6.NEGOTIATION OUTCOMES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The following general comments were established for all the negotiations.

1. The interim intention of the process was noted.
2. The parties acknowledged that the data used in the negotiations were the best available and able to be collected in the timeframe of the IAP. Additional validation of both wood resources and conservation data will be conducted during the CRA process. Various conservation targets would be reviewed.
3. Timber value economic information, in the form of Wood Resources data, was considered in determining outcomes. Social and economic data were not of a type that could be formally considered in determining outcomes. Socio-economic factors such as important forest species and location were considered in arriving at some outcomes. The social and economic study outcomes will be considered by Government in reaching its decisions.
4. Plantations located within deferred compartments are available for logging.
5. Timber supply outcomes would be benchmarked against 1995 crown quota sawlog allocation for each negotiation area. Supply arrangements for other timber products such as poles, sleepers, firewood, pulpwood and non-quota sawlogs will be subject to future considerations of Government.
6. Issues arising from across negotiation area relationships would be considered during the public consultation period.

Summaries of the negotiated outcomes and the achievement of conservation criteria are provided in this section. The following sections provide more detailed commentary on each of the negotiation regions. Maps showing deferred and partially deferred forest areas for all of the outcomes are provided in the pocket of the report cover.

6.1.1 Summary of negotiated outcomes

Section 2.8.1 indicated the outcomes which were sought for each of the negotiation areas. Table 6.1 summarises the actual outcomes that were achieved and indicates where outcomes were either not necessary or not achievable for all negotiation regions except for Eden which is addressed in Table 6.2. A full explanation of the contents of Table 6.1 is presented here. Further information on each of the negotiation regions is given in later sections in this chapter.

Column 1: Negotiation region, area of State forest, 1995 allocation

The information presented in this column comprises three parts.

• The negotiation region with the State Forests Management Areas, eg. N1 (Urbenville and Murwillumbah MAs)
• The annual allocation of quota sawlogs in 1995 in m3. All references to allocations in Columns 2 to 7 refer to this volume.
• The area of State forest in the negotiation region in ha (excluding all other tenures such as private property, national parks and reserves, and vacant crown land).

It should be noted that the quota sawlog allocations in this column are for 1995 and that allocations for 1996/97 in the Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas have been reduced to 70% of that level, while in the Eden Study Area, allocations have been reduced to 60% of that level.

Column 2: Long term wood supply - (% of Col. 1)

• The information presented in this column represents the sustainable annual quota sawlog supply from existing areas of State forests including areas of identified wilderness as a percent of the 1995 sawlog allocation in Column 1 (based on the Wood Resources study data at the commencement of negotiations).

Column 3: Long term wood supply (wilderness excluded) - (% of Col. 1)

The information presented in this column comprises two parts.

• The sustainable wood supply from existing areas of State forests as a percent of the 1995 sawlog allocation in Column 1, but excluding areas of identified wilderness.
• The area of State forest which is unavailable for logging under this case description.

Column 4: Approximate 70% wood supply outcome - (% of Col. 1)

The information presented in this column comprises two parts.

• The approximately 70% wood supply outcomes as a percentage of the 1995 sawlog allocation in Column 1. In many of these outcomes, the available wood supply as indicated in Column 3, set the upper limit for the wood supply outcome that was achievable. For example, as Column 3 of N1 indicates an available supply of 60%, the wood supply in Column 4 can not exceed 60% and the 70% outcome could not be achieved.
• The area of State forest which is deferred under this case description.

Column 5: Approximate 50% wood supply outcome - (% of Col. 1)

The information presented in this column comprises two parts.

• The approximately 50% wood supply outcomes as a percentage of the 1995 sawlog allocation in Column 1. In a number of cases, either the 30% or the conservation criteria outcome achieved equal to or greater than a 50% outcome. In such cases, it was not necessary to generate a new 50% of allocation outcome.
• The area of State forest which is deferred under this case description.

Column 6: Approximate 30% wood supply outcome - (% of Col. 1)

The information presented in this column comprises two parts.

• The approximately 30% wood supply outcomes as a percentage of the 1995 sawlog allocation in Column 1. In a number of cases, the conservation criteria outcome achieved equal to or greater than a 30% outcome. In such cases, it was not necessary to generate a new 30% of allocation outcome.
• The area of State forest which is deferred under this case description.

Column 7: Conservation criteria outcome -
(% of Col. 1)

The information presented in this column comprises two parts.

• The planned conservation criteria outcome as a percentage of the 1995 sawlog allocation in Column 1.
• The area of State forest which is deferred under this case description.

Supporting Notes

1. It should be noted that the quota sawlog allocations in this column are for 1995 and under the Government's forest and conservation reforms, allocations for 1996/97 in the Northern, Central and Southern negotiation areas have been reduced to 70% of that level, while in the Eden negotiation area, allocations have been reduced to 60% of that level.

2. The % allocation figures in Columns 3 to 7 are estimates of the average level of quota sawlogs that can be supplied annually in the long term from the forest areas deferred under each outcome.

3. It should be noted that the table refers to 30, 50 and 70% of the 1995 quota sawlog allocations. This is equivalent to 70, 50 and 30% reductions respectively of the 1995 allocations. For consistent terminology, this report refers to outcomes as 30, 50 and 70% of the 1995 sawlog allocation.

Table 6.1: Summary of negotiated outcomes

Table 6.2: Summary of negotiated outcomes for Eden

6.1.2. Summary of achievement of conservation criteria

The following general notes apply to all outcomes, but to varying degrees.

Targets for a number of conservation features were not achieved due to the limited extent of some features and account being taken of industry requirements for some commercial forest types.

Targets for a number of conservation features were exceeded due to co-occurrence of features, selection of whole compartments and reserve design.

Tables 6.3 to 6.13 show the conservation criteria achievements for the outcomes shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Table 6.3: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Negotiation Region N1
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.4: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Negotiation Region N2
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.5: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Negotiation Region N3
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.6: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Negotiation Region N4
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.7: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Negotiation Region N5
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.8: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Negotiation Region N6
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.9: Summary of conservation criteria achievements -Central Negotiation Region
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.10: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - S1 Negotiation Region
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.11: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - S2 Negotiation Region
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.12: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Tumut Negotiation Region
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Table 6.13: Summary of conservation criteria achievements - Eden Negotiation Region
(1) Predicted habitat for priority fauna species identified by expert fauna panel.
(2) Verified localities of priority species identified by expert panel.

Back to the table of contents