Tasmanian Forests Agreement: Submission to the Legislative Council
The lesson of the last two decades – and especially the period since the beginning of the 21st century – in relation to matters forestry in Tasmania is the lack of a holistic approach across the economic, social and environmental inter-relationships at virtually every level. If anything, the failure to adopt a systematic approach – even a simple cost-benefit framework – has created a life of its own, a paradigm self-reinforcing in its antipathy to rational analysis.
Consequently, all decision-making, policy development and strategic direction has occurred within an adversarial context, where issues are not addressed through a holistic lens at all but through the prism of compromise, wheeling and dealing, secrecy and exclusion of stakeholders.
Most important of all, such a reductionist approach has created its own dynamic of inflexibility, where focus has been concentrated on single silos of special concern to vested interest groups, not only to the detriment of the whole, but also entrenching ever -increasing dislocations from external realities.
The last three years have demonstrated this very thoroughly. The world is currently in the middle of a profound technological revolution which has already dramatically reshaped the way that information is shared. The 20th century was the age of paper, but the 21st century is already the age of digital communication. At the very time when most Tasmanian politicians threw their whole-hearted support behind a massive pulp mill plan for the Tamar Valley, which required massive monocultural plantations, massive use of fresh water and a an equally massive belief that the world’s digital revolution was a mirage, the evidence was already conclusive that this was the entirely wrong direction for the Tasmanian forestry industry.
A narrow band of opportunity may still exist for the Legislative Council to have some positive influence, but only if they have the capacity to understand that the future must focus on high quality and high value, not low value bulk commodification. Any other approach will ensure that the Legislative Council’s decisions will actually be irrelevant to what takes place in the future, because any other approach will ensure that outside forces will determine the future.
A continuation of past practices and a continuation of the current model, albeit on a smaller scale – as envisaged by the roundtable of vested interest groups and also by many who oppose the roundtable in order to continue the failures of the past – offers little hope for a viable forestry industry into the future because it merely locks in static inflexibility instead of creating circumstances which ensure adaptability in a rapidly changing world.
Historically, Tasmania’s rural economy has always been most successful when based on quality. This has been shown again and again, whatever sector of the rural economy comes to mind, whether it be in fruit, wool, cheese, wine, meat and so on. In the end, wherever the focus has shifted to bulk low value production, the result has not been pretty. Nor has it ever been sensible for Tasmanian rural industries to ignore external realities. Those who have done so in the past have often paid a heavy price. The history of the Tasmanian rural economy at its most successful has always been a story of change. The lesson has always been that those who get stuck in visions of the past perpetuating into the future become redundant.
The forestry industry is not the only sector of the rural economy which faces massive challenges into the future, but for various reasons the gap between where the forestry industry is now and where it needs to be to stand on its own feet is widening by the year and will continue to widen without necessary large-scale reforms. Unlike the forestry sector, most other areas of the rural economy which survive and are productive do so on the basis of continuous review and reform. The fact that the taxpayer has subsidised the forestry industry for years has discouraged processes of review and on-going reform to such an extent that minor reforms will now make no difference.
A small window of opportunity does exist for the Legislative Council to play a constructive role in encouraging a new direction focusing on high value. The vested interests which dominate the way that policy development has taken place, particularly in the last generation, makes it difficult to be optimistic that visionary leadership on this issue will occur.
Note: You have until January the 18th to put in a submission or advise the LC select committee that you wish to appear before it.
• Jan Davis, TFGA: Forests Bill process a farce
• ABC Online: Changes to forest peace deal bill unsettle MLCs
• Richard Colbeck, Thursday: Let’s call it: The deal is dud
• John Powell, Myrtlebank: Attention: Paul Harriss Committee Chairman
Paul,
Further to my email of 14 January on Ecological Sustainability I submit my input on Economic Sustainability to the Committee .
