Opinion piece: EPBC Act reformFriday 19 Dec 2025
For forestry, however, the stakes are high. The application of new national environmental standards to production forestry is not a technical tweak, it is a fundamental reset. If those standards are badly framed or poorly implemented, we risk repeating the last decade: rolling legal challenges, mounting costs for state agencies, uncertainty for workers and businesses, and little evidence of real gains in forest condition. On the other hand, if the standards are grounded in science, practice and partnership, they offer an opportunity to demonstrate, with evidence, that forestry is both a sustainable and nature-positive sector. Forestry is one of the tools we already have in our hands to meet some of our most pressing challenges. Actively managed forests can be more resilient to bushfire, drought and pests; they can store more carbon over time; and, when they supply wood to local, low-emissions manufacturing, they help shift us towards a more circular economy that uses renewable, recyclable materials instead of fossil-intensive alternatives. When people can see that harvesting is tightly regulated, ecologically informed and genuinely improving forest condition, trust in forestry as a legitimate, beneficial activity can grow. Any future framework must also put First Nations at the centre. The reforms will only succeed if Traditional Owners are genuinely engaged and empowered to lead on managing Country, with governance arrangements that restore their agency rather than treating them as one more stakeholder to consult at the end. The debate over Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) sits squarely in this context. It has been disappointing to see Australia’s native forest harvesting industry used as a bargaining chip in negotiations over environmental law. RFAs are often not recognised for the practical whole-of-landscape framework they have provided. Yet the move to repeal the RFA provisions in the EPBC Act also opens up a moment of choice. Whatever replaces RFAs must keep and improve on their strengths, including integrated State–Commonwealth roles, long-term planning across tenures, and a structure that supports adaptive management, transparency and accountability. In practice, that means modernised, landscape-scale agreements that cover all forests, State forests, national parks, Indigenous-managed lands, private native forests, plantations and farm trees, and that provide the basis for enduring funding and stewardship capacity across cultural, conservation and production objectives. Initiatives such as the proposed $300 million “forest growth” fund could play an important role in backing better managed forests, higher-value manufacturing, strong regional communities and improved environmental outcomes. Real success will depend on adequate resourcing for implementation and monitoring with clear and honest communication. Strong, positive working relationships between the Commonwealth, states, industry, First Nations, private forest owners, local governments and communities will be critical. If we get those relationships, standards and institutions right, the EPBC reforms can help Australians be proud of a forestry sector that underpins healthy, resilient forests and makes a real contribution to meeting our emissions reduction targets. Dr Michelle Freeman, President, Forestry Australia Source: Forestry Australia Further reading:
 | ||
Copyright 2004-2026 © Innovatek Ltd. All rights reserved. |
