with everyone having a say.

The new generation in the FPA needs a special mention for their work on the second version – Tim Leaman, Dydee Mann, Amy Koch, Anne Chuter and Jason Wiersma. They now have the daily challenge of implementing the actions that the Threatened Fauna Adviser delivers. I hope it will continue to be resourced as tool to support planning decisions into the future.


This award applies to an FPO, business unit or any organisation and seeks to recognise the successful solution, from the point of view of all parties involved, of difficult forest planning or operational issues.

Again, we have two winners in this category.

The first winner was Tony Scott who is the Community Liaison Officer in FT’s Northern Region.

He was nominated by John McNamara and the referees were Peter Williams and Peter Bird, all of FT.


Tony Scott has been a Community Liaison Officer with Forestry Tasmania since 2008. Tony came to Forestry Tasmania with extensive experience in media and community engagement, and this has been a valued contribution to Forestry Tasmania’s interaction with the north-eastern community. Tony has an incredible ability to connect with people and has undertaken 224 community engagement events since July 2013 alone. These events are recorded in Forestry Tasmania’s Consultation Manager data base. While most of these events relate to community and recreational use of permanent


Tony Scott: Excellence in community relations in regard to forest practicestimber production zone land, there are some signif icant events where Tony’s skills have been invaluable and relate to ensuring Forestry Tasmania ongoing wood production activities.

Notable events specif ic to community relations in regard to forest practices include:

Coupe RR177B – Early in 2013 a small number of Ringarooma residents raised concerns about proposed harvesting in the Vineys Creek catchment above the town water supply intake. Tony led the community engagement process with residents, Forestry Tasmania, Forest Practices Authority and TasWater. Forestry Tasmania decided to defer harvesting at RR177B until TasWater had built a new water supply facility for Ringarooma. This to date has been a successful process with no further community interactions foreseen.

Coupe OL037A – Early in 2013 a number of Oldina residents expressed concerns about proposed harvesting in the vicinity of their properties on Oldina Road. Tony and other Forestry Tasmania met with residents in June 2014. OL037A has been deferred pending further investigation and consultation.

Coupe CC104B – In October 2012 a resident from Mutual Road near Derby expressed

Editors’ corner

There are big changes afoot at the FPA, with our long-serving Chief Forest Practices Officer Graham Wilkinson moving on at roughly the same time as most of the Board of the FPA are reaching the end of their terms of appointment. By the time this reaches your desk the new board could well have been announced - check our FP website for news!

Much of this issue is dedicated to recording the achievements of Graham and other dedicated people like him who have won a Forest Practices Award. We feel it’s really important to acknowledge good work – next time the awards are announced why not nominate a deserving colleague?

concerns about proposed harvesting in the MutualValley,particularlyclearfellingadjacentto the residents property. In December 2014 the resident was contacted by Tony who advised a Notice of Intent was about to be mailed out. Tony and other Forestry Tasmania personnel attended a meeting with residents in February 2015. Most residents appeared comfortable with the proposed harvesting operations, particularly given the likely improvement of Mutual Road.

Tony’s commitment to building relationships between community and forestry was made evident in the work undertaken to bring mountain bike trails to north-eastern Tasmania. Tony has been able to bridge the need for recreation with the guiding principles of forest practices. Forest practices were an integral part of the development and implementation of the trails with coupe boundaries, water races, eagles nests, appropriate river crossings, and safety considerations all needing to be incorporated into the trail design with Tony’s input and assistance.

Tony’s proactive approach to community engagement and his well-timed interventions around community engagement make him a worthy nominee of the community relations award.

There are new training events being added to our training calendar, so please check our website for details (under ‘Services’ and then ‘Training’). The FPO Training Course and the Biodiversity Course ares in full swing and there are some other courses coming up, including one on cultural heritage.

If you would like to send in a contribution to Forest Practices News, please contact the editors. Include illustrations and a photo of yourself with your contributions. Contributions can be supplied either as hard copy or electronically. If forwarding material electronically, please ensure that figures/pictures are sent as separate files and not embedded in Word documents.

FPOs on the move

If you are an FPO and have a new job or contact details,

please remember to let the FPA know.

The address is: [email protected]

Chris Grove and Peter McIntosh Forest Practices News Editors

Deadline for contributions to next Forest Practices News:

Monday 24 August 2015



Errol Lohrey: Excellence in community relations in regard to forest practices and in research, advice and services to forest managers

The second winner in this category is Errol Lohrey. Errol was also nominated in another category – Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers and he was also nominated in the 2011 awards.

The FPA’s Sarah Munks coordinated this nomination, along with FT’s Randall Norriss, IFARM’s Wayne Shaw-Johnston, consultant Mark Wapstra and DPIPWE’s Karen Richards.

Referees (of the original submission made in 2011): Beris Hansberry (representative of the Friends of the Blue Tier), Jo Field (Community Liaison Officer FT Bass 2004-07, Forest Practices Advisor, FPA 2009-2012), Peter Johnstone (Coordinator Harvesting FT Bass).

The nomination said...

Excellence in community relations in regard to forest practices

In the process of preparing the FPPs in the Blue Tier area, Errol had to deal with various complex and challenging social issues, particularly in the Blue Tier/St Helens area in the late 1990s and 2000s. Errol has gone out of his way to communicate the work he has been involved in with a wide variety

of community groups including Friends of the Blue Tier, Blue Tier residents, St Helens residents, Break O’Day Council elected representatives and the NE Biodiversity Network group.

