Forest wars: what Bob Brown's Federal Court challenge to Tasmanian forestry practices comes down to

So what will the legal challenge focus on, and what are the possible implications?

While May's judgment that VicForests had breached its regional forest agreement by logging greater glider and Leadbeater's possum habitat was welcomed by the Bob Brown Foundation, the case concerning Tasmania is entirely separate.

Australia's 10 regional forest agreements were agreed to by former prime minister John Howard and various state premiers from 1997 to 2001 for Tasmania, Victoria, NSW and Western Australia.

Howard also brought in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in 1999, but given the impact it could have on logging activities, RFAs were made exempt and the RFA Act was created.

It allowed the Commonwealth to step back from regulating state-based forestry operations and enabled native forest logging to proceed without being assessed under Commonwealth environment laws.

There are a few conditions in the RFA Act - that the agreement "provides for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system" and "provides for the ecologically sustainable management and use of forested areas".

The Commonwealth became concerned at the validity of the RFAs in 2017, realising that they could be open to legal challenge given they were established based on 20-year-old environmental science.

The VicForests outcome proved that their fears were justified.

In the statement submitted to the Federal Court last week, lawyer Roland Browne - acting on behalf of the Bob Brown Foundation - detailed their two main arguments against the validity of the Tasmania RFA.

The first focuses on one line in the Tasmanian RFA: "Part 2 is not intended to create legally binding relations."

Part 2 is where those conditions in the RFA Act - including a reserve system and ecologically sustainable management of forests - are included. It also covers matters of national environmental significance, old growth forest management on public land and Aboriginal heritage.

MORE ON TASMANIAN FORESTRY:

The Bob Brown Foundation argues that, in order to be a valid RFA, these conditions must be "legally enforceable obligations". But in the Tasmanian RFA, they are not.

The second matter centres on the ability of the Tasmanian Government to amend the RFA in relation to the CAR reserve system and ecologically sustainable forest management at its own discretion.

The Bob Brown Foundation stated that "because those terms are subject to amendment from time to time at Tasmania's discretion", the Tasmanian RFA did not fulfill its statutory requirement.

"The Tasmanian RFA does not contain a mechanism or criteria that precludes Tasmania from amending Tasmania's policies, plans and practices at its discretion," Mr Browne's statement reads.

The Bob Brown Foundation launched the action against the Commonwealth, the State of Tasmania and Sustainable Timber Tasmania.

In the documents filed to the court, the foundation argues that as a result of the alleged invalidity of the Tasmanian RFA, STT had "wrongfully relied upon" the agreement to carry out its activities, including land clearing and burning off in land designated as "native forest".

While covering past practices, the court action also seeks to cover the coupes included in STT's three-year wood production plan from 2020 to 2023.

The Bob Brown Foundation alleges that STT was required to obtain environmental approvals under the EPBC Act before proceeding with these activities.

The foundation is seeking final and interim injunctions on STT forestry operations which did not have environmental approvals under Part 9 of the EPBC Act, and a declaration that STT had committed either offences or contraventions of Part 3 of the EPBC Act.

In a statement, Bob Brown Foundation stated that the case could have broader implications for forestry activities across Australia.

"If our case is successful, it will not only be good news for Tasmania, but will be significant for other states in Australia, as it will set a precedent for similar litigation," the statement reads.

The Tasmanian Government stated it had confidence in the Tasmanian RFA, but it would be inappropriate to comment on the legal proceedings. STT also could not comment.

With each RFA separate from each other, the specifics of the Victorian and Tasmanian cases vary.

In May, the Federal Court found that VicForests - the equivalent of STT - had not adequately evaluated the "very real" threat of damage to the habitat of the critically endangered greater glider and Leadbeater's possum in the state's Central Highlands.

The court found that forestry actions had damaged or destroyed critical habitat, and prevented other areas of forest from developing into habitat in the future.

While other reserves had been protected from logging, the court found that these faced an increasing risk of wildfire, meaning retaining all habitat was paramount.

Conservation strategies for the critically endangered animals were described as "defensive documents" that indicated VicForests was reluctant to protect the animals.

The outcome was regarded as a blow to RFAs, and reignited the conservation movement's legal opposition to native forest harvesting.

Earlier this month, the full audit of STT forestry activities in regards to Forest Stewardship Council guidelines was released, detailing areas of improvement if STT wanted to gain FSC certification.

The audit detailed failing to protect swift parrot habitat, the improper harvesting of old growth forest and the unintentional burning of streamside buffers, among the 10 major issues in need of rectifying.

As a result, STT developed a Swift Parrot Public Authority Management Agreement, including the exclusion of 10,000 hectares of potential breeding habitat from logging activity.