Jamax Forest Solutions

16/06/2026

What happens when wildfire reaches a managed forest?

Researchers examined nearly 300 wildfires across 11 western states and found that fuel treatments reduced wildfire spread, prevented an estimated 152,000 acres from burning, and avoided roughly $2.8 billion in damages. The study also found that every $1 invested in fuel treatments generated about $3.75 in avoided wildfire damages.

Read the full article:
https://healthyforests.org/2026/06/researchers-studied-300-wildfires-heres-what-they-found/

15/06/2026

..."hollow form"..camphor...2024...simon begg...australian wood artist..turner..carver...simon begg's woodturning....sydney..new south wales..australia...born 1994...primarily wood...

15/06/2026

For millennia we’ve had our own traditional knowledge and practices that have protected our lands and waters ways.

Indigenous Fire Practitioner, Author and Filmmaker, Victor Steffensen has used his experience with Indigenous land management and cultural fire burnings to inform governments on how to better prepare for bushfire emergencies.

His latest book is titled, The Knowledge: Learning from ancestral wisdom to save our challenging global environment.

15/06/2026

Myth Buster No. 7: Planning, regulation, monitoring and enforcement processes are ineffective

Public native forest is governed and managed under state or territory regulatory frameworks and management plans (for examples see ABARES 2024e, 2024f; ABARES 2025b). Management of private native forest is regulated under various native vegetation Acts by the States and Territories. State level Codes of Forest Practice, containing many legally binding requirements, provide operational guidance for sustainable management for wood production in native forests and in plantations. As of June 2023, 20.4 million ha of Australian forests were third-party certified under the Responsible Wood (Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification- PEFC) system and 1.2 million ha under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Almost all multiple-use public forest is certified under at least one of these certification systems (ABARES 2023c).

The following examples from Tasmania and NSW explain how forest practices regulations operate in the States with the largest native forest-based industries.

In Tasmania, the system is administered by an independent Forest Practices Authority (FPA) which aims to achieve sustainable management of public and private forests (Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority, 2025). There is an emphasis on self-regulation, use of delegated and decentralised approvals for forest practices plans and use of a Forest Practices Code to provide practical and verifiable standards for management, harvesting and other forest operations. The system deploys independent monitoring and enforcement protocols including annual audits of a sample of current forest practices plans and investigating alleged breaches of the Forest Practices Act 1985 or Forest Practices Code to make sure that standards are being met. The Code and associated regulatory protocols (e.g. for threatened species) are periodically reviewed. The FPA have the power to ask for remedial works, issue fines or prosecute in the courts if standards are breached. The State of the Forests Tasmania Report (FPA 2022) provides detailed outcomes for key Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators.

NSW has a system for delivering Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management (ESFM) (see NSW Government, Department of Primary Industries, Sydney 2021). The Framework applies to all forests, across all land tenures. It includes overarching policy and legislation, institutional and administrative arrangements and associated planning and operations. It is complemented by incorporating research findings, feedback associated with compliance systems, stakeholder engagements, monitoring and review. Crown timber land is the publicly owned State Forest, timber reserves and other land upon which forest operations are authorised by the Forestry Corporation of NSW (a State-owned corporation). Forest operations are licenced through Integrated Forest Operations Approvals (IFOAs) (NSW EPA 2024) which are regulated for environmental compliance by the state (NSW EPA 2023). The IFOAs set environmental rules for how forestry operations can be carried out and the EPA independently inspect these operations to ensure compliance. The Forestry Corporation reports annually on performance against their ESFM objectives (Forestry Corporation of NSW, Sydney 2025). This includes a summary of response to all breaches (noncompliance) of mandated environmental guidelines.

Both Tasmania and NSW have a comprehensive set of policies, legislation, regulations and on-ground processes to facilitate sustainable management of multiple-use native forests and on-going improvements based on research which is publicly available. Despite this, there has been on-going court action against native forest management agencies, notably in NSW. Some of these cases have proven breaches of harvesting regulations and have resulted in imposition of fines and greater restrictions on areas available for harvest. In principle, these systems and practices provide a basis for on-going improvement of operations.