Errol has always taken great pride in explaining how the forest practices systems operates, in particular the planning process involving gathering of information to ensure all values at risk from a particular operation are identif ied and threats are managed through the application of prescriptions, ensuring sustainable forest management practices are achieved. Examples of the consultation activities that Errol undertook include –

• Listeningandlearningfromlocals(BerisHansberry, Friends of the Blue Tier, Glory & Stephen Hargreaves, local landowners) about the values important to them in coupes GC145A and GC145B. These included threatened species such as wedge tailed eagles, Simson stag beetle, hydrobiid snails, masked owl and the swift parrot. Visual landscape values were also important to locals, as Blue Tier coupes GC134F, GC164A and GC117C could be viewed from the Blue Tier summit. Water quality issues and access issues into coupe GC164A on Lehners Ridge were also raised.

• Callingmeetingsof,andbeingaspokesperson for Forestry Tasmania, when discussing planning of contentious coupes. Neighbours and local government elected representatives were consulted in the planning and harvesting of a sensitive coupe (EL038B) at Elephant Pass, near St Marys. Errol organised a post-harvest meeting on site to inspect the harvest outcomes and answer questions on the prescriptions in the FPP. Issues on water quality; threatened species, soil degradation, visual impacts and disease were also discussed with community members/groups including councillor David Clement’ and Todd Dudley from the NE Biodiversity Network group.

• Takinglocalgovernmentelectedrepresentatives on a tour to coupe GC117C north of the Blue Tier. During this tour Errol had the responsibility of explaining the visual landscape analysis

process and comparing the planned outcomes to the actual post-harvest result.

• Makingeveryopportunitytomeetindividually with locals to have quiet discussions about forestry and contentious coupes in the Blue Tier area.

• Includinglocalknowledgegatheredinhisdiscussions with locals in coupe planning to ensure cultural heritage sites are conserved.

• AsplanningFPOErrolrepresentedFTBass at a meeting with local government taking questions and providing responses on the potential impact of operating on the Bay of Fires conservation area. This meeting covered issues and concerns relating to f ire management, spread of diseases, and possible impacts on the New Holland Mouse.

Errol has always maintained transparency with the community when engaging them in discussions relating to the processes involved with coupe-planning, as well as taking the time to listen, with empathy, to local community concerns on forestry issues. This has stimulated constructive debate between Forestry Tasmania and the local community, which ultimately provided a well balanced outcome in the areas of concern, particularly on Blue Tier.

Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers

This award looks to recognise work in research, advice, services and forest management by private landowners which shows exceptional merit in regard to forest practices.

In his role as a forester in the NE of Tasmania, Errol has been integral to the success of a numberofresearchprojectsundertakenbyFPA, FT and the University of Tasmania. He has gone out of his way to provide logistical support, mentor and support students and projectoff icers,assistinexploringinnovativeapproaches to data collection, and conduct surveys and collect data. His contribution to theseprojectshasbeeninvaluableandmostof them could not have been undertaken without his local knowledge and support.

Working closely with FPA Biodiversity staff, Errol often involved the local community Errol accepting his award at the ceremony


in research. This increased the community awareness and understanding of the work underpinning the management decisions made through the Tasmanian forest practices system.

Some examples of Errol’s contribution to research are -

• Involvementinthewildlifehabitatstripmonitoring work by Rob Taylor and Murray Haseler pre-1996. Errol assisted in the f ield data collection, particularly the bird survey work. He was also involved with post-harvest research, especially in liaising with new researchers unfamiliar with the area.

• Activeinvolvementforoveradecadein the FPA study on the Simsons stag beetle in the Blue Tier area 1998–2003. Errol contributed to the selection of sites, collection of data and interpretation of the results in relation to forestry practices.

• InvolvementinthestreamresearchatBen Nevis in 2001/2. Errol assisted with site selection as part of this work.

• Involvementinplatypussurveysaspartof the stream work at Upper Esk in NE Tasmania in 2002/3. His small rubber dinghy manoeuvring skills, necessary to patrol gill nets, in the middle of the

night in a howling gale, on a small farm dam full of submerged barbed wire were exemplary!

• ProvidinglogisticalsupportandlocalknowledgeforaPhDprojectwhichexplored the inf luence of forest disturbance history and type on an arboreal marsupial, the common brushtail possum in 2010. This PhD was carried out by an overseas UTas student, Erin Flynn. In the acknowledgements in her thesis Erin says ‘Special thanks to Errol Lohrey (FT) for spending a day rescuing me from a storm and removing the many trees that fell between me and my traps.’

• Providinglogisticalsupport,backgroundinformation, transport and an additional pair of ‘orchid eyes’ in research/surveys for Prasophyllum stellatum (Ben Lomond leek-orchid) in coupes and reserves in the Storys Creek area.

Much of the work that Errol helped to make possible has been published in scientif icjournals.Hiscontributionhasbeenacknowledged in these publications either generally as part of FT Bass District support or individually. Errol’s willingness to be involved insuchprojectshasbeenparticularlyvaluedbythestudentsandyoungprojectoff icers.His quiet, patient approach to the many

requests and questions has increased their understanding of Tasmania’s forests, forestry and the role of a Forest Practices Officer.

In summary, the years Errol has been a practising FPO, he has positively contributed through engaging and mentoring the community on the merits of the forest practices system. He has on a number of occasions had to deal with controversial forestry issues within a highly impassioned community that is regularly found in remote areas, such as Blue Tier. Errol has approached these issues with a strong belief that the forest practices system is a well balanced process that contributes to the conservation of Tasmania’s natural and cultural values. Through leading by example, Errol has endeared himself to his local community and to his peers. Errol’s philosophy is that if you involve the community they will understand and have insight into the effort that goes into the forest practices process.

Manyoftheresearchprojectsundertakenbythe FPA, UTas and FT, to gather information to help with management decisions would not have been possible without Errol’s input. Through his involvement Errol has passed on skills and knowledge that have increased the understanding of the Tasmanian forest practices system and forestry in general.

Errol assisting the FPA with Simsons stag beetle research in 2006 and out with the FPA’s Compliance Program in May 2015


Errol Lohrey: Excellence in community relations in regard to forest practices and in research, advice and services to forest managers


This award recognises work in research, advice, and services to forest managers which shows exceptional merit in regard to forest practices.