I use the example of Coupe BA388D, adjacent to my property, to highlight the fact that FT cannot justify logging to meet contractual demands when this will inevitably incur a loss to them, the State and the people of Tasmania.
I would ask the Committee to review this driver of FT logic, and conclude that a better outcome financially for all, but specifically the people of Tasmania, would be to remove this inherent behavioural flaw, and protect the entirety of the specific area highlighted and indeed the remainder of those forests identified in the TFA.
I would also suggest that I would be happy to host a visit to Coupe BA388D to demonstrate the validity of my assertions and also to personally show you the extensive European and Indigenous Heritage aspects of the area under question.
A sight of the FTD free Devils that exist here is probably not possible, unless you stay overnight, but you might be able to hear the call of the endangered Green and Gold Frog, and watch the Wedge Tailed Eagles soar along the escarpment.
Download:
Economic_Sustainability.docx
Show Comments
Comments (27)
Well said, Peter. This is a measured and reasonable contribution to discussion of the issue. For that reason alone, I fear that the response it will generate will consist largely of apathy, seasoned liberally with righteous indignation and a dash of vitriol.
The long term viability or otherwise of the production of paper pulp from Tasmanian trees is completely irrelevant to those who stand to gain in the short term from pretending that the status quo can continue indefinitely as long as taxpayers can be suckered into keeping on providing the expensive life-support equipment.
If the TFA bill goes down, the ‘small window’ of opportunity will be slammed shut. If the bill gets up in its present form, the window will be smashed. At the risk of pushing the analogy too far, perhaps the only answer is to knock down the wall and rebuild with bigger windows.
Councils renew call for study into forest peace deal
Updated 34 minutes ago
MAP: TAS
Twelve regional councils have renewed their call for a socio-economic study of Tasmania’s forest peace deal, on the eve of an Upper House inquiry.
The Legislative Council begins three days of public hearings tomorrow as part of its scrutiny of the State Government’s forest legislation.
The councils are calling on Upper House MPs to demand a socio-economic study be done into the peace agreement.
A spokesman for the group, Dorset Mayor Barry Jarvis, says the study is essential.
“To understand what the outcomes will be if reserves and industry is squeezed down,” he said.
“We believe that should have been an imperative from the start. We’ve been disappointed that they haven’t heeded our calls for two-and-a-half years.”
Up to 40 people from industry and environmental groups as well as government departments are expected to front the hearings.
MLCs expect the final report to be ready for the first parliamentary sitting date in March.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/councils-call-for-study-into-forestry-deal/4464178?section=tas
I sincerely hope that the LegCo Committee has the good sense to simply ignore ‘submissions’ such as this which are really nothing more than idealistic preaching from self-righteous, arms-length observers who in most cases are not even aware of what they don’t know about the topic.
I would argue that one would have needed to be intimately involved with or associated with the Tasmanian Govt forest management agency or the state’s timber industry for decades to be qualified to make meaningful comment on some of the matters broached by the author here.
That he lacks such a background is all too apparent. Yet it is so typical of TT posters to be advocating major changes to systems before even understanding what they are and how they work.
Meaningful and worthwhile change must be based on realities of what (if any) improvements are necessary, possible and achievable. They should not be driven by an imperative to placate critics who simply find an activity personally distasteful or who advocate change for the sake of change.
Some examples of gloriously unsubstantiated assertions by the author are:
“The lesson of the last two decades ..... in relation to matters forestry in Tasmania is the lack of a holistic approach across the economic, social and environmental inter-relationships at virtually every level”
“Consequently, all decision-making, policy development and strategic direction has occurred within an adversarial context ........”
“Most important of all, such a reductionist approach has created its own dynamic of inflexibility, where focus has been concentrated on single silos of special concern to vested interest groups, not only to the detriment of the whole, but also entrenching ever -increasing dislocations from external realities”
“The fact that the taxpayer has subsidised the forestry industry for years has discouraged processes of review and on-going reform ......”
While we chronically underestimate the perceptual capacities of other species, we likewise overestimate those of our LCs.