Source: R. J. Raison, E. K. S. Nambiar, G. A. Kile & L. J. Bren (27 May 2026): Australia’s native forests can be sustainably managed for wood production together with other important forest values, Australian Forestry, DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2026.2663997

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/udeiimzwk2jyban3y8ynu/Australia-s-native-forests-can-be-sustainably-managed-for-wood-production-together-with-other-important-forest-values.-Raison-Nambiar-Kile-and-Bren.-May-2026..pdf?rlkey=jokeryyy8dyroevfg7hdt3sff&dl=0

15/06/2026

"He hopes they continue to secure grants to continue their conservation work, in particular cultural burns to restore forest structure, encourage regeneration of key food trees and reduce the risk of high-intensity bushfires across koala habitat."

In a major conservation win, koalas have been detected in multiple locations in Wadbilliga National Park for the first time…

15/06/2026

Reduced logging delivers limited climate benefits

Proposals to reduce forestry activity and increase protected forest areas have become an important part of the European forestry debate. However, according to a new impact assessment, such measures risk leading to lower production, tens of thousands of lost jobs, and higher societal costs — without delivering any climate benefits. Source: PaperAge

A new national forestry impact analysis shows that a more restrictive Swedish forestry policy would have far-reaching consequences for the economy, employment, and energy supply. The study was conducted by Tomas Thuresson, a forestry PhD and former Head of Silviculture at the Swedish Forest Agency, together with Runar Brännlund, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics (CERE) at Umeå University. The report was commissioned by SCA.

Jonas Mårtensson, Head of Business Area at SCA Forest, notes that the report highlights both the significant benefits of active forest management and the risks associated with seeking “simple solutions.”

“Actively managed forests generate enormous benefits, both economically and for the climate. The fundamental principle is to harvest mature forests and replace them with new forests that can continue absorbing carbon dioxide. This also forms the basis for renewable products that replace concrete, steel, plastics, and other emission-intensive materials,” Mårtensson said.

“The entire forestry system, which provides substantial climate benefits, is profitable and creates value. It generates jobs, investments, export revenues, and tax income. To me, the report illustrates how easily one can lose sight of the bigger picture in the pursuit of simple solutions and instead risk damaging a socially beneficial forest industry without actually achieving anything positive.”

The researchers analyzed the effects of several policy proposals currently being discussed within the framework of EU forest policy development, including reduced harvesting, increased conservation set-asides, and so-called “Closer to Nature” forestry, which involves a greater use of continuous-cover forestry methods instead of clear-cutting.

The report concludes that a reduction in harvesting would have a nearly proportional effect on forest raw material production. If harvesting decreases by 15%, production and economic value would decline by a similar amount.

The most significant impacts occur under the “Closer to Nature” scenario, in which half of Sweden’s managed forests are converted to continuous-cover forestry methods and a larger share of forest land is set aside for natural development. According to the analysis, harvesting would then decline by 25-%30%, while the supply of sawlogs would fall by 30% – 40% for several decades. This would result in the loss of between 25,000 and 35,000 jobs and a reduction in value added of up to one-third.

“Restricting Swedish forestry is a costly illusion that in practice leads to leakage to other countries, a weaker economy, fewer jobs, and a reduced climate contribution. To me, it is an obviously expensive and ineffective path that hinders the transition from fossil-based to renewable solutions.” Said Tomas Thuresson, a forestry PhD and former Head of Silviculture at the Swedish Forest Agency.

Mr Thuresson points out, “Restricting Swedish forestry is a costly illusion that in practice leads to leakage to other countries, a weaker economy, fewer jobs, and a reduced climate contribution. To me, it is an obviously expensive and ineffective path that hinders the transition from fossil-based to renewable solutions.”

A central question addressed in the report is how reduced forestry activity would affect the climate. The analysis shows that carbon storage in forests may increase in the short term when less timber is harvested. In the longer term, however, forest growth declines, which according to the report’s authors leads to reduced carbon sequestration both in forests and in wood products.

The researchers also argue that the climate benefits of forest products may diminish. When wood is used in buildings, packaging, or energy systems, it can replace materials and energy sources associated with higher fossil emissions. If the supply of Swedish forest raw materials decreases, this so-called substitution effect is weakened.

The report also highlights the risk of carbon leakage. If demand for wood products remains unchanged while production in Sweden declines, production may instead shift to countries with higher emission levels.

Runar Brännlund notes, “The climate benefits of these measures, when material substitution and carbon leakage are excluded, do not justify the costs. When carbon leakage is also taken into account, one cannot rule out the possibility that the overall climate impact becomes negative.”