The winner was Graham Wilkinson. His nomination by the FPA’s Sarah Munks and Peter McIntosh and Fred Duncan (formerly with the FPA and now retired) was for an award in two categories: ‘Innovation in forest practices’ as well as ‘Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers’.

Graham Wilkinson resigned from the position of Chief Forest Practices Officer (CFPO) in January 2015. He was in the position for 19 years and during this time he led and successfully guided the Tasmanian forest practices system through a period of signif icant change.

His achievements during his time as CFPO are numerous and will have beneficial long-term effects on forest management in Tasmania. In this submission, we will outline some achievements relating to two Forest Practices Award categories – ‘Innovation in forest practices’ and ‘Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers’.


Graham Wilkinson: Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers and Innovation in forest practices

Innovation in forest practices

Since his appointment as CFPO, Graham been instrumental in improving Tasmania’s forest practices and management, in a co-regulatory system that has evolved to take account of changes in information, technology and industry and community requirements. The evolution of the system, to a standard which is internationally recognised for its practical approach to sustainable forest management, has been achieved through a combination of initiatives, including legislative and policy changes, liaison with stakeholders, targeted research, training and communication. Graham has been integral to this process, often exploring innovative approaches to solve problems and improve practices. At the same time, he has never lost sight of the critical role of Forest Practices Officers, and staff of the Forest Practices Authority, in achieving a functional system.

Some examples of Graham’s role in improving the forest practices system are given below.

• Involvementinimportantpolicychangesstemming from the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement: Graham was a signif icant driver in modifying policies

developed during the Tasmanian RFA in order that Tasmania’s native forests, and particularly those with a high priority for conservation, would be maintained in the landscape for generations to come. Important examples include:

- changes to the statewide Permanent Native Forest Estate thresholds – from maintenance of 80% of extant native forest (RFA requirement) to maintenance of 95% of extant native forest;

- requirements through the Tasmanian forest practices system to prevent the clearance of rare, vulnerable and endangered native vegetation communities.

• Overseeingsignif icantchangestotheForest Practices Act and Regulations (e.g. incorporation of tree fern harvesting provisions; protection of threatened non-forest vegetation communities).

• DevelopmentofAgreed procedures with DPIPWE for the management of threatened species through the Tasmanian forest practices system. These procedures formalised the process that had evolved after the Threatened Species Protection Act was passed in 1995. They provide for an open and transparent decision-making process for consideration of threatened species in areas covered by the Tasmanian forest practices system.

• Grahamhasfullysupportedandcontributed to the development of training for FPOs during his time as CFPO. The FPO course was recognised by the Tasmanian Qualif ication Authority as a nationally recognised course.

• 2000reviewoftheTasmanian Forest Practices Code. Graham played a leadingroleinoverseeingthismajorreview. The Tasmanian Forest Practices Code 2000 is still recognised as a practical working Code for FPOs and field practitioners. The 2000 Code incorporated provisions to protect important natural and cultural values on all land tenures. They included ‘duty of care’ provisions, procedures to protect headwater streams; constraints on operations on erodible landforms; and Graham (right) accepting his award and gifts, listened to by the Minister for Resources Paul

Harriss (centre) and Chair of the FPA Board Gordon Duff (left)



Graham Wilkinson: Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers and Innovation in forest practices

other guidelines that took into account new technologies, research f indings and community expectations.

• Oneofthemainrecommendationsthat came out of the 2009 review of the biodiversity provisions of the code was a whole of government approach to establishing a set of overarching principlesandobjectivesforoff-reservemanagement of forest biodiversity. The urgent need for such principles and objectivesbecameapparentfollowingthe Tasmanian Forest Agreement. In the absence of a whole of government approach Graham was instrumental in developing the ‘Guiding policy for the operation of the Forest Practices Code’, that set out the contribution of non-reserve forests to the conservation of natural and cultural values.

Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers

This award looks to recognise work in research, advice, services and forest management

• SincehisappointmentasCFPOin1996,Graham promoted a culture, within the FPA, which has encouraged excellence in research, advice and services to all those involved in the Tasmanian forest practices system. Specif ically, from an FPA staff perspective, he has given or demonstrated:

- a vision for the organisation;

- an ability to set short, medium and long-term goals;

- the importance of treating people with respect (irrespective of their perspectives on forest use);

- tremendous support for FPA staff and FPOs and a willingness to provide direction, counsel and friendship.

• Grahamhasconsistentlysupportedhighstandards and continual improvement in forest practices in Tasmania through:

- support for training and education (FPA staff and FPOs);

- communicating the role of the FPA and the Tasmanian forest practices system (e.g. through Forest Practices

News and other media and through encouraging presentations at a wide range of forums);

- liaison with stakeholders (including government, industry, NGOs and land managers);

- incorporation of research f indings into forest practices in Tasmania;

- consideration of industry, social and community attitudes.

• Grahamhasbeenpersonallyeffectivein communicating many aspects of Tasmania’s forest and the Tasmanian forest practices system through:

- scientif ic and technical articles in local and international publications;

- presentations at numerous forums, including conferences, f ield days, workshops and meetings of professional organisations and interest groups.

• Grahamhasanexceptionalknowledgeof law, regulation and processes, tempered with an understanding of human nature (often explained through parables from Tumut and northern NSW).