Forget arguments with those already contracted.
John Hayward
Mark Poynter 3 is essentially saying that only a car wrecker understands how a car works. That is a fallacy. Is killing the tallest flowering tree on the planet an example of his understanding of forestry?
Mark Poynter at #3 snipes about gloriously unsubstantiated assertions. Yet he advocates the same old practices that have brought the forest industry to its knees. Despite that losing standpoint, Poynter declares that an insider’s perspective is the one valid claim to authority. But of course, he claims that it is lies from the greenies that have brought about the malaise. Wary investors and markets have just been stupid. They’ve all been so easily fooled! Everybody else has got it wrong except for Mark and his colleagues close to the clearfell! Cashing in assets accrued over centuries manages to result in negative cash flow, yet underlies pleas for ever-increasing subsidies and welfare. Still, the reality of Poynter’s lose-lose propositions hasn’t penetrated his own sarcastic reductionist bluster. He wants any window of opportunity that allows for arms-length reflection ignored by the Legislative Council.
Actually Mark Poynter it’s arms-length observers I hope the LegCo will listen to the most. The disposal of PUBLIC RESOURCES is not to be trusted to the opinions of those who seek solely to flog the forests for every last shrivelled shekel, the self-confessed skin-in-the-gamers whose only known modus operandi is to loot the treasury, trash the landscape and exeunt.
#5, #6 and #7 are spot on in reply to #3’s attack on the writer of this article. Please Mark, just for starters, could you point out exactly where in the past two decades there HAS been a holistic triple bottom-line approach in forestry?
Intelligent, rational people looking in from outside the industry probably have a better idea than some of the idiots that have been running it…....I mean, it’s hardly been a raging success, has it? Despite all the money that had been thrown at it!
Nice work Peter. But #3, the systems don’t already work, can’t you, wonlt you, see that? That is why the Tas forestry industry is in such poor shape, led by the incompetent FT, and needing humdreds of millions of public subsidy to keep jusy one nostril above water.
I like your architectural analogy Tim. It’s like the Leg Co argument. It’s dysfunctional but only they are allowed to change themselves. It won’t happen. So our choice (if we have one at all) is between a smashed window or locked one. Sounds like Hobson’s to me.
#8 “Intelligent, rational people looking in from the outside of the industry ...have a better idea than some of the idiots running it”
Change places and see how they go! Or is being outside the tent the “intelligent, rational people(s)” preference? No responsibility.
I suspect that Mr Poynter like Candide believes that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and only those with the requisite experience should make the decisions.
He should note what happens to generals from previous wars when new wars arrive…
The hypocrisy of Harris is staggering.
Harris is wanting a socioeconomic study & cost/benefit analysis on the TFA.
Probably the first time in his life the Huon MLC has wanted to apply these types of studies to anything to do with logging.
Indeed, in 2007 the largest ever petition presented to the Harris & the Leg Co called for an independent socioeconomic study & cost/benefit analysis into the Gunns Pulp Mill. We never heard a peep from Harris about this. I doubt Harris even looked at that petition.
Anyone who believes the MLC’s will amend the TFA into something fair & workable is deluded.
The bill has been hijacked & its execution is only a matter of time.
#12 Well, sending this legislation to the hangman would be a good idea.
All I’m saying, TGC (comment 10) is that sometimes someone looking at something like the debacle that is forestry in this State with a dispassionate eye and with less of a venal vested interest, might, just might have some pretty good ideas, if only the bozos who have run it (badly) would listen! It’s not for want of trying by a number of people who would have very good input. They just hit the stone wall of the “this is how it’s always been done here and we don’t need to change” closed-minded attitude. Yeah, great - you’ve done an exemplary job - just carry on!
How did the State Government pass the TFA Bill in the first place, by avoiding having a closer look at the State Forest versus Reservation scenario’s. Probably out of fear, that Nick and Cassie might “do a runner”
So now tell me how is the Legislative select committee going to prove legitimacy in the eyes of the public for casting their votes over 295 lots of State Forest.
