Maroc - TIMBERBIZ.COM.AU - A La Une - 08/May 00:05

Swift parrot at risk from sugar gliders not foresters

Forest and Wood Communities Australia says a new peer-reviewed study published in Australian Forestry demands an urgent reset of swift parrot conservation strategy, after independent research found that predation by introduced sugar gliders, not native forest harvesting, is the primary driver of the critically endangered species’ collapse. Source: Timberbiz “This study is a wake-up call that exposes how ideology has been allowed to hijack conservation science. For years, the native forest industry has been a convenient scapegoat for activists, while the real killers-like the sugar glider-were ignored,” Steve Dobbyns BSc (Forestry), Chairman, Forest and Wood Communities Australia said. “We see this same pattern across the board; whether it’s the swift parrot or other threatened species, the focus is routinely shifted toward stopping timber workers rather than managing the complex, primary threats like invasive predators and bushfire fuel loads.” The finding, published in Australian Forestry, challenges the widely held view that habitat loss from native forest harvesting is the central cause of the swift parrot’s decline. Independent researcher Simon Grove reviewed the body of published research to test two competing explanations, concluding that the evidence base firmly favours predation over habitat loss as the primary driver. Swift parrots breed only in Tasmania, making the species uniquely vulnerable and uniquely dependent on getting the conservation response right. Mr Grove’s paper tests two hypotheses: the forest habitat narrative, which holds that habitat loss from native forest harvesting is the critical mechanism; and the predation narrative, which holds that the population is being suppressed by sugar gliders killing nesting females, eggs and broods. Neither the straightforward forest habitat hypothesis, nor a more nuanced version linking sugar glider predation to forest disturbance, is well supported by the evidence. The predation hypothesis, by contrast, is grounded in empirical observation and supported by what the paper describes as apparently robust statistical modelling. The implications for conservation are direct. A strategy focused solely on protecting existing breeding habitat would, the study concludes, make negligible material difference to the swift parrot’s fate in the short term, doing little more than ensuring the remaining birds continue to be predated when nesting. The paper is unequivocal: an all-out focus on predation mitigation remains the only strategy with at least the potential to avoid species extinction. Mr Grove is unequivocal about what the evidence demands. “Unless we focus all-out on finding practical ways to reduce predation on nesting swift parrots at scale, the species seems doomed to extinction,” he said. “In contrast, directing outrage towards the highly regulated forestry sector does nothing to further the species’ chances of surviving into the next decade — in fact, it detracts from where the real work is needed and is therefore contributing to the problem rather than the solution.” Forest and Wood Communities Australia says the study reinforces what the industry has argued for years: that conservation campaigns targeting regulated native forestry have displaced attention and resources from the interventions most likely to make a material difference. With the swift parrot facing functional extinction by the end of this decade, FWCA is calling on conservation organisations and government agencies to reorient strategy around the predation evidence without delay. “If we keep letting anti-forestry sentiment dictate environmental policy, we aren’t just losing an industry – we are losing our biodiversity. By obsessing over harvesting and ignoring the science, we are effectively managing species into extinction,” Mr Dobbins said. “This isn’t just about the swift parrot; it’s about a fundamental need to reset how we protect all our forest-dwelling species. We must move past the ‘lock it up and leave it’ ideology and embrace active, evidence-based management that addresses the actual drivers of decline.”