• Grahamhasplayedaleadingrolein developing and improving forest management and forest practices systems in the South Pacif ic and Asia. This has been undertaken in conjunctionwithgovernmentsandother stakeholders. This work has also indirectly promoted Tasmania’s forest practices system. Areas of international activity include:

- preparing a draft Code of Harvesting Practice for the ‘Eua’ forest plantations in Tonga;

- mission to Myanmar, Vietnam and LaoPDRtoreviewtheFAOproject‘Enhancing Sustainable Forest Harvesting in Asia’ and to advise on opportunities for sustaining the implementation of reduced impact logging;

- missiontoFijitocompletetherevisionoftheFijiForestHarvestingCode of Practice and the development of implementation, monitoring and training strategies

(Suva,Fiji);

- conducting training in implementation of codes of forest practice, FAO regional training workshop, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia;

- conducting a national workshop on monitoring and evaluation in Papua New Guinea;

- leadingamajorreviewofthePapuaNew Guinea logging code of practice, and associated workshops and training.

The information provided above demonstrates the integral role that Graham has played in the ongoing development of the FPA and the Tasmanian forest practices system, in its attempts to meet the goals of sustainable forest management in Tasmania. Graham’s vision has been (and continues to be) founded on traditional principles of wise forest management and stewardship. He has been uniquely successful in applying and promoting these principles in a period of great social, technological and economic change in relation to Tasmania’s forests and forest products.

Many reasons for Graham’s achievements are identif ied above. In addition, we suggest that much of his success can be attributed to his integrity and the high ethical and professional standards which he set for himself. These were always evident in his work and his dealings with FPA staff, FPOs, industry representatives and the many other stakeholders with an interest in management of Tasmania’s forests. Graham’s high standards and his professional and personal qualities provided inspiration to many who worked with him.

Graham had many adventures during his forestry career (photo by Leigh Edwards)


Graham Wilkinson resigned early this year as Chief Forest Practices Officer (CFPO) after 19 years. As CFPO, Graham wore two hats – he led a team of over 150 Forest Practices Officers and he was also responsible for administering the forest practices system and managing the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) staff.

These two roles required an unusual blend of skills ranging from hands-on, practical knowledge of forestry to championing complex legislation change in a sophisticated political environment.

Forest Practices News interviewed Graham to f ind out how he came to be CFPO, what he considers to be his greatest achievements and where he is headed now…

Graham, how did you come to be working in forestry in Tasmania?

I graduated from the Australian National University in 1976 with a forestry degree

and then I spent the first 10 years of my career as an operational forester in the sub-tropical and temperate forests of New South Wales. This was a tremendous opportunity to get experience in operational forestry and I can’t stress enough how valuable that was.

The first place that I worked was Casino, near the Queensland border. It was a small district with only two foresters so it was very hands on. I worked in an open-plan office with my very straight-laced boss. One day a long-haired and barefoot guy appeared in the office wearing a kaftan and he was brought to my desk. Like many of the local hippies he had bought an old, degraded banana plantation and he wanted to restore it to natural forest. I was explaining about getting rid of the weeds and using a nurse crop to establish shade-tolerant rainforest species when he suddenly stood up, raised his arms and said ‘The forest is my temple and you are the High Priest! Come and preach to my brethren.’ My boss told me not to waste my time on him but I did run field days for them. I could see that as foresters we weren’t handling the community well and it wasn’t long after that that the Terania Creek protest happened in the neighbouring district.

‘...he suddenly stood up, raised his arms and said “The forest is my temple and you are the High Priest! Come and preach to my brethren.” ‘

I went from Casino to Tumut, which had six foresters. I was in charge of native forest logging and also got lots of experience in fire fighting – Ash Wednesday happened when I was there. But the career path for a forester in NSW always led to Sydney and I had chosen forestry to get away from big cities. I felt that district forestry was very reactive – I had done some trials

on fertiliser in plantations and I felt that I wanted more information.

So I moved to Tasmania to work for the Forestry Commission as a specialist silviculturalist and forest research manager as I felt that this job could answer questions that foresters wanted answered. The research that I did for my MSc showed that seed collected on-site is best-adapted to the site. This is now in the Forest Practices Code.

During this time I produced a series of Technical Bulletins that outlined prescriptions based on the knowledge produced by research. Moving to forest practices was an extension of this process as the specialists did the research that was translated into practice that was continually improving. It’s very hard to regulate something if you haven’t got a good rule-set. As a regulator you never have perfect knowledge so you have to use risk management and make decisions based on

CFPO reflections

Chris Grove, Forest Practices Authority

Graham on a silvicultural field meeting in the Picton Valley in June 1988 (photo by Leigh Edwards)

Graham collecting seed for research on the best-adapted seed sources for natural regeneration (photo by Leigh Edwards)


the best available knowledge, knowing that this will improve over time.

How did you become CFPO?

I didn't apply for the position of CFPO when it became vacant in 1995 because I was happily doing research into native forest silviculture. When I was approached by senior management within the then Forestry Tasmania I had to seriously think about whether 'forest regulation' was a career pathway that I wanted to take. After much consideration I decided to have a go, never imagining that I would stay in the job for next 19 years. Looking back, my CV gave me a good technical background for the role of CFPO – 10 years of operational forestry work in NSW followed by 10 years as a forest research manager in Tasmania. So I knew something about the science and operational side of forestry and about many of the people who work in the forestry sector, including foresters, forest operators, contractors, forest owners, researchers and other specialists.

As CFPO, my new learning curve required me to battle my wits with forest legislation, policy and bureaucracy and the people who collectively make up the heterogeneous communities of Tasmania and beyond. One thing I have learnt about being a forest regulator is that forest regulation is not about regulating forests, which are remarkably well-behaved; it is about regulating people and the impact that people have on forests.

‘One thing I have learnt about being a forest regulator is that forest regulation is not about regulating forests, which are remarkably well-behaved; it is about regulating people and the impact that people have on forests.’

So my learning curve as the CFPO involved lots of challenges and learning about human psychology and sociology. However, a key role for a forest regulator is to encourage an informed discussion about the way that forests are managed and to do this one needs a solid understanding of the science and practice of forestry.

What do you see as your main achievements as CFPO?