The government members with little or no working knowledge of the individual lots treating the event as if it is a Dutch auction.
I cannot believe that this costly time wasting exercise continues!
Although not a rerun of the events in Thompson’s book Power in Tasmania this saga rings of the unlearned lessons pre 1983. No doubt, like the old Hydro the timber industry will continue to dream whilst the world changes about them.
Lest this forest parody roll into yet another - “You’ve don’t it again Mr McGoo” procrastinating failures, I appeal to the Legislative Councillors to look at the pattern that this crazy process has gone through over nearly three years!
Where were Tasmania’s visionaries at the beginning of this process? The Our Common Ground model for starting the talks was predicated on an artiface of believing you could turn water into wine overnight [plantations grown for pulp into high quality timber products]. Forestry Tasmania and the forestry moguls knew from the start that the ENGO premise was floored; FT had set up the deception with false statistics on high quality timber yields from plantations way back in 2007.
Sadly I agree ith Pilko [comment #12] ; ‘Anyone who believes the MLC’s will amend the TFA into something fair & workable is deluded. The bill has been hijacked & its execution is only a matter of time.’
The ENGOs shut up shop and wouldn’t engage in anyone that didn’t agree with the Our Common Ground ambit; they threw so many of their own people out the door.
Dr Bleaney, there might be ‘something in the water’.
Don’t expect this Select Committee to spin strraw into gold.
ET appearing before committee today 9-10 a.m
TWS to follow at 10-11 a.m
Interestingly Jim Wilkinson told the committee yesterday that TWS (little birdy tells me it was TaAnn rep who contacted TWS over poster) removed the poster promoting HVEC’s “January Justice” Non-Violent protest bootcamp which was displayed in Hobart TWS window a few days ago.
I said in December TWS would not follow through on its committment to the Tarkine campaign.
Aside from lip service & motherhood statments(which is NOT a campaign!!!) & a bit of hush money….cough….i mean campaign donations slipped quietly under the table to Tarkine protest groups, i expect TWS to be very weak on the Tarkine campaign as they were with Gunns Pulp Mill post SOP’s.
Indeed, the cost of the TFA is the death of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society as an activist organisation.
The end of an era as far as TWS and activism is concerned. Only TWS & a few of its blind devotees are in denial about this.
Considering the long & effective history of TWS is this a reasonable price to pay for one deal on forests?
Yesterday the MLC’s also verballed ACF heavily to lobby FSC to certify wood produced from ALL forest practices which will occur under the TFA including clearfell & cable logging. Expect the same questions to be fired at ET & TWS today. Their answers will be telling.
What may well come out of the committee is some truth telling about what assurances the ENGO’s have given relating to the Pulp Mill & other former core TWS campaign issues.
Yep I might have to get me a big roll of those FSC stickers when they are given out. So much for FSC.
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/category/non-profit-industrial-complex-organizations/organizations/rainforest-action-network-ran/
Re tws/et/acf; fiat are demanding that any recalcitrant engos be prepared to tie themselves up ready for delivery to prison and the engos seem to be AGREED!! Thankfully the engos cannot sign for all those people they do not and never have represented. The engos have become big biz stooges.
The legacy of the ENGO trio going down the OCG-Statement of Principles path they did is clear now especially after hearing the answers to the Select Committee questions from Vica Bayley and Phil Pullinger in public this morning.
Astonishing responses on FSC certification, prospective pulp mills, future forest protests, market action (via global social networks and Markets for Change) and mining in HCV forests, etc.
Interesting that most of the comments on this site re forestry or any other environmental issue come from the same old, same old, group of self congratulatory armchair experts.They never consider the diverse area of forest already under various forms of protection. They ignore the fact that the timber industry utilises a renewable resource. They ignore that $430,000,000 dollars worth of sawn timber was imported into Australia last year. They care not that this timber may come from illegal logging sources.