Forest biomass currently accounts for nearly 40% of Sweden’s energy consumption, and a reduced supply of raw materials could affect the energy system, particularly district heating networks in larger cities.

According to the report, the consequences would not be limited to the forest industry. Forest biomass currently accounts for nearly 40% of Sweden’s energy consumption, and a reduced supply of raw materials could affect the energy system, particularly district heating networks in larger cities.

The analysis also shows that the socioeconomic cost of additional conservation set asides is substantial and is estimated to be roughly twice the cost of acquiring the land outright.

According to the report’s authors, the focus should therefore be on maximizing the climate benefits of Swedish forests through active management and the continued development of resource-efficient products and materials.

“If the goal is to achieve genuine climate benefits — that is, global emissions reductions rather than merely reductions in national emissions — the focus should be on active Swedish forestry and the continued development of the Swedish forest industry,” Brännlund says. “This would ensure both increased climate benefits and higher employment in Sweden.”

The core of SCA’s business is the forest, Europe’s largest private forest holding. SCA offers packaging paper, pulp, wood products, renewable energy, services for forest owners and efficient transport solutions. SCA was founded in 1929 and has its headquarters in Sundsvall, Sweden.

A new national forestry impact analysis shows that a more restrictive Swedish forestry policy would have far-reaching consequences for the economy, employment, and energy supply.

15/06/2026

Technical note to aid understanding of Australian logging laws

Australia has some of the world’s strictest illegal logging laws, with due diligence requirements applying to both domestic processors and importers before timber products can be placed on the market. Source: Timberbiz

To help businesses navigate these requirements, Responsible Wood has developed a new Technical Note explaining how PEFC certification can support compliance with the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 and Illegal Logging Prohibition Rules 2024.

For countries without Commonwealth Country Specific Guidelines, certification can provide a practical pathway to demonstrate compliance and simplify evidence collection.

Download the technical note here:https://www.timberbiz.com.au/wp-content/uploads/TECHNICAL-NOTE-PEFC-Certification-Illegal-Logging.pdf

15/06/2026

A salvage pilot in North Lismore has recovered premium old-growth hardwood from two condemned homes intact, pulling ironbark, cedar and blackbutt out of the demolition pipeline and back into use rather than landfill.

Big Scrub ironbark, cedar and blackbutt pulled from two condemned Lismore homes — and a national call to make deconstruction standard.

12/06/2026

Myth Buster No. 6: Expanding plantations can quickly and easily replace the wood sourced from native forests

In Australia, there has been a shift of wood supply from native forests to planted forests, while supply from native forests played a vital complementary goal. It is now argued that this shift should be, and can be, complete and immediate, and that is necessary to protect native forests (Lindenmayer 2024a, 2024b; ACBF 2025). This idea is simplistic and ignores the increasing national wood deficit and the well-known constraints experienced over the last three decades during the efforts to expand plantation forestry.

Serious constraints faced include access to suitable and affordable land and community opposition to land conversion from farming to forestry. Earlier projections by resource economists (e.g. Ajani 2007) that tightening wood supply from native forests would stimulate plantation expansion may have had some effects but not at the scale needed, despite a 75% reduction in wood harvests from native forests during the last two decades. Furthermore, softwood (generally from plantations) or hardwood (from native forests or from plantations) are necessary for specific products and markets, and wood quality is an important attribute that determines the product that can be made.

According to the ABARES (2023c) in 2022–23, the total national wood harvest was 25 million m3 valued at $1.35 billion. Native forest supplied 10% of this and the rest came from plantations. There were 1.82 million ha of plantations, comprising 1.06 million ha of softwood and 0.74 million ha of hardwood. Based on these reports and other sources, the current wood harvests, their sources, trends in supply and general suitability for commercial products can be summarised as follows:

Native forests: mostly managed using selective harvesting of regrowth after prior wildfires or harvesting produced about 2.5 million m3 of logs with the primary purpose of producing solid timber products. Typically, about 50% of the logs are useable as sawlogs with the remainder used for wood chip for pulp and paper products (ABARES 2024c). Log supply from native forests declined from 2011/12 to 2020/21 by 29%, but between these periods harvest from public forests was 23% below the sustainable yield level (ABARES 2023c, 2024h).