In 1996 I inherited a forest practices system that was very well designed and had been working effectively for nearly a decade. My priority was to maintain and safeguard the fundamental elements of the system and to ensure that it continued to evolve in a proactive manner to meet the needs of the forestry sector and the broader community into the future.

I would say that my key achievements during my term were as follows…

1. Strengthening the credibility and importance of the FPO system, and I count the FPA specialists as being part of the FPO system

FPOs need to know what the rules are and to try for the best results in applying these rules. We have to think what motivates FPOs to achieve high standards? I think that they are motivated through improved training; technical support through planning tools and interactions with FPA specialists; monitoring of standards and feedback on improvement; and having a good attitude where they can see the benefit in achieving high standards.

We need to be continually challenging and critically reviewing the system, and we should improve. But we should proceed with caution when making changes and not

make them just for the sake of change. I get frustrated with situations like a suggestion from the government to save some money on running the forest practices system that would put at risk $7 million worth of FPO services.

2. Improving the independence of the 'regulator'

When I joined the then Forest Practices Board in 1996 it was a division of Forestry Tasmania. From day one I lobbied for a more independent system of regulation and I was fortunate to have served under successive boards and governments, which despite some opposition and trepidation, progressively agreed to improve the regulator's independence, firstly with the creation of the Forest Practices Board as a statutory authority in 1999 and later through the creation of the FPA with a truly independent expertise-based board in 2004. There are some who would prefer to see a regulator that can be more 'controlled' by government but in my view the advantages of an independent regulator far exceed the alternatives. It’s important that the community has confidence that the independent regulator is making a decision without stakeholder or political influence.

Being an independent regulator is a bit like walking on a tightrope and avoiding becoming either too adversarial or becoming captured, or too sympathetic.

Sharing a joke on a training day in 2002

CFPO reflections


The key to success is having a clear set of rules that are applied without fear or favour, so that anyone doing my job would reach the same decision.

‘Being an independent regulator is a bit like walking on a tightrope and avoiding becoming either too adversarial or becoming captured, or too sympathetic. The key to success is having a clear set of rules that are applied without fear or favour...’

Whenever I have come across an area of ambiguity I have written a guideline or sought to have the legislation amended. It’s not an easy job but it makes the job easier if you follow the rules and fix them if they are not clear. Some changes are really about clarifying policy, such as the ‘Guiding policy for the operation of the Forest Practices Code’ that was developed recently in response to changes brought about by the Tasmanian Forests Agreement.

3. Extending the forest practices system to capture more of the elements of sustainable forest management

In 1996 the system was restricted to the regulation of timber harvesting under timber harvesting plans (THPs). There were no controls on tree clearing or on the establishment of plantations. There were strange anomalies like under a THP a landowner could harvest the forest and leave streamside reserves but after the THP was completed he could then legally clear and burn the streamside reserves.

Over the years I was able to get support for legislative changes to bring these activities under the control of forest practices plans, including requirements for reporting on compliance. Those who don't like governmental regulation will not agree, but the more holistic and rigorous approach to forest regulation has given the system more credibility and has provided a platform that substantially meets the requirements of forest certification programs. At the risk of beating my own drum, I made these changes proactively – we weren’t forced to make them as a result of an enquiry or pressure from other organisations.

4. Improving the 'one stop shop' approach by developing agreements with other regulators, for example the procedures agreed between the FPA and DPIPWE for the management of threatened species

A strength of these agreements has been the cooperation, research and development of planning tools that have allowed FPOs, as far as possible, to make more streamlined and practical operational decisions based on sound scientific guidelines. My experience in NSW was of different government departments not cooperating so I worked hard to get a formalised, cooperative approach. This is a huge plus for Tasmania and something that I take great pride in.

‘I worked hard to get a formalised, cooperative approach. This is a huge plus for Tasmania and something that I take great pride in.’

5. Raising the national and international profile and reputation of the forest practices system, though our input into national reviews, workshops, conferences and publications

It’s important to try and explain the forest practices system as some people are distrustful of it. This led to the opportunity to study systems elsewhere which reinforced for me that the forest practices system has some very good features. You can’t be a good regulator by living in your own cave. You’ve got to get out and see what others are doing and question your own system. This can lead to changes as well as recognising what works in the system. I would walk over hot coals to defend the FPO system as it can deliver tremendous outcomes at virtually no cost to government.

‘I would walk over hot coals to defend the FPO system as it can deliver tremendous outcomes at virtually no cost to government.’

CFPO reflections

Grahamlistsextendingtheforestpracticessystemtocovermorethanjusttimberharvestingasonehisachievements.Forest practices now include: harvesting native forests and plantations; establishing native forests and plantations; clearing and converting forests and threatened non-forest native vegetation communities; constructing roads and quarries for the above purposes; and harvesting treeferns. Here Graham discusses the forest practices system with tree fern harvesters.


CFPO reflections

The forest practices system is well regarded internationally and I’ve had the opportunity to work in other countries developing their forest regulation. For example, I’ve been working in Papua New Guinea designing a system based on some of the features that we know worked well here. But there are components that fit together and if you miss one out the system won’t work – you can’t cherry pick. If you want a co-regulatory system you can’t just pick self-regulation, you also need some oversight.

What are your thoughts on the future of the forest practices system?

We need a board, CFPO and staff that recognise the strengths of the system that we need to hold on to while making improvements without experimenting unnecessarily. Ideally the next CFPO will be someone who has a strong technical background in forestry who has got to a point in their career where they have good management skills. This includes understanding how governments operate as we don’t just respond to market-based principles but also government. We need a CFPO who will be looking to see how the system can maintain rigour and continue to improve. We can’t stand still. There will be changes made by politicians unless we can continue to uphold the standards in a cost-effective way.