Because there is a downturn in the forest industry, they have occurred in the past, they see this as a reason to close the industry altogether. Many industries are facing difficulties in these adverse trading conditions. Let’s hope they don’t advocate their closure.
A growing global demand for wood fibre may see new and more efficient methods of utilising the forest and once again offer employment for regional areas.
J.O’Shea, East Launceston.
And also interesting, John (21) that the loudest voices in support of a failed business model - one that has relied heavily on government largesse for decades - are also the same old, same old group of closed minds! The ones that want the status quo to continue ad infinitum, instead of adapting to new paradigms. Go figure!
Under oath to the Committee, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Environment Tasmania and Wilderness Society have all agreed to pro-actively support, promote and market the forest industry should the Bill be passed, including the endorsement of the archaic and destructive clearfelling by cable logging, burning and sowing regime practiced carried out by FT.
These so-called ENGOs have also committed their unqualified support to assist the industry achieve FSC certification, effectively by rubber stamp, regardless of the intensification of forest practices employed in remaining wood production areas.
To their eternal shame, these ENGOs have spinelessly acquiesced and effectively sold out their entire principles in return for swilling in the glory of potentially “saving” up to 504,012 hectares of public land from logging.
Their lamentable actions are inexplicable given that industry groups have made it clear to the Committee that the industry is on its knees and its future viability is totally dependent upon the passing of the Bill complete with the ENGO support and multi-million dollar taxpayer funded support that accompanies it.
Messrs Kim Evans and Peter Mooney from DPIPWE were gleeful at the prospect of getting their hands on an extra $9 million per annum ‘in perpetuity’ for managing an extra 500,000 ha of forest in reserves. They thought $18 a hectare per annum was a reasonable deal for them. according to Peter Mooney currently PWS gets $10 per ha per annum to manage its existing 2.5 million ha of reserves.
A very clear delivery by CFMEU spokesperspon Jane Calvert yesterday. With the old forestry monopoly-mogul liquidated, the workers’ reps can speak out about what everybody already knew!
#23 PB Your first paragraph emphasises the lack of trust in the Greens and the ENGO’s, right under public gaze.
These fiends are supporting certian forest practices that they would not agree with had it not for the land grab in the first place removing 500,000ha of State Forest into Reserves.
This makes me as a forestry supporter appear as angelic, wishing to secure some of the future regrowth resource from peeling, yet the Greens appear to care less about sustainable practices.
I think it is timely for Lego Co to suspend this nonsense indefinitely and get on with rendering assistance in conjunction the State Government to address the State’s fire emergency.
Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke must have his head in the sand blabbing on about premature World Heritage listing of the 500,000ha.
Time to get real. Australia is in the middle of a National fire disaster, most states involved should be concentrating on assisting fire victims to get their lives back on track.
#23 PB One would hope that you may have placed a submission before the Le Co Select committee.
From what I have witnessed so far there are no sound environmental principles involved the land grab opportunities professed by the ENGO’s and their supporters.
Having the MLC’s voting on 295 lots of State Forest that they have never seen or heard of, now up for grabs make me feel that this is an impossibility unless they are prepared to inspect each site throughout the state and listen to speakers standing on soap boxes at each bush site preaching the pros and cons of why areas should remain and why areas should be withdrawn immediately and others withdrawn in stages.
Vote casting, bottle spinning, throwing dice and two up should be discouraged as a House pastime.
Amendment upon amendment upon amendment will most likely not solve any of the underpinning problems, the more we talk and the media get their say, things will only get worse.
Peace in the forests is impossible, forget it we live in a divided society, namely the Greens and the rest of us.
Re #21
And you totally ignore the glaringly obvious and simple fact that the Tasmanian native forest woodchipping industry under Forestry Tasmania’s leadership’ and the entire MIS hardwood plantation system has failed and not made a profit for years.