❓ A WA parliamentary question challenges the environmental justification for protecting forests of less than high conservation value based on anthropocentric criteria, questioning if timber communities could reclassify such forests for logging to protect timber industry history. The government's response defends its policy of recognizing community values alongside environmental ones in assessing high conservation value forests.
AnsweredQoN 1351Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they demonstrate a distinctive way of life, custom or land use no longer practised, in danger of being lost or of exceptional interest; (c) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they contain information contributing to a wider understanding of the history of human occupation in the State; (d) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they have close associations with individuals whose activities have been significant with the history of the State or region; (e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(c) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they contain information contributing to a wider understanding of the history of human occupation in the State; (d) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they have close associations with individuals whose activities have been significant with the history of the State or region; (e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(d) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they have close associations with individuals whose activities have been significant with the history of the State or region; (e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(f) The policy commitment is to assess 'other high conservation value areas to be included in the reserve system'. Areas that are not found to have high conservation values under represented in the reserve system, will remain as State forest.
(c) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they contain information contributing to a wider understanding of the history of human occupation in the State; (d) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they have close associations with individuals whose activities have been significant with the history of the State or region; (e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(d) what conservation or environmental justification exists to protect, from logging, forests of less than high conservation value simply because they have close associations with individuals whose activities have been significant with the history of the State or region; (e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(e) how does the State's environment and natural heritage benefit from the application of these anthropocentric criteria; and (f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(f) is it possible that timber communities could seek to have forests of less than high conservation value placed into a production forest category so that events, cultural phases, distinctive way or life, customs, understanding of human occupation history and close associations with timber industry history as outlined in criterion 4 are protected and made available for logging so as to protect anthropocentric values?
(f) The policy commitment is to assess 'other high conservation value areas to be included in the reserve system'. Areas that are not found to have high conservation values under represented in the reserve system, will remain as State forest.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
19 February 2002
Responded by
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
68 days
(a) - (e) The Government's
Protecting our old-growth forests
policy recognises community values as well as environmental values. Accordingly, this approach is reflected in criterion 4 for the assessment of high conservation value forest.
(f) The policy commitment is to assess 'other high conservation value areas to be included in the reserve system'. Areas that are not found to have high conservation values under represented in the reserve system, will remain as State forest.
Protecting our old-growth forests
policy recognises community values as well as environmental values. Accordingly, this approach is reflected in criterion 4 for the assessment of high conservation value forest.
(f) The policy commitment is to assess 'other high conservation value areas to be included in the reserve system'. Areas that are not found to have high conservation values under represented in the reserve system, will remain as State forest.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.