The reason that I stayed in the job as CFPO for 19 years is because of the people, the challenges and the opportunities to be an agent of change. I have always enjoyed my interaction with people within the forestry sector, even with those who instinctively treat all regulators with the classic Australian distain for authority. I have enormous respect for our FPOs who carry out their responsibilities with the highest degree of dedication and professionalism. It has also been a privilege to have worked with the FPA staff, whose expertise and commitment is second to none. I believe that the forest practices system is in good shape to deliver very effective and efficient regulation into the future.

Author contact:

[email protected]

Graham and fellow FPA staff members Sarah Munks and Peter McIntosh discuss the application of the Papua New Guinea logging code of practice with foresters from the PNG Forest Authority 2012.

Fred Duncan’s drawing summing up Graham’s career so far. It’s full of gems such as the carrot and stick in his belt, with the carrot on his right-hand side to symbolise his preference for cooperation. Also featuring are the helmeted possum, the landscape from the front of the code, many forest values (devil in log, butterfly, Aboriginal artefact, water etc.), a regenerating eucalypt and a turtle heading back to the tropics wearing the CFPO’s helmet. Thanks Fred!


Forest Practices Code amended as of 1 July 2015The FPA recognises that Tasmania’s forestry sector and its operating environment are in transition following an unprecedented period of change and uncertainty.

In the December 2014 edition of Forest Practices News, Graham Wilkinson described the ‘Guiding policy for the operation of the Forest Practices Code’ (‘policy’). This FPA policy provides an overarching set of principles to clarify the contribution of non-reserve forests (e.g. privately owned forests and Permanent Timber Production Zone Land) to the conservation of natural and cultural values under the forest practices system. This policy was developed to help interpret and implement the changes in forestry legislation since the Tasmanian Forest Agreement process.

The policy was released by the FPA in December 2013 after consulting with the Forest Practices Advisory Council. It defines how the Forest Practices Code (‘Code’) will be applied to achieve a reasonable balance of outcomes within areas that have been set aside for resource use, including prescribing how the landowner’s ‘duty of care’ should be applied on Permanent Timber Production Zone Land. The ‘duty of care’ is a means of allowing forests allocated for economic activities to make a reasonable contribution to the maintenance of natural and cultural values.

However, the policy was not part of the Code.

To give legal effect to the policy the FPA Board announced in February 2015 that it intended to amend the Code to incorporate the policy. The Code is issued or amended by the FPA under Part IV of the Forest Practices Act 1985 (‘the Act’).

In the lead-up to the board’s decision

the FPA consulted with stakeholder and governmental organisations represented on the Forest Practices Advisory Council, including Forestry Tasmania, Private Forests Tasmania and nominees of the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT) and the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA). As a result of the consultative process the FPA Board determined the immediate priorities were as follows:

1. The overarching legislative and policy framework for the Code should be clarified through the incorporation into the Code of the ‘Guiding policy for the operation of the Forest Practices Code’ .

2. Minor updates should be made to references within the Code.

The board determined that no other changes to the technical provisions of the Code were warranted at that time, noting that improvements to the planning and implementation of forest practices continue to be made through the comprehensive planning tools that support the Code. In making this decision, the FPA took into account various thematic reviews and comments on the Code from various sources, including scientists and specialists of the FPA and other organisations, forest practices officers, nominees of stakeholders represented on the Advisory Council, the report of the independent expert panel for the 2009 Review of the Biodiversity Provisions of the Code and a report by CSIRO on a review of the plantation provisions of the Code.

The FPA’s review of the Code found that:

1. The technical provisions of the Code were very sound and no major revisions were needed.

2. Key elements of the Code (such as the management guidelines for threatened species) have recently been revised through updated planning tools, including the Threatened Fauna Adviser, which was re-issued in 2014

following extensive scientific and operational review and revision.

3. Key policy issues have been addressed through the release of the FPA’s ‘Guiding policy for the operation of the Forest Practices Code’ , in particular the operation of the duty of care provisions to Permanent Timber Production Zone Land. However, this policy did not form part of the Code.

4. There are some out-of-date references to organisations, documents etc. that should be updated.

5. There are some sections of the Code that could be revised to better clarify or update particular technical provisions. However, none of these revisions are considered to be urgent and most can be addressed in the short to medium term through the various planning tools that support the implementation of the Code.

On the above basis and in accordance with s.32 of the Act, the FPA publicised its intention to amend the Code with various stakeholders and in newspapers published on 14 March 2015. Objections or comment were invited by 15 May 2015. The document detailing the amendments was lodged on the FPA’s website here: http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/news/intention_to_amend_the_forest_practices_code

Eight submissions were received and report and response document (available at: http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/news/intention_to_amend_the_forest_practices_code) was prepared by the FPA’s Director Major Projects (Graham Wilkinson).

After careful consideration of the submissions and response documents the FPA Board resolved, at their meeting on 12 June 2015, to proceed with the amendments as set forth in the public documents.

The amendments have now been published in the Tasmanian Government Gazette

Updates from the Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer

Angus MacNeil, Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer, FPA


and will take effect from 1 July 2015. An updated electronic version of the Code will be made available on the FPA’s website by 1 July, with printed copies becoming available for sale as soon as practicable.

Changes at the FPA and reviews of government policyThe FPA is going through a period of change in management and governance.

Chief Forest Practices Officer

At the end of January this year, Graham Wilkinson retired as Chief Forest Practices Officer (‘CFPO’) after 19 years in the role, as part of a changeover process that sees him leaving the State Service on 30 June 2015.

During his time as CFPO Graham implemented many changes to the forest practices system and related legislation, adapting the system to changes in industry and community expectations. Our forestry regulatory framework in Tasmania is now well regarded in a national and global context, and the skills that Graham has developed and taught others are now being transferred to forestry regulation in developing countries, particularly in the Pacific region.

Those who worked with Graham appreciated his attitude and professionalism and he is highly regarded as a good operator. It has often been said in the FPA that if we are being equally challenged by passionate conservationists and industry operatives then we might have the regulatory system in balance!

