THE CASE before the Federal Court seeking an end to logging contentious areas in the Wielangta State Forest highlights the need to continue the forest campaign in Tasmania.
High conservation value forests all over Tasmania, left out of recent protection, now face industrial-scale logging with renewed vigour, predominantly feeding the export woodchip market.
The case challenges the logging industry’s exemption from a federal law that is designed to protect threatened species. Rare and threatened animal species, such as the wedge-tailed eagle, broad-toothed stag beetle, swift parrot, the Giant freshwater crayfish and Skemps snail as well as a large number of plant species are directly threatened by logging operations around the state.
All other development activities — roading, tourism, residential subdivision, for example — must abide by the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
Forestry is exempt.
The industry will claim that these special values and their protection are addressed through the provisions of the Forest Practices Code. This code however, has proven to be inadequate and fails the conservation requirements of the Tasmanian community. Documented cases of failures are well known. Industry whistleblower Bill Manning’s evidence of numerous breaches of the Code and a culture of “corruption, secrecy and lies” within the industry highlights the inadequacies and backs calls for reform from within the logging industry.
The recently released Supplementary Regional Forest Agreement has provided the funds needed to achieve this reform. $250 million can fund significant change if spent appropriately and transparently. Unfortunately the industry has a poor history of spending wisely. The results of this are continued forest destruction and an ongoing need to campaign for forest protection.
Since the days of the Helsham Inquiry in the 1980s, the timber industry has been given millions upon millions of dollars to restructure and retool in order to reduce reliance on oldgrowth forests. Adjusted for inflation, taxpayers have poured over $600 million into industry restructure, money invested by governments in ending the debate.
That means the industry has had almost 20 years and over half a billion dollars to reorganise its priorities, protect its workers, heed community concerns and move away from logging high conservation value forests. Yet in that time we have seen industry jobs cut, local sawmills closed down, thousands of hectares of irreplaceable forest destroyed, record levels of woodchips exported and, as a result, an escalating campaign to protect remaining forests.
Off limits
There have been significant gains for conservation along the way, however the recent Supplementary RFA typifies the historical approach to forest conservation by governments — industry driven and failing community expectations. The protection of forests in the Tarkine and part of the Styx is a positive step, albeit limited, and proves forest conservation is both possible and credible.
Outside these two icon areas, real forest protection from the Agreement is minimal and generally restricted to fragmented informal reserves. As the finer details of the Supplementary RFA are analysed, many of these scattered reserves turn out to be undesirable or off limits to logging anyway.
They were never to be logged in the first place!
One welcome aspect of the agreement is the commitment to end broad-scale land clearing, though the proof of the pudding in this case will be in how the decision is implemented.
Conservation campaigners must be congratulated for their commitment, patience, restraint and efforts in achieving reserve outcomes. Too long have conservationists, their views and philosophies been vilified and denigrated by the people privileged enough to be elected to govern. Now those same people are shaking their own hands, slapping their own backs and self congratulating for “saving the Tarkine” and “protecting the tallest hardwood trees on earth”.
Consider the fact that as little as a few years ago “Tarkine” was a taboo word, never to be seen in official reports or government public relations. Consider that only five years ago the Styx was unknown to anyone outside the logging industry, hidden behind locked gates and left off any tourism guide. It has been conservationists and local communities that have pushed these issues to the point where they could not be ignored.
If only those elected to govern had opened their eyes and unblocked their ears long ago. There should be no need for long years of forest conflict. The very benefits of forest protection that conservationists have long alluded to, today appear in government spin. No doubt these same benefits will now be used to entice our next vote.
There is always some criticism of the conservation movement that it needs conflict in the forests in order to be viable and to survive. On the contrary, it is the industry that has created the blockages in progressing the debate to a point where all parties can be satisfied. You see, it is in the interests of the logging industry to keep this debate going, for, so long as there is debate, there is inappropriate logging occurring in those forests contested.
And contested they will continue to be. Whilst there is an out of control export woodchipping industry, an antiquated and dirty pulp mill proposal and the threat of burning our native forests for power generation, there is a need for a forest campaign.
We can only hope that it takes less time for our politicians to join us in the 21st century.
Vica Bayley is a father of two, fourth-generation Tasmanian from a farming background and Tasmanian Forest Campaigner for The Wilderness Society.
phill Parsons
June 10, 2005 at 06:22
I must disagree.
The $520 million write down of the Forestry Tasmania debt must include post Helsham debt.
Therefore they have had more than $600million
N. Ditnow
June 14, 2005 at 07:47
Nice background to an obfuscatory issue.
Great to see that the ridiculous exclusion of EPBCA from areas of Australia’s greatest terrestrial biodiversity is being challenged by the man himself.
I’d really like to talk with somebody like yourself Vica as I’m researching the RFA process with a particular interest in East Gippsland & Tassie, considering the viability of plantations as opposed to native, particularly old growth, for chip, implications of the five year review periods passing unobserved, that the sawlog industry should be as opposed to native woodchipping as anybody with a sense of reality and the fact that implementation of the RFAs conflicts with Australia’s obligations under the Rio Convention.
Figures quoted to senate committees on export chip prices range from $11 – $151 per tonne and tracking down reliable information by talking to forestry is like asking John Howard if he’s a racist.
Any figures that you may have or advice on where I might find reliable information about royalty rates, tonnage rates, code violations, and industry/government collusion would be very helpful. Please e me when you have the chance as i’d like to communicate further with you or your Tasmanian based colleagues,
THANKYOU
Jack Debt
May 20, 2008 at 01:51
EPBCA is truly important for bio-diversity. But, even so the field of biodiversity research (inevitably) suffers from natural human egocentric “myopic” cognitive biases. It has often been criticized for being overly defined by the personal interests of the founders (i.e. terrestrial mammals) giving a narrow focus, rather than extending to other areas where it could be useful.
Murat
June 24, 2008 at 01:54
Figures quoted to senate committees on export chip prices range from $11 – $151 per tonne and tracking down reliable information by talking to forestry is like asking John Howard if he’s a racist.