These reductions are mainly due to the transfer of multiple-use forests to conservation tenures, the loss of timber resources to wildfire, and increasing environmental restrictions on harvesting. Further reductions in national average annual sustainable yield after the 2020/21 period will be the result of Western Australian and Victorian governments’ decisions to cease the harvest of public native forests. The economic impacts of reduced domestic hardwood supply in terms of loss of capital value of plant and equipment, loss of equipment in contracting and manufacturing, the cost of public subsidies for exit programs, and the costs of increased import or substitution effects are not well known, but likely to be very high. For example, a recent estimate of the costs of closing the industry in Victoria was approximately $1.5 billion during the first year (https://www.timberbiz.com.au/shutting- victorias-native-forestry-cost-taxpayers-1-5b/).

The ACBF 2025 proposal to source all wood from plantations does not recognise the significant use of native forest timber for internal and external appearance products, furniture, structural products, utility poles and piles that cannot be replaced by existing plantations, and that of products dependent upon the colour, special features, durability and hardness of native forest timber (Tasmanian Forestry Hub 2024). As an example, it is estimated that about 11 million hardwood utility poles are in use, most sourced from native forests for their quality (Wood Central 23 July 2025a). Assuming 50 years average life of a pole, about 200,000 of them require replacement annually. Uncertainty in supply from traditional sources is leading to the use of alternative materials that cost more and are emissions-intensive, non- renewable and difficult to recycle and to dispose of (Wood Central, 31 August 2024).

Hardwood plantations: managed on rotations of 10–15 years and predominantly Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus). They produced 8.5 million m3 of wood in 2022/23, with 90–95% exported as wood chips. About 5–6% of the hardwood plantations are Shining Gum (E. nitens), largely confined to Tasmania, a small proportion of which are managed on a 25-year rotation for solid wood products.

From 2000/01–2022/23 the area of hardwood plantations declined from 0.97 to 0.74 million ha, but production (mostly chip wood) increased from 6.97 to 8.49 million m3 (ABARES 2024c). Currently, Australia has only small areas with an appropriate species and management regime (long rotation with thinning and/or pruning) to produce older/larger logs suitable for solid wood products (sawn timber, veneer). Other than NSW high-quality hardwood logs from public plantations have been infrequent and very small in volume. NSW has averaged 27 000 cubic metres annually between 1993/94 and 2020/21 (ABARES 2024h). The plantation hardwood resource as it currently exists cannot replace native forest for solid wood products, although it can augment it for certain products. Technological innovation could allow utilisation of some of the wood harvest for higher value engineered products (Wood Central 25 February 2026), if commercially viable.

Softwood plantations: predominantly Pinus species, grown over a 25–30-year rotation, supply approximately 14.0 million m3 per annum of logs used for a wide range of solid and engineered wood products, paper and packaging. About 55–65% of the total volume of logs from managed softwood plantations is converted to sawn timber and veneer, with the rest largely used as chip wood for paper, boards and other products.

ABARES data over 21 years (2000/01–2022/23) show that the area under softwood plantations has remained static, with a mean of 1.2 million ha. The total volume harvested annually ranged from 12.7 million m3 to 17.2 million m3 with no reliable trend over time and with a mean of 14.6 million m3. Data for the 12 year period 2011-12 to 2022-23 is shown in Figure 4. The annual harvested sawlog productivity over the long-term and across the entire Australian estate ranged from 9.6 to 17.0 m3 ha−1 y−1. There appears to be no consistent trend in productivity, beyond the annual fluctuations, over time.

The increasing wood and wood products deficit: Australia’s dependency on imports of forest products is increasing (FWPA 2024; ABARES 2025a). A recent detailed industry analysis (FWPA 2025) found that reduced access to native forests during the last 10–15 years has led to:

● A 4.7% annual increase in import of wood products. Imports of hardwood from Asia (mainly China, Indonesia and Malaysia) have increased by 5.6% per year. In 2023–24, 62% of wood imports came from Asia.

● A large increase in imports of Engineered Wood Products which have a higher carbon footprint than Australian hardwood (Ximenes et al. 2016).

● A 16% per year increase in the use of steel framing, construction steel and components all of which have higher carbon footprints than equivalent wood components.

During 2023/24, the import of sawn wood was 974 000 m3, wood panels 1.03 million m3 and paper and paper board 1.37 million tonnes. Dressed softwood alone was 561 000 m3, costing $347 million. The total cost of imported wood products was $6.5 billion compared to exports valued at $2.7 billion (mostly wood chip) during the same period (ABARES 2024g). The net trade deficit in wood products has increased over time and will increase further during the following decades.