I was appointed as Acting CFPO from the beginning of February and am now really seeing the challenges that Graham faced on a daily basis. However, the FPA has been left in a very healthy state, both financially and technically, and this role is not sustainable without the support of the FPA’s small team of very hard working and professional staff, other parts of government, and the Forest Practices Officers out there planning and implementing forest practices to a high standard, and who do their level best to help their employers make money whilst achieving due care for the environment.

The FPA Board

The Board of the FPA is also going through significant change. The terms of appointed board members Gordon Duff (Chair), Ian Whyte, Meredith Roodenrys, Steve Luttrell, and John Whittington were all scheduled to end on 30 June 2015. They have served on the board for periods ranging from five to ten years and their wisdom, guidance and strong direction have been invaluable. As an effective board they have advanced the objectives of the forest practices system, fostered a co-operative approach towards policy development and management in forest practices matters, and taken into account social, economic and environmental outcomes in their decision making.

At the time of writing (mid-June 2015) the Minister for Resources (Paul Harriss) is considering the make-up of the new board that is scheduled to be in place as of 1 July 2015. However, a new Chair (John Ramsay) has already been appointed.

Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy and the Regional Forest Agreement

There are three primary elements to Tasmania's approach to achieving ecologically sustainable forest management:

1. the Forest Practices Code to ensure the achievement of sustainable forestry operations

2. the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative forest reserve system to securely protect

nature conservation values

3. the maintenance of a permanent native forest estate to ensure that we maintain the resource base for all its various production, conservation and amenity values.

The Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy (PNFEP) deals with the last point and is being reviewed in conjunction with the five yearly review cycle of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (‘RFA’).

The third five year review of the RFA, due in 2012, has been delayed by agreement of the previous state and federal governments and is presently almost complete. To ensure the PNFEP and the RFA remain up to date, the current Tasmanian and Australian Governments have agreed that a review of the PNFEP will be undertaken in 2015. The two Governments have also agreed to defer implementation of the ban on broadscale clearing and conversion of native forest on private land until 1 January 2016 pending this review. None of the key biodiversity settings, including the 95% retention level, and existing limits to clearing on private land are altered by these arrangements.

The PNFEP was updated in December 2014 to reflect these new arrangements pending the 2015 review.

The PNFEP is implemented by the FPA through the Authority's consideration of applications for approval of forest practices plans under the Forest Practices Act 1985.

Author contact: [email protected]

Updates from the Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer

The board have served from between five to ten years: from left, Steve Luttrell, John Whittington, Gordon Duff (Chair), Meredith Roodenrys, Ian Whyte, and Graham Wilkinson. Graham resigned from the board earlier this year, with Angus MacNeil taking his place as Acting CFPO. The Minister for Resources is considering the make-up of the new board.


Forestry Tasmania developed a new Stakeholder Engagement Strategy in October 2014 to clearly communicate to its stakeholders (including neighbours, other directly affected community members, interested members of the community, staff, and auditors) how and when it engages with its stakeholders when planning and conducting operations.

Forestry Tasmania recognises that to do its job well it needs to engage effectively with all of its stakeholders. While it has been engaging with many stakeholders as a regular part of its business over the years, Forestry Tasmania knows that there are areas in which it needs to improve and is committed to doing so.

Forestry Tasmania seeks to engage with its stakeholders as an important and integral part of doing its job well. In particular, Forestry Tasmania aims to:

• ensureitisawareofandrespectsthe needs and expectations of our customers, neighbours, staff and the wider community

• obtainvaluableinsightsandinputthatwill assist its planning and decision making

• ensureitisawareofandcanrespondpromptly to issues of concern before they become more significant problems

• developandmaintainopen,trustingrelationships with its stakeholders

• buildunderstanding,trustandsupportfor what Forestry Tasmania does.

Forestry Tasmania wants to achieve better outcomes for all concerned by being aware of and taking into account stakeholder interests when developing its plans, so that it can conduct its operations in a way that minimises potential issues of concern. Forestry Tasmania recognises that, as with most aspects of planning, the earlier an issue is known the easier it can be appropriately managed, which leads to better outcomes.

Benefits for stakeholders include:

• throughbetterrelationshipsand improved two-way flow of information, stakeholders will be better informed of what is being planned, and will have better understanding of the operational and other considerations that are being taken into account in decision making

• earlyidentificationofopportunitiesto work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes

• reducingconflictandearlyresolutionof issues.

In the process of developing its Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, some obvious areas for improvement were identified and there are now a number of practices that Forestry Tasmania does differently. These changes have been incorporated into Forestry Tasmania’s management systems so that they are now done as a routine part of its everyday business.

Some of the changes that have been implemented are:

• Three year plan: Forestry Tasmania now actively publicises its Three Year Plan, and in doing so, encourages stakeholders to register their interest in relation to any specific coupes, advise of any issues of particular concern, and indicate if they would like any further information. A major initiative was to publish the Three Year Plan on the website with an interactive map viewer. For the first time, stakeholders can now view planned future operations on PTPZ land in relation to their area of interest without having to either directly request information or know the names of coupes. While this is a big improvement, Forestry Tasmania also recognises that more needs to be done to reach those communities who live near PTPZ land more regularly and will be trying to improve the

promotion of the annual release of its Three Year Plan.

• Forest practices plan (FPP) preparation: Those who prepare FPPs engage with all identified stakeholders and neighbours during FPP preparation. To do this, neighbours and any potential stakeholders are sent a Notice of Intent letter at the commencement of FPP preparation. This is essentially an invitation to open communication between Forestry Tasmania and stakeholders to discuss areas of interest and potential concerns. Stakeholder input is then taken into account in the planning and decision making for harvest operations, often resulting in the modification of the original design of FPPs.. Communication continues with stakeholders to keep them informed of the planning process and subsequent operations, including the timing of commencement of operations.

