Review by Reed Noss of Tasmanian Forest Conservation Work Plan and Accompanying Reports August 14, 2012 For this review I read in detail the Forest Conservation Work Plan and the Summary Report of Conservation Values. I also skimmed the following reports and accompanying maps: ENGO Proposed Reserve Report IVG Forest Conservation Report 1A (on comprehensiveness of existing conservation reserves) IVG Forest Conservation Report 2A (on priority flora species on public forest) IVG Forest Conservation Report 2B (on priority fauna species on public forest) IVG Forest Conservation Report 3A (on refugia for ancient and relictual invertebrate fauna) IVG Forest Conservation Report 3B (on palaeo-endemic plants) IVG Forest Conservation Report 5A (on heritage value of ENGO-proposed reserves) IVG Forest Conservation Report 7A (on all three species of Tasmanian marsupial carnivores) Forest Conservation Work Plan The general conclusion from my review is that the Work Plan has the appropriate scope for the problem at hand and includes the necessary elements for conserving and restoring the multiple values of forest ecosystems in Tasmania. I found the report well-researched and comprehensive. It is generally current and defensible in its treatment of topics in ecology and conservation biology. I identified no significant gaps in the report, although it is vague in its treatment of some concepts (e.g., source-sink population dynamics). I have the following specific comments: 1. Pages 2-3. The concept of “High Conservation Value Forest” (HCV Forests) is discussed here. To my knowledge, this terminology arose as a specific designation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in the late 1990s. In 2000-01 I was a member of an FSC Advisory Panel, which developed and refined specific criteria for designating and managing HCV Forests and applying the precautionary principle. Unfortunately, the FSC abandoned this effort for unexplained political reasons and, to my knowledge, has yet to issue specific guidance regarding the designation and management of HCV Forests. I suggest that this history be considered in the continuing discussion about HCV Forests in Tasmania, as well as the specific criteria developed by the FSC Advisory Panel for designating these forests (assuming FSC will make these available). This would help clear up some of the confusion identified in the report about what HCV Forests actually are. That said, I agree with the statement (p. 3) that “when assessing the areas proposed for reservation it will be important for the IVG to assess what conservation values they possess and whether any values identified through the verification process are consistent with principles and approaches commonly taken into account when considering areas for formal reservation in Australia today.” 2. Pages 3-4. I agree with the “comprehensive information” sought through the specified “set of analyses and the final technical report.” 3. Pages 7-9. I agree that it was appropriate to list the “Aichi Targets” from the Convention on Biological Diversity and to state that these and other reservation targets “largely reflect the outcomes of political deliberations and fall short of recommendations from scientific studies…[which] suggest that 25-75% of a region must be managed with conservation of nature as a primary objective to meet goals for conserving biodiversity.” The reference given (Noss et al. 2011) should be Noss et al. (2012). It would be helpful to briefly state what factors determine “how much is enough” in a particular region. These factors include physical heterogeneity (topography, soils, etc.), beta diversity (species turnover along environmental gradients), level of endemism, area requirements of wide-ranging species, the scale of the natural disturbance regime, hydrologic connectivity, previous land use and reservation decisions (i.e., with some features potentially “over-represented” and others “under-represented”), etc. Consideration of these factors shows that the level of reservation needed to meet a given set of biological and social goals will vary tremendously among regions (though, as stated, it usually falls in the range of 25-75% except in heavily developed landscapes with little natural habitat remaining). 4. Page 10: I agree with the statement that “it is therefore important to understand that percentage benchmarks are guides to minimum levels of reservation, constitute important milestones, and are a ‘means’ and not ends in themselves.” I also accept the set of 10 values listed as being “most relevant to the evaluation of the ENGO proposed conservation forest areas.” 5. Page 12: The discussion of habitat quality and source-sink dynamics is appropriate but a bit too simplistic. Source-sink is not a dichotomy but a continuous gradient of population growth rate. So, whereas a population with an annual population multiplier (lambda) of 1.01 is technically a source, and 0.99 is technically a sink, is this difference biologically meaningful? Habitat quality also varies year to year, so a sink one year may be a source the following year. Studies have shown that source-sink dynamics are not universal, and in some cases there is simply variance in carrying capacity among sites and “balanced dispersal” among them. There can also be “pseudosinks” of high habitat quality, but where mortality exceeds reproduction due to crowding of individuals in these areas. Finally, because habitat relationships vary among species, an area that is a source for one set of species may be a sink for another. 6. Page 13: It is stated that “areas which support higher natural rates of mean annual increment and larger wood volumes can also support higher densities of forest wildlife due to a superior and more consistent supply of habitat resources relative to other landscape locations.” I agree that this is generally true for old-growth associated wildlife, but not for all animal or plant species. Species respond differently to tree growth and wood volumes, with some preferring more open or barren areas. 7. Pages 14-15: Regarding refugia, I agree that drought and fire are the two main processes here for which many species will require refugia. 8. Page 16: It is stated that “there is now a clearly established scientific basis to the ecological significance of large areas that have been minimally disturbed by human land use.” I agree, but some reasons why such minimally disturbed (wilderness) areas are ecologically significant should be stated. For example, wilderness areas are important refugia for species sensitive to human presence, they maintain natural disturbance and hydrologic regimes (if large enough), and they serve as unmanipulated control areas for comparison with managed landscapes (i.e., for adaptive management experiments). 9. Page 20: I generally agree, in this context, with the statement that the age structure of forests is the condition most subject to degradation and likely to require restoration. Again, there will be exceptions, as some species and processes are not highly sensitive to forest age structure. In fact, naturally disturbed early successional forests are among the most biologically diverse and depleted habitat types (e.g., see M.E. Swanson et al., 2010, “The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment). In such forests, live tree volume is low and there is little age structure, but biodiversity is high. 10. Page 22: It is an important point here that “Scientifically, the level of reservation required to contribute to the protection of biodiversity and natural values is directly related to the success or failure of production landscapes to contribute to nature conservation.” What goes on outside reserves will largely determine the success of reserves and the persistence of species across the landscape – unless reserves constitute the vast proportion of the landscape. Summary Report of Conservation Values In keeping with my instructions as a reviewer, I did not review this report in as much detail as the Forest Conservation Work Plan, and my comments are few. I find this report of high quality. 1. Page 6: Figure 1, which shows the existing National Reserve System (NRS) and the 572,000 ha proposed by ENGOs as additions to the system, vividly portrays how modest the ENGO proposal really is. It also demonstrates that the proposed additions would help reduce fragmentation and improve connectivity of the NRS, and would increase representation of features in the eastern portion of Tasmania. 2. Page 7: It is stated that “there are around 28,000 ha where field inspection is required to validate” the land cover within areas proposed for protection. I would guess that more area than this would benefit from field inspection to verify land cover and conservation values. 3. Pages 9-11 and 52-53: I agree with all the “main conclusions from the heritage report” stated on these pages. These are very well-founded and compelling conclusions. 4. Page 49: I agree that it is unfortunate that “appropriate data were unavailable for the IVG to analyse the current distribution of forest wilderness.” I hope this can be corrected at some point. Conclusion In conclusion, I am highly impressed by the work of the Independent Verification Group of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement in producing these reports. The information is scientifically valid and in line with current thinking in ecology and conservation biology. The reports demonstrate the general validity and value of the ENGO proposal for increased protected forest areas in Tasmania.