With the inquiry set to investigate suspected botched prosecutions, accusations of cover-ups, mismanagement and a referral to the corruption watchdog, the announcement follows disquiet on the local front where activists are calling out a perceived lack of willingness to prosecute suspected logging violations in Glen Innes’ surrounding state forests.

Following his own extensive auditing and research of suspended NSW Forestry Corporation timber harvesting in the Glen Elgin and Gibraltar Range State Forests, local environmental activist Joe Sparks said in many cases there is a significant discrepancy between the regulations set down in the harvest plan and the practical work taking place on the ground.

Dubbing the measures taken towards protecting the habitat of the Hastings River mouse in the Glen Elgin and Gibraltar State Forests a “lip-service to threatened species”, Mr Sparks said he has noted significant non-compliance with regard to the establishment of a 200 metre no-logging buffer zone surrounding the locations of river mouse recorded sightings, with one occurrence on Pipeclay Road showing logging activity bordering noted river mouse habitat.

“That is a case of logging within 200 metres of the (river mouse) record,” Mr Sparks said.

“And it is obvious that the habitat was the same on either side of the (Pipeclay) road.”

Meeting with Greens member for parliament David Shoebridge on Thursday, June 12, to inspect local logging activity, Mr Shoebridge expressed his frustration that community activists are finding little response from the NSW EPA when reporting violations.

Coining the term “pretend regulation”, Mr Shoebridge said in many cases the punitive measures for forestry and environmental violations do not equate to the profits associated with the violations and therefore have little weight as deterrents.

Unless the penalty bears a close relationship to the profits made in the breach, Mr Shoebridge said the regulations placed on logging companies should be considered as “pretend legislation”.

Commenting specifically on the protection of endangered and threatened species in the local area, Mr Shoebridge said the buffer zones put in place to protect the Hastings River mouse were arbitrary, since the zone was established on the basis of a single sighting at a given time.

“If you have a critically-endangered species in the forest, don’t log the forest,” he said, noting that the current regulations do not allow for the possibility that the species may inhabit a much wider area than at the specific point of sighting. 

In response to questions regarding NSW Forestry Corporation’s compliance with logging regulations, a spokesperson said the corporation operates within one of the strictest forestry regulatory frameworks in the world, the Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOA).

“In line with the requirements of the threatened species licence that forms part of the IFOA, Forestry Corporation employs trained and experienced ecologists to complete extensive environmental surveys while planning harvesting operations.

“When threatened species are identified, exclusion zones are established where forestry activities are prohibited. The nature of the monitoring required and the required size of the exclusion zones are described in detail in the IFOA,” the spokesperson said.

“Exclusion zones are mapped and outlined in the harvest plans published online and are also physically marked in the field before work begins.

“Forestry Corporation has prepared its plans for the Glen Elgin and Gibraltar Range State Forests in line with the IFOA and is confident all the regulatory requirements have been fully satisfied.

“As the harvest plans note, significant exclusion zones will be established to preserve the habitat of the Hastings River mouse before work begins. These exclusion zones comply with licence requirements,” the spokesperson said, further noting that the corporation’s operations are independently audited by the EPA to ensure compliance with all relevant laws.  

As investigations continue into the EPA’s punitive measures for controlling environmental violations, local activists are calling for a more effective deterrent for non-compliant logging activities in the region’s state forests.