{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01566080977845684, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007639419404125286, 'mean_word_length': 5.75, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Private Native Forestry: Silviculture, Sustainability and Incentives for Vegetation Management

Timber supplies from public native forests have declined significantly in recent decades. Consequently, wood processors are increasingly dependent on private land to maintain their throughput of native species logs. In some regions of Australia, more than 50 per cent of native forest industry log supply comes from private property. There is concern that this increased demand brings with it the increased risk of high grading in private forests - repeated removal of only merchantable stock, leaving an increasing proportion of poor quality trees which may be detrimental to both future timber yields and habitat quality. Nevertheless, this market situation also represents a commercial opportunity for private landholders and some additional incentive for them to better manage their forests for long-term sustainability. However, this needs to be supported by a policy and regulatory framework that provides incentives for private forest owners to manage their forests sustainably. Environmental policy settings and broader economic drivers can over-ride this opportunity. A range of biodiversity/habitat sustainability indicators have been developed to gauge the impacts of clearing for agriculture and in some states, for forestry operations in native forests. In Australia, these have principally been developed with a focus on public land, but, as additional scrutiny is brought to bear on private landholders, they are increasingly focused on private native forestry (PNF). Implementation of indicators may increase both the direct costs and the constraints on private native forest managers. It seems likely that returns from timber production alone may be insufficient to ensure best practice silviculture in private native forests. Incentives, available to the landowner, which recognize the public environmental goods being provided by well managed forests, may be one solution to the problem. This will require some quantification of how alternative forest management systems impact on those 'public good' values. Others suggest that government price setting arrangements for public forest timber maintain artificially low prices which reduce private forest management incentives. This paper is a progress report on several linked projects funded through RIRDC JVAP, which field test sustainability indicators, investigate the tradeoffs between commercial timber production and habitat/biodiversity conservation and examine options for improved private native forest management through commercial incentives.