Submission on the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
Beth Schultz - April 2012
The Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan is a welcome initiative. It is especially important in
the face of rapidly advancing climate change and the already dire predicament of Australia’s
native flora and fauna. If we are to have any hope of retaining what remains of Australia’s
native flora and fauna, the need to link remaining patches of native vegetation becomes selfevident.
One question I would ask. Apart from Debra Goostrey, Is there anyone from Western
Australia on the National Wildlife Corridors Plan Advisory Group or the Expert Working
Groups? WA comprises one-third of Australia’s land mass and contains the country’s only
internationally recognised biodiversity hot spot. It has initiated the visionary and successful
Gondwana Link program, which is discussed in the Draft Plan (pp. 49-50). WA and its
scientists are all too often overlooked by people and processes emanating from the Eastern
States.
1. Language
My first recommendation is to avoid anthropocentric language. For example, in several
places the expression “Productive lands” is used (pp. 3, 5, 43). This implies that land covered
with native vegetation and not used for human purposes is not productive. Natural forest,
bush and heath are highly productive for natural ecosystems and native flora and fauna.
Replace the expression “productive lands” by “exploited land” or “disturbed land”.
2. Private land conservation
The Draft Plan recognises the role of private land conservation (p. 4). Conservation
covenants are an important way of providing on-going security for private land conservation,
and there are some government actions that could be introduced to encourage more
landholders to enter into such covenants.
Federal and state governments should encourage conservation covenants by advertising
their existence and their benefits and advocating their establishment.
State and local governments should act to remove or reduce rates and taxes on land under
perpetual binding conservation covenants and remove or reduce stamp duty when such land
is sold.
1
3. Establishment of protected lands and the corridors that link them
The WA Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) expects to keep logging WA’s
native forests for the next 10 years. While it recognises the need for corridors as a response
to climate change, it believes that no additional measures are needed:
10.3.3 Connectivity to undisturbed areas
Connectivity with undisturbed areas enables the migration of fauna populations that require cover. Reestablishment of key functional groups is required for the functioning of the forest ecosystem.
Risk
FMP actions to mitigate risk
Additional actions that could
be taken in recognition of
increased risk from climate
change
Vulnerable species become isolated
in undisturbed areas preventing
gene flow between populations or
disrupting source-sink and metapopulation dynamics.
Connectivity of habitat is
maintained through network of
informal reserves, e.g. stream
reserves linking formal reserves,
old growth patches and fauna
habitat zones.
No additional measures are
proposed.
Vulnerability of Forests in South-West Western Australia to Timber Harvesting
Department of Environment and Conservation Sustainable Forest Management
Technical Report No. 5 2010
However, In WA, the establishment of corridors in State forest managed for wood
production is largely discretionary, and incursions into non-statutory corridors (logging, tree
poisoning) occur and are not penalised.
4. Management of protected lands and the corridors that link them
Fire management is important for the survival of protected lands and the corridors that link
them. The issue is not well addressed with only general references to the topic and a
statement such as:
the design and implementation of corridor initiatives should be supported by practical
… fire management plans to ensure that the corridors do not inadvertently … create
fire hazards.
The more important issue is how corridors are to be protected from damaging fire.
WA’s public land management agency, DEC, practises frequent ‘fuel reduction’ burning on all
the land it manages. In fact, it burns conservation reserves more frequently than State forest
managed for wood production. Burning corridors at frequent intervals reduces their
conservation value, destroys habitat, promotes weed invasion and may drive species closer
to (or beyond) extinction.
DEC ignores the peer-reviewed research which shows that the weather and ignition
management are more important than fuel management for containing the area burnt in
wildfires.1
1
Cary, Geoffrey et al. (2009). Relative importance of fuel management, ignition management and
weather for area burned: evidence from five landscape–fire–succession models International Journal
of Wildland Fire 18,147–156.
2
DEC also ignores the wealth of scientific research which shows that frequent fires have a
disastrous effect on many species of flora and fauna and the habitat structure.2 They
deplete soil nutrients, which do not have enough time between burns to recover. They
remove the protective humus that retains moisture in the soil and keeps soil temperatures
down. They deplete some species of fungi and some species of invertebrates, in particular
the decomposers. They harm birds that nest in spring, when DEC conducts most of its
prescribed burning. They kill native animals that cannot escape fire, or die of starvation,
predation or fire-caused trauma. References for all these statements can be provided.
It is not only DEC whose fire management poses a threat to the health and survival of
corridors. As a response to recent disastrous wildfires in WA resulting from escaped
prescribed burns, local shires are imposing environmentally disastrous ‘fuel hazard
reduction’ measures. For example, the Shire of Manjimup, located within Australia’s only
internationally recognised biodiversity hotspot, now requires a 20-metre wide building
protection zone around dwellings and outbuildings within which:
A. All flammable material must be removed;
B. Tree crowns are to be a minimum of 10 metres apart;
C. Trees are low pruned at least to a height of 2 metres;
D. No trees are to be over hanging the dwelling or outbuilding;
E. No tall shrub or tree is to be located within 2 metres of a dwelling or outbuilding.
Furthermore, forest fuel litter averaged over private property is to be kept to ecologically
impossible depths:
Karri: Litter depths not to exceed 30mm
Jarrah: Litter depths not to exceed 20mm
Jarrah, marri, karri: Litter depths not to exceed 30mm
Enforcement of these regulations will result in the partial or total loss of large areas of native
vegetation on private property and the partial or total removal of corridors.
Ecologically sustainable fuel hazard reduction measures for private property must be
developed, in consultation with landholders who want to maintain native vegetation on
their property and contribute to the network of corridors across the land.
Indigenous fire management practices will not necessarily “inform the management of
wildlife corridors” (p. 13). They may be unknown or misinterpreted or inappropriate for
Australia’s natural environment where European land use and management have radically
changed the flora, fauna, water and soil. They should be fully considered and adopted to the
extent that they are still appropriate.
The issue of fire management needs better coverage in the final report.
Dixon, I. R., Keys, K., Paynter, R., Keighery, B., Dixon, K. W. and Hopper, S. D. (1995) Kings Park
Bushland Management Plan 1995-2005. Kings Park and Botanic Garden, Perth 62: 53-64
2
3