This section provides a description of what the negotiation process set out to achieve, a description of the interactive process between the computer models of the Irreplaceability model and the Wood Resources model, commentary on desired reserve design principles and the outcomes of the process.
Outcomes of the negotiation process produced varying levels of satisfaction of conservation and resource targets. The objective of the negotiation process was to benchmark the four levels (30%, 50% and 70% of Crown quota sawlog allocations for 1995 and the conservation criteria) for satisfaction of the targets for both conservation and sustainable yield.
It is important to note that the supply of other forest products as veneer logs, poles, piles, girders, sleepers, non-quota grade sawlogs and pulpwood, were not considered in the negotiation process for the IAP. The future supply arrangements for these products have not yet been considered by Government.
The four outcomes were achieved by a "roll out" to the conservation criteria outcome and a "windback" process to meet resource outcomes.
The conservation criteria outcome was derived first by progressively building up a deferred forest area network on conservation features using the irreplaceability index for compartment selection. The deferred area was built until most conservation criteria were satisfied.
After the conservation criteria outcome was derived, a windback from that outcome occurred to develop a deferred area taking into account industry considerations. Flagged scenarios for the 70%, 50% and 30% of 1995 quota sawlog allocations were documented taking into account sustained yield calculations and standing volumes from the Wood Resources study.
The Irreplaceability Model and Wood Resources Study aided decision making and allowed conservation targets and sustained yield to be tracked through the four outcomes.
The conservation outcome was derived for all negotiation areas except Tumut, where there was only one outcome representing no change in yield. The full range of outcomes based on providing 30%, 50% and 70% of sustained yield were not derived for all negotiation regions. This was either because the starting point was less than one or more of the defined yield outcomes and that outcome was therefore not an available option, or alternatively one or more of the yield outcomes represented a position beyond that required to meet the full conservation outcome and was therefore not relevant.
For example, if the wood resources model estimated a yield outcome of 35% when the conservation criteria had been fully satisfied, it was not necessary to go on to produce a 30% outcome. Alternatively, if the sustained yield at the starting point (ie no deferred area) represented 60% of the 95/96 quota allocation then the 70% option was therefore not required.
The Eden negotiation area was treated differently to other negotiation areas because of pre-existing reserve commitments by the NSW Government. Like other areas, a starting point sustained yield and conservation criteria outcome were required. The three intermediate outcomes were not defined by the residual sustained yield, but by the additional areas to be added to the reserve system to bring the area of recently declared national parks and reserves to 90,000 ha. These intermediate outcomes were based on:
For Tumut, the objective was to satisfy a specific Government requirement to achieve a single outcome with minimal reduction in sawlog quotas.
Negotiators in the IAP were presented with a computer screen showing the locations of reserved areas and colour coding of SF compartments according to their irreplaceability. For simplicity, irreplaceability was broken into seven classes:
Table 2.1: Irreplaceability categories
CLASS IRREPLACEABILITY COLOUR
1 1.0 (totally dark red
irreplaceable)
2 >0.8 and < 1.0 red
3 >0.6 and <0.8 dark
orange
4 >0.4 and <0.6 orange
5 >0.2 and <0.4 dark
yellow
6 >0.0 and <0.2 yellow
7 zero (no white
contribution)
As compartments were selected for deferral (shaded blue) or deselected to be made available (shaded reds and yellows), they changed colour on the screen to indicate outcomes of the decision step. Partial deferral indicates that only one or more specified features in a site are to be deferred from logging, with logging to proceed in other appropriate parts of the compartment. As well as having recalculations of irreplaceability and remaining targets available at each step, the negotiators could also see the spatial relationships of reserves, deferred compartments and compartments still available for logging. This allowed decisions to be made about reserve design or resource designs, such as the size, shape and connectivity of compartments or blocks of compartments.
The conservation criteria outcome and resource outcomes typically incorporated the following basic steps:
After each step, conservation targets and resource volume were calculated to provide guidance for further steps.
Generally, the conservation criteria outcome was derived for each area by identifying conservation features requiring protection (such as old growth, rainforest and forest types), by chasing high irreplaceability indices ("hot spots"), and by strategic nominations of compartments to satisfy forest type and reserve design requirements. Preference was given to old growth rather than regrowth to meet forest type targets.
The windback industry scenarios involved a number of approaches depending on the extent to which compartments needed to be released from deferral and the preferences of the negotiators. This included deselection of compartments known to be important for continuity of operations, occurrence of plantation areas, the extent of regrowth, considering available harvesting volumes, principal commercial species, over-reserved forest types, and resource design.
In some cases, the higher percentage industry outcomes were developed by starting again, then deferring a limited number of compartments to resolve particular conservation issues.
Each outcome could be refined further by additional analysis to reduce under or over conservation target results and to improve sustained yield.
Prior to completion of the negotiations, it was necessary to examine the data to see that sensible reserve decisions were being made in the manner described here.
It is necessary to consider reserve design in the context of the IAP so as not to foreclose on reserve options. Clearly, a well designed reserve is of greater value than a poorly designed reserve system. To this end, the Commonwealth Proposed Criteria nominate the following broad principles to account for reserve design:
Reserve design should, where possible, incorporate ecologically meaningful boundaries and seek to maintain ecosystem functions and processes.
The Commonwealth Proposed Criteria nominate the following number of factors to be borne in mind in formulating reserve options:
For the negotiation phase of the IAP, the reserve design criteria were observed, but not treated as paramount.
At the end of each negotiation, an Interim Assessment Negotiation Outcome Report was produced which incorporated details of:
Chapter 6 provides a summary of the outcomes of the negotiation process for each of the 11 negotiation regions within the five main study areas including black and white A3 maps for each of the options.
Chapter 7 indicates the succeeding actions after the exhibition of this report leading to the finalisation of the IAP and the commencement of the CRA processes.
A list of references for this chapter can be obtained from the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council.