• Burning: As with harvesting operations, Forestry Tasmania aims to identify as early as possible any stakeholders that might have concerns about particular regeneration or fuel reduction burning operations. To do this, in addition to talking with immediate neighbours during planning, information about the annual program of burning is published in February each year. This year the interactive map viewer was used for the first time to show where burning was planned to occur. Stakeholders were asked to register their interest in relation to any particular coupes. Stakeholder input was then taken into account in the planning and decision making for burning operations.

• Spraying: As with harvesting and burning operations Forestry Tasmania aims to identify as early as possible any stakeholders that might have concerns about particular insecticide or

Forestry Tasmania increases focus on stakeholder engagement

Dion McKenzie, Stakeholder Engagement Coordinator, Forestry Tasmania


herbicide spraying operations. To do this, information about the potential program of broadacre spraying is published in April and October each year, once again using the interactive map viewer. Stakeholders are asked to register their interest in relation to any particular coupes. Stakeholder input is then taken into account in the planning and decision making for spraying operations. A further notice is provided to neighbours and registered stakeholders before spraying is conducted.

Forestry Tasmania recognises that effective stakeholder engagement is a journey – FT’s needs, its stakeholder needs, and its stakeholders will change over time. It will therefore seek to continually improve its processes to better meet the needs and expectations of its stakeholders.

While these changes are aimed at improving relations with its stakeholders, Forestry Tasmania recognises that there are always further refinements and improvements to be made.

Over the next year, Forestry Tasmania is working towards better publicising its three year plan and improving how the information is displayed on its website to make it easier to access and understand. This includes refining its interactive map viewer to significantly improve how the general public can access information provided by Forestry Tasmania.

Author contact:

[email protected]

Forestry Tasmania increases focus on stakeholder engagement

Forico Pty Limited (Forico) is Tasmania’s largest private forest management company, established by New Forests to manage a plantation estate and forestry business. Forico is responsible for approximately 180 000 hectares of freehold land and private plantations within Tasmania and operate according to sustainable forest management principles. The Forico managed estate comprises hardwood and softwood plantations totalling 95 000 hectares, incorporating 80 000 hectares of natural vegetation which is managed for conservation and biodiversity outcomes.

As part of Forico’s certification requirements there is a need to demonstrate that high conservation values are maintained and enhanced. Forico are committed to maintaining and enhancing the values contained within the natural vegetation, and has entered into a Vegetation Management Agreement (VMA) with the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) to specifically manage the issue of pine wildlings.

Pinus radiata (pine) has been planted extensively throughout much of Tasmania. Whilst it is not listed as a declared weed within the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999, its potential as an environmental weed is widely recognised. Pine is an invasive species which poses a significant ecological threat to the integrity of natural vegetation in the vicinity of pine plantations. Effective control of the spread of pines in natural vegetation is therefore critical to maintaining the integrity and ecological value of the large area of natural vegetation within the Forico estate.

The Forest Practices Regulations 2007 include a list of exemptions outlining the circumstances in which a forest practices plan is not required. One of these exemptions is where a VMA has been approved by the FPA which authorises forest practices without the need for a forest practices plan (See Forest Practices Regulations 4(g) (ii)).

The VMA between Forico and the FPA enables environmental restoration and rehabilitation goals to be achieved across

the defined forest area of the Forico estate, specifically for the harvesting of pine wildlings in close proximity to streams and on other vulnerable land in an effort to restore natural vegetation and to restrict the spread of pine wildlings. Forico has identified high risk areas throughout the estate where pine wildlings are present and have developed a remedial program of maintenance and enhancement.

The VMA includes a suite of documents, including a Management Plan, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and an Evaluation Checklist:

1. The Forico Management Plan for the Control of Pine Wildlings provides a summary and extent of the problem and the control options available;

2. The SOP states the goal of pine wildling control very clearly ‘The purpose is to effectively control pine wildling infestation in natural vegetation, maintaining and / or enhancing the integrity and ecological value of the large area of natural vegetation within the Tasmanian Forest Estate’; and

Vegetation Management Agreement for the control of pine wildlings on Forico’s managed estate

Adam Crook, Native Forest and Fire Management Coordinator

Published by the Forest Practices Authority 30 Patrick Street Hobart Tasmania 7000 Phone (03) 6165 4090 Fax (03) 6233 7954 [email protected] www.fpa.tas.gov.au Banner photograph: Some of the 23 participants on the current FPO Training Course working on a group exercise

run by Mick Schofield, the FPA’s Compliance Manager, during a recent session in Launceston..

The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Authority.Articles may be reproduced in other publications including websites providing that the FPA is informed,

they are reproduced in full and that the FPA and original publication in Forest Practices News is acknowledged.Printed on paper from sustainably managed sources.

These images illustrate a range of techniques for removing pines including harvesting (top left), burning (top right) and with machinery followed by cutting and spraying (bottom left is before and bottom right is after in a streamside reserve). Photos by Forico

3. The Evaluation Checklist identifies and measures the extent of the pine wildling coverage at a site specific level and recommends how the problem can be appropriately managed.

As Forico’s Native Forest and Fire Management Coordinator, I manage the pine wildling control operation. The structured approach to managing the pine wildling problem enables Forico to demonstrate we are archiving sustainable forest management goals. The preparation of a VMA and the positive relationship with the FPA enables us to comply with our legal obligations. The result is less paperwork and better environmental outcomes – everyone wins!

Author contact: [email protected]

Vegetation Management Agreement for the control of pine wildlings on Forico’s managed estate (continued)

Documents

Forest Practices News – June 2015 vol 12 no 3 Contents ...€¦ · James Fergusson, Ferg, as we have fondly come to know him, started with FT in 2004 as a Sales and Harvesting Supervisor