A recent study (FWPA 2024) estimated that Australia needs to build about 2.5 million new houses by 2034 to keep pace with population growth and to address the legacy of unmet demand over many years. The study concluded that this demand will result in increasing annual shortages of sawn structural timber which currently can only be met from imports. ABARES (2025a) reached a similar conclusion. ABARES also forecast an increase in softwood harvest from the 15.5 million m3 in 2025–29 to 23 million m3 in 2050–2054. This projection is likely unrealistic and questionable because it is based on plantations re-established after the 2019–2020 fires, assumptions of expanding areas of new plantations which is not happening at sufficient scale and significant uncertainties around future productivity improvements.

Prospects for plantation expansion: There have been several major Commonwealth government policy initiatives and investments over the last 30 years aimed at promoting wood supply from plantation forests on farmland. The Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) in the 1990s and early 2000s led to the expansion of short rotation eucalypts plantations (mainly blue gum) but some 20–25% of that estate has suffered low productivity and commercial viability. In limited cases, these areas have been replanted with pines, but most have been converted back to agriculture, resulting in a net loss of 230,000 ha in total area. A current government subsidy program nationally to stimulate the expansion of long-rotation plantations and to generate carbon credits have so far led to an increase of less than 5% to the total pine plantation area (Groenhout and Wilson 2025).

Reliance entirely on plantation wood supply carries high risk because plantations are grown in concentrated locations and are vulnerable to wildfire, drought, pests and diseases. For example, 92,000 ha of planation were burnt in the 2019/2020 bushfires in NSW and Victoria (Davey and Sarre 2020), causing major impacts on industries and markets. Plantation forestry sites are prone to recurring long periods of drought, posing significant threats to wood production, as illustrated by the current concerns in the Green Triangle region (ABC News 2025) and experienced regularly in the past. Restrictions on water allocations is already limiting plantation replanting in the northern parts of Green Triangle. The well-known challenges in expanding productive plantations (high land costs, regulations, management costs and risks especially from fire over long rotations) are largely ignored in the prospectus presented by the ACBF 2024 in their call for banning native forest harvesting.

There are good reasons for expanding the plantation forestry-based sector nationally and for continuing the efforts towards that goal as part of diversified wood supply policy. That is not a reason to ban all harvest from native forests. Australia’s dependence on wood product imports is increasing, as our log supply is nearly static while demands are increasing with rapidly growing population and urgent demand for new housing. A modest increase in wood harvest from sustainably managed native forests will help alleviate this situation and we can do so sustainably (Raison and Nambiar 2024).

Source: R. J. Raison, E. K. S. Nambiar, G. A. Kile & L. J. Bren (27 May 2026): Australia’s native forests can be sustainably managed for wood production together with other important forest values, Australian Forestry, DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2026.2663997

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/udeiimzwk2jyban3y8ynu/Australia-s-native-forests-can-be-sustainably-managed-for-wood-production-together-with-other-important-forest-values.-Raison-Nambiar-Kile-and-Bren.-May-2026..pdf?rlkey=jokeryyy8dyroevfg7hdt3sff&dl=0

11/06/2026

Myth Buster No. 4: Harvesting causes large emissions of carbon, so forests are better managed without harvesting as carbon stores and for creation of carbon credits

Keith et al. (2014, 2015, 2022) concluded that harvesting and removal of biomass from native forests results in high net carbon emissions. These conclusions have been used to promote anti-forestry activism by organisations in Tasmania, NSW and WA (e.g. Cross et al. 2023), in Victoria (Sanger 2022) and by sections of the media. The Victorian State Government decision to close the native forest timber industry was partially based on the belief that this closure would deliver a large reduction in carbon emissions (D’Ambrosio 2019).

Recently, the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation (ACBF 2025) and subsequent several media statements by it have advocated that total cessation of native forest harvesting will create large amounts of monetised carbon credits, and to promote this business case they levelled harsh and unjustifiable criticisms at current native forest management.

