The NSW government has claimed that a rigorous scientific analysis underpins the need for and the set boundaries (size) of the recently announced GKNP. It also implied that if sustainable timber harvesting continues, there is a risk of koala extinction in the wild in the state by 2050. The threat of extinction makes catchy headlines, but where is the science supporting this conclusion?
Peer-reviewed research and extensive surveys by government scientists show that koala populations are extensive and, in general, stable. Population data from 224 sites over a 7-year period showed that well-regulated timber harvesting or low-severity fire did not reduce koala occupancy rates. Harvesting prescriptions provided sufficient habitat for koalas to maintain their density, both immediately after selective harvesting and within 5-10 years after heavy harvesting.
Furthermore, recent (2024) extensive aerial surveys (involving ~ 4000 km of drone flights) in northern NSW suggest that koala densities and occupancy are similar in National Parks and adjacent harvested forests, and the same was found for southern greater gliders.
A CSIRO study (2024) revealed that nationally, koala numbers may be up to 10 times greater than estimated in 2021 by the Australian Koala Foundation. In NE NSW, CSIRO found that koalas are abundant and doing well except after severe wildfire – suggesting that the koala should not be regarded as ‘endangered’ in the region. Much evidence suggests that extensive wildfires, rather than sustainable harvesting, pose the long-term threat.
Collectively, these robust findings strongly question the rationale for establishing the proposed GKNP in NE NSW and banning sustainable harvests to achieve this goal. Will the park have a value beyond emotional appeal and overzealous conservation calls?
The government is also claiming that the establishment of the GKNP will protect old-growth forests. Protect them from what? – certainly not from harvesting because old-growth forest has not been harvested for more than two decades in NSW. The major threat to old growth is from wildfire, and there is no evidence that wildfires are less extensive or intense in conservation forests than they are in multiple-use forests. Cessation of harvesting, however, is likely to reduce capability for fire prevention and suppression, apart from the imposition of needless adverse effects on local economies and livelihoods.
It appears that the establishment of the GKNP is contingent upon the income from a yet-to-be-approved carbon project based on a proposed Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) methodology. If the GKNP is so critical a priority for preventing koala “extinction”, and protection of old growth forests and water catchments how can the government justify such a precondition? Clearly, there is an assumption that the carbon project will deliver significant monetised carbon credits. Is this realistic?
To generate carbon credits, net emissions must be lower after the cessation of harvest. Research in NSW, Victoria and internationally shows that this is not the case, and that net carbon benefits and sustainable harvests can be complementary. There is a central issue, but it is often unrecognised by anti-forestry activists.
Estimation of net carbon emissions in harvested native forests requires the application of a full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) framework that accounts for temporal changes in carbon stock at the harvested site; carbon emissions associated with managing and harvesting the forest, transporting and processing harvested wood products; storage of carbon in wood products in service and after disposal in landfill; any carbon emissions saved by using residues to generate energy otherwise produced by the combustion of fossil fuels; benefits of substituting wood for more carbon-intensive materials such as steel, aluminium or concrete in construction; and the often higher carbon footprint of wood products sourced from overseas to replace Australian production. When all these factors are taken into account, sustainable harvesting from native forests and the subsequent use of forest biomass to produce wood products or energy can reduce net carbon emissions.
If sustainable harvesting does not result in net carbon emissions, how can banning harvesting create credible carbon credits? Ceasing harvesting within the area of the GKNP will increase the import of hardwood and the use of high-emission construction materials, such as steel and concrete, both of which result in emissions leakage to other sectors of the Australian economy or internationally. There will be no reduction in net emissions and no benefit for the climate. It is highly misleading to claim otherwise. Should the INFM methodology be either incomplete or a poor model of reality, carbon credit estimates will not be credible and considered to be ‘fake’.
If the Government has used new evidence that differs from that referred to here to underpin the decision to establish the park, it should be made immediately available to the public, given that there are sound scientific and other reasons to dispute the need for a new park to protect koalas. If not, it is disingenuous to claim that there is a valid scientific case to back this plan. Claims that koalas will be better off as a result of establishing the GKNP are purely speculative. There is no scientific logic to support the claim that the cessation of harvest in sustainably managed native forests will generate additional and reliable carbon credits.
