21st April 2005

To: Patrick Durst

Senior Forestry Officer
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: (66-2) 697 4000
Fax: (66-2) 697 4445
Email: [email protected]

cc: others

Dear Mr Durst,

I would like to point out inaccuracies in the document below. I have interspersed my comments after the text in question. It is important that accurate information is conveyed to key bodies such as the UN. Please respond to my corrections and inform as to what action is being taken to correct the misleading and mistaken facts in this report.

Yours faithfully,

B J Rosser
West Calder Tasmania
Australia

The document in question:

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/ae542e/ae542e00.htm

MANAGING AMIDST CONFLICT: THE HUON DISTRICT FORESTS OF TASMANIA John Dargavel

Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE: Exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific
The Text in question:

Dargavel: “Forest management under scrutiny

In March 2004, 10 000 people marched through the streets of the state capital, Hobart, protesting against the continued clear-felling of old-growth forests. They were particularly incensed about felling giant trees, some over 80 metres tall, in the Styx Valley. Their protest was the latest in 30 years of public and political controversies about how the forests should be used. A week later, a similar number of people marched through Launceston, Tasmania’s second city, in support of the forest industries and the employment they provide.”

BjR: It is important to point out that a good portion of the forest workers that turned up to the rally a week later were PAID to turn up. They received a day’s pay. The industry rally was held on a working day (Tuesday, I think). Many received free provision of transport to the event and beer was supplied to keep ‘the troups’ entertained until Howard turned up. This situation can’t be compared directly to the 10,000 residents who turned up to march in the Streets of Hobart – as Dargavel has tried to do. The first rally was compiled of ordinary (unpaid) citizens who marched on the WEEKEND. I was one of them. In the industry rally the key Labor Government politicians were present along with key industry players. There would have been significant pressure on some individuals to turn up on that weekday or lose logging contracts and the like.

Dargavel: “The forest industry is the largest employer in Tasmania, a state with a higher rate of unemployment than Australia generally.”

BjR: The forest industry is NOT the largest employer in Tasmania! According the the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

” In 2002-03, there was an annual average 200,700 employed persons in Tasmania, comprising 110,300 males and 90,400 females. During this period, Retail trade was the largest industry in terms of the annual average number of persons employed with 32,400 employees (16.1% of employed persons). This was followed by Health and community services with 22,700 persons employed (11.3%); Manufacturing with 22,200 persons (11.1%); Agriculture, forestry and fishing with 15,900 persons (7.9%); and Property and business services with 15,100 persons (7.5%). ”

Dargavel: To try and resolve the environmental controversies across the country, the federal and state governments agreed on a National Policy Statement that aimed at: having a system of “Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative” conservation reserves; sustainably managing forests outside the conservation reserves – such as the Huon state forests; and developing an internationally competitive timber industry. The policy was followed by a Regional Forest Agreement process that identified the conservation reserves and the areas to be used for commercial purposes. It defined the tasks of forest management, established guidelines and assigned responsibilities.

BjR: The provisions of The National Policy Statement’ have not been implemented.

“The unprecedented land clearing of the past few years, overwhelmingly for plantation establishment, is defended in part by a logic which claims that the reserve system for forests is Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (a CAR reserve system). The stratification of reserve targets stressed by researchers like Awimbo et al. (1996) was built into the Commonwealth’s reserve targets document for the RFA – the JANIS criteria (Commonwealth of Australia 1997). A particular requirement of the JANIS criteria designed to address potential reservation bias was the stipulation that reservation targets should be applied on a bioregional basis, of which eight were recognised in Tasmania at the time (Thackway and Cresswell 1994).

However, of all the regions of Australia to have signed RFA’s, Tasmania was the only one where a decision was made not to comply with the JANIS criteria to develop reservation targets on a bioregional basis. This occurred after statements were made at public forums run by RFA bureaucrats that the RFA would be developed on a bioregional basis.

So next time you read an ad by the logging industry citing reservation figures, bear in mind that it probably reflects:
* an analysis which is not scientifically accepted;
* a set of reservation targets developed contrary to Commonwealth policy at the time;
* a public participation process in which the basic rules were changed mid-stream; and
* the only RFA in the country underpinned by a system almost guaranteed to result in reservation bias. ..”

Reference: MISLEADING NUMBERS
LANDCLEARING BULLETIN #12
31 October 2003
Tasmanian Conservation Trust Landclearing Campaign [email protected]
[email protected]
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:22:12 +1100

Dargavel: “Once logging is finished in each coupe, foresters burn the slash and remaining understorey to create a bare “ash bed” onto which seeds are dropped from aircraft to regenerate the forest. Steve Davis reports that this process is generally successful, although at times some wet south-facing slopes are difficult to burn and have to be planted with nursery-grown seedlings.”

BjR: Mostly native forests are clearfelled and replaced with MONOCULTURE Eucalyptus Nitens plantation trees that are harvested every 12-20 years for woodchip.

Dargavel: To prevent wallabies and other native animals from eating the growing seedlings, some areas are treated with “10-80” poison.

BjR: The ‘forest’ industry, when they purchased agricultural land for conversion to monoculture tree plantations actually destroyed fences erected by the previous owners of the land (farmers) designed to keep out browsing animals such as wallaby. Who should pay the cost for that action? At the very least the industries destruction of this vital infrastructure should be mentioned.