A review of scientific literature on the effects of forest management on carbon balance in Australian native forests (Raison 2024) concluded that a systematic and reliable assessment of the carbon flows associated with harvesting requires the application of a full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) framework that accounts for: temporal changes in carbon stock at the harvested site; emissions associated with managing and harvesting, transporting logs and processing wood products; storage of carbon in products in service and after disposal in landfill; emissions saved by using residues to generate energy otherwise produced by the combustion of fossil fuels; benefits of substituting wood for more emissions-intensive materials such as steel, aluminium or concrete in construction; and the often higher (Ximenes et al. 2016; Venn 2023) carbon footprint of imported wood products.

The only study in an Australian native forest (Ximenes et al. 2016) using a complete LCA concluded that sustainable harvest and use of biomass for conversion to products or energy can reduce net emissions.

The review by Raison (2024) also concluded that the studies by Keith et al. (2014, 2015) have either been incomplete (did not use a full LCA), used inappropriate parameters (e.g. low figures for the proportion of felled biomass removed) to estimate components of the total carbon balance, or overestimated the rate of carbon gain in older forests (based on limited field sampling, inappropriate extrapolations and dubious assumptions) and the capacity of unharvested forests to store carbon over the long-term given the recurrent wildfires in our environment.

Consequently, Keith et al. overestimated the net carbon gain by unharvested forests and underestimated the carbon benefits achievable from wood harvest and use and reached the erroneous conclusion that cessation of harvests would provide better carbon outcomes than sustainable management including for wood production.

As an example of the impacts of harvesting on carbon balance at the State level, a brief analysis is provided below for NSW where 9.1% of the forest estate is State Forest and only a small part of this is harvested annually using selection silviculture. In 2022–23 about 650 000 cubic metres of log was harvested (public + private) (ABARES 2024c). One cubic metre of wood contains approximately 1 tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e); and on average, approximately 70% of felled biomass is removed offsite in logs (Raison and Squire 2010; Ximenes et al. 2016; Raison 2024).

Thus, the total carbon in all the felled trees to provide 650 000 m3 of logs annually is approximately 0.93 Mt CO2-e (i.e. 650 000/0.7) and only about 0.8% of the annual anthropogenic GHG emissions in NSW. This figure sets an upper limit for carbon emissions caused by harvesting if we assume that all that carbon was immediately released to the atmosphere (this does not occur in practice). When a full lifecycle analysis is conducted, as discussed above, sustainable harvesting generally does not cause net carbon emissions – instead, it contributes to emission mitigation (Ximenes et al. 2016; Ximenes 2023).

Nationally, logs harvested annually from all Australian native forests contain only about 2.5 Mt CO2-e, or about 0.6% of Australia’s total net anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Raison 2024). Additional emissions of carbon from the decomposition or combustion of slash produced during harvest are about a third of this amount.

In contrast, in very severe fire seasons such as the summer of 2019–20, carbon emissions were about twice Australia’s total annual anthropogenic (i.e. excluding wildfire emissions) GHG emissions and about 200 times greater than annual carbon removals in wood plus emissions from harvesting slash (Raison 2024).

Considering the detailed research studies in NSW (Ximenes et al. 2016) and the upper limits for harvesting emissions presented above, the strong advocacy by the ACBF 2025 that ceasing native forest harvesting in NSW could generate abatement (emissions reductions) of more than 1 million tonnes of CO2-e annually with a value of approximately $100 million is flawed. It is an illogical conclusion given that sustainable harvesting which is always followed by forest regeneration and use of wood products which stores carbon does not lead to net carbon emissions.

This is also the conclusion of the IPCC, the FAO and many international studies (see Raison 2024).

It is also important to note that, in 2021, native forests where harvests occurred previously provided a net sink of 35.7 million tonnes CO2-e, equivalent to 8% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions that year, and the net sink in wood products was 4.9 million tonnes CO2-e (MPIGA and NFISC 2024). Thus, claims that ceasing native forest harvesting per se can create reliable and saleable carbon credits suffer from several flaws and are highly questionable.

Source: R. J. Raison, E. K. S. Nambiar, G. A. Kile & L. J. Bren (27 May 2026): Australia’s native forests can be sustainably managed for wood production together with other important forest values, Australian Forestry, DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2026.2663997

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/udeiimzwk2jyban3y8ynu/Australia-s-native-forests-can-be-sustainably-managed-for-wood-production-together-with-other-important-forest-values.-Raison-Nambiar-Kile-and-Bren.-May-2026..pdf?rlkey=jokeryyy8dyroevfg7hdt3sff&dl=0