Conservation groups have accused the Victorian government of proposing changes to logging rules that would weaken protections for bushfire-prone communities and the environment.
The Andrews government has published draft changes to logging standards that regulate VicForests’ operations.
It says the changes are intended to make the code clearer but environmental advocates are concerned the proposal could affect legal challenges to VicForests’ operations that are being heard by the supreme court.
The environment group Kinglake Friends of the Forest has two active cases alleging VicForests has exceeded logging limits in mapped areas of forest known as bushfire moderation zones.
As a result of the two cases, injunctions have been imposed on logging of 2,700 hectares of forest in the central highlands while the trials continue.
The zones were introduced after the royal commission into the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires and placed limits on logging in forest near bushfire-prone communities.
Under the logging code, VicForests is not permitted to log more than 1% of areas in which logging is permissible within any one bushfire moderation zone over a five-year period.
One of the changes to the code proposed by the Victorian government would consolidate several bushfire moderation zones into a larger area known as a fuel hazard management unit.
The 1% cap would apply to the larger area of forest, rather than in each of the smaller zones.
Legal experts say this would have the effect of allowing a greater amount of logging within any single bushfire moderation zone.
Danya Jacobs, a special counsel at Environmental Justice Australia, said this change to the code’s wording risked increasing the concentration of logging in some areas close to towns.
“The government is cynically framing changes that weaken the protection of regional communities from bushfire risk as mere clarifications,” she said.
“What it does is give the logging industry increased access to forest in close proximity to communities in regional Victoria.”
Kinglake Friends of the Forest said the group was concerned the government was attempting to “remove the ability of community groups to hold VicForests to account through the courts”.
“The significance of the case is so high in terms of human safety. These are changes that were made after the 2009 fires,” said the group’s president, Sue McKinnon.
“It appears that the impact and devastation and fears of those fires have been forgotten.”
Hearings for a separate legal challenge, launched by Warburton Environment, commenced in the supreme court this week.
That case is alleging VicForests has not complied with protections under the code for an endangered species known as tree geebung.
Tree geebung is a unique species that grows in wet forest in Victoria’s central highlands.
Under the logging code, VicForests was required to protect mature trees from disturbance “where possible”.
The government has proposed changing that wording to “where reasonably practicable”, sparking concerns VicForests will have greater discretion to cut down the trees during its logging operations.
Nic Fox, the president of Warburton Environment, described the proposed change as “very disturbing” and called on the government to focus on protecting people and biodiversity.
“Once you start changing codes to enable them to continue to log one species – where does it end?” she said.
The proposals are subject to a month of public consultation and would be the third raft of changes to logging laws since 2014.
A spokesperson for the Victorian government said the proposed changes would reduce ambiguity in the code and make it clear and enforceable.
“Legal challenges made it clear we needed to make the code clear and enforceable to protect the environment and give certainty to industry in the lead up to the phasing out logging of native timber forests in 2030 and that’s what these changes will achieve,” they said.
“Strong environmental protections are fundamental in the Code of Practice and that isn’t changing,” they said.
But Amelia Young, the national campaigns director for the Wilderness Society, said the outcome of the proposed changes would be greater flexibility for logging of forests.
“The Andrews government may perhaps be interpreting, or ‘clarifying’ the law, but it is doing so in a manner that takes a weak position for protecting and restoring forests and wildlife,” she said.
“Moving from ‘zones’ to larger ‘units’ risks logging being intensified in particular areas, including in forests adjacent to towns where communities are clearly saying no to more logging.”