Dargavel: The new crops of trees are to be grown on rotations of 80 to 100 years. On about seven percent of the area, where slopes are gentle, thinning operations are carried out at mid-rotation.

BjR: see my previous comments above. We are looking mostly at 12-20 year rotation of monoculture tree plantations. This has enormous implications for waste management, pesticide residues and water takeup by these trees.

Dargavel: 4. Operational plans A Forest Practices Plan is written for every coupe before it is logged. An experienced forester, trained in the provisions of the Forest Practices Code, prepares each plan. Manuals covering heritage values, biodiversity, geomorphology and other considerations guide the foresters in writing the plans. Each plan consists of a detailed topographical map showing the area to be felled, the boundaries of any patches to be given special care or not to be felled, designs for roads, tracks and log landings, and the general direction in which logs are to be hauled to landings.

BjR: This is not the practice on the ground. See my submission on the proposed Gunns Ltd pulpmill under the ‘forestry’ link at www.members.iinet.com.au/~rkildar1

The Forest Practices Plan rarely provides an near adequate description of biodiversity, heritage values etc. Al so see Bill Manning’s testimony (ie the experiences of the Forest Practices Board auditor) to the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport References Committee ‘Australian forest plantations’.

Dargavel: “In the Huon Forest District, the audits have found a compliance rate of more than 90 percent in the last three years.

However, Gary King, Environmental Planning Manager for Forestry Tasmania rebutted such criticism: “Every coupe is surveyed for flora communities and fauna habitat including nesting sites for eagles and goshawks, and the impact of “10-80″ is monitored,” he pointed out.”

BjR: ‘In your dreams!’ See the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on ‘Australian forest plantations – A review of Plantations for Australia: The 2020 Vision’.

Page 144: “8.206 The Committee recommends that, within 12 months of the publication of the Commonwealth’s response to the Final Recommendations Report on the ‘Inquiry on the Progress with Implementation of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (1997), that this Committee conduct a review of operations under, and the enforcement of, the Forest Practices Code. The Committee should be able to seek expert advice in the conduct of the inquiry and the Committee would expect the immediate co-operation of both State and Commonwealth Governments. In the absence of full co-operation, the Committee foreshadows that it will recommend an immediate independent review with more compelling and drastic powers.”

The RRAT Committee accepted the testimony of the former auditor from the Forest Practices Board in Tasmania – Bill Manning. Manning described widespread corruption and massive failure to implement the provisions of the very weak Forest Practices Code.

Dargavel: “..the first five-yearly review of the Regional Forest Agreement has recently been completed. It found that most forest management issues are being satisfactorily addressed, and made only a few recommendations for issues where “further progress needs to be made…”

BjR: The Resource Planning and Development Commission would say that wouldn’t they. No – one else is.

Dargavel: “The municipal government, the Huon Valley Council, sponsors a “Healthy Rivers Program” and has a similar attitude to measuring performance. The Council collates water quality measurements taken by government agencies as well as those taken by local schools and community groups. One of its initial findings is that the quality of water coming from the forest is virtually unaffected by the forest operations. Steve Davis and his team also monitor water quality in all streams immediately below sites where chemicals are applied, and the results are published annually. However, Adam Burling from the Huon Environment Centre remains worried about pollution and thinks that the water should be more rigorously tested for residues of the herbicides and fertilizers used in the plantations…”

BjR: See the message archives of the Tasmanian Clean Water Network for a description of the corruption of the pesticide regulatory processes in Tasmania. The water isn’t being tested for the full range of chemicals used in the catchment. This is because no – one knows what they all are. Adequate records are not kept. Many chemicals are toxic at undetectable levels and so on.

Public consultation and participation

Public consultation is an established part of Australian planning practice, but may not affect the outcomes of the political process. For example, Tasmania undertook the extensive, multi-sector, “Tasmania Together” public consultation from 2000 to 2003, that proposed to “end clear felling in areas of high conservation value old-growth forest by January 1, 2003, and cease all clear felling in oldgrowth forests by 2010”. However, the government had to balance this with economic and employment pressures, and it continued as it had agreed to under its Regional Forest Agreement with the federal government.

BjR: The economic basis for the clearfell and convert to plantation industry has not been established by the Government. The Australian Conservation Foundation report entitled ‘Forestry and National Competition Policy’ raised serious questions on this issue as did the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on ‘Australian forest plantations. Costs incurred by the industry need to be priced – this must include water usage – in order to see if this industry offers a net economic benefit.

Dargavel: Conclusion

Forest management in Southern Tasmania has developed a detailed planning, monitoring, auditing and reporting system in response to international and national agreements and policies. It operates in a climate of widespread community debate and general dissatisfaction over the felling of old-growth forests. It is under intense scrutiny from environmental and other groups with very high expectations of what should – and can – be achieved. Although the context is often contentious, forest management generally proceeds in a clear, orderly and professional way.

BjR: The conclusion that forest management generally proceeds in a ‘clear, orderly and professional way’ has no basis in fact. Further, the expection of pesticide-free drinking water and protection of native biodiversity cannot be described as ‘very high expectations’. These are survival issues and are presented to our Government and industry in the context of a massively deteriorating quality of life and living environment and a global ecological crisis.