Sir, – In recent correspondence I have suggested the drought and the catastrophic bush fires were related phenomena, with the remedies to hand, namely, restoring a large amount of native vegetation which has been removed since European settlement.

The notion of, ‘think globally but act locally’ suggests that much can be done individually or by discrete community groups. Thus also with re-vegetation. 

On a personal note, my wife and I know how easy it is. We have partially re-vegetated what was a bare, sheep-holding paddock over the past 20 years, so that it now has 20 metre-tall trees growing over it, and with a diffuse under-storey; innumerable birds, insects and native animals have returned. 

I was prepared to water seedlings over their first summer as necessary, but after that the native plants were basically left to their own devices.

How many trees and shrubs? We have planted about 4000 local provenance trees and shrubs on about four hectares – a lot of plants are required to restore rural Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. A 20 to 50-year project offering employment for many, as seed harvesters, propagators, planters and plantation carers. A life-line for small, struggling communities. A minimum of 500 plants per hectare is probably necessary to have any environmental impact. An indicative 100 long-lived and large tree species per hectare, would, after 20 years, represent at least 100 tonnes of stored carbon, or 10,000 tonnes per square kilometre, or 25,000 tonnes per square mile.

Should we take re-vegetation seriously, within a generation we can expect to see a measurable decline in atmospheric carbon, improved rehydration of the environment and no agricultural production detriment.

One of the extraordinary by-products of our own personal re-vegetation efforts was the discovery that gum-leaf litter which fell into the clean drinking water which we provided for our local wildlife, seriously slowed down the development of algal contamination of the water. Could it be that the leaf litter, which once swept into water ways and storages – but is now absent because the native vegetation has been removed, or remnant litter is devoured by hungry livestock – is the necessary decontaminant to keep our precious water resources free of toxic algae? 

Our own experiences relate to nothing larger than 40-litre water containers but it is a tantalising thought that tannins and-or leaf products such as eucalyptus oils keep the water clean – think, and no more fish kills.

Finally, can our decision-makers be encouraged to put some serious resources into re-vegetation? Can farmers be persuaded to change entrenched habits and either replant or allow natural re-vegetation from existing remnants? Will short-term-ism overwhelm any notion of patient repair, extending over generations?

Cor Lenghaus

Armstrong