Juggling the facts

Charles and Claire Gilmour Our Exposé of Forestry

AN industry set up on juggling the facts. Or is it a case of too many Forestry heads selling too many pulp fiction media strategy books spoiling the Forestry woodchip broth?

In one hand we’ve got:
As per Evan Rolley in the Forestry Tasmania 05/06 Annual Report.
“It is particularly pleasing that our work in Tasmania with the Australian Forestry Standard and overseas with PEFC has been recognised. We have a strong commitment to independent third party assessment of our environmental performance and have been pleased to see the recognition of this in many national and international forums.”

In another hand we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying (4 June ‘07),
“This is a crucial role in an age where there is, unfortunately, no-shortage of critics peddling misinformation and myths in an attempt to demonise this great renewable industry.”

In yet another hand we’ve got:
FT Executive General Manager Hans Drielsma (1 June ‘07) suggesting that the end of conversion of native forests to plantations is because of public pressure, “conservation interests.”
“Executive General Manager Hans Drielsma said that the major policy, effective from today, followed a long period of discussions between Forestry Tasmania, the forest industry and conservation interests.”
“Around the world, there is concern about the clearing and conversion of native vegetation. The practice is seen by conservation biologists as a significant element in biodiversity decline.”
“For reputable environmental organisations, such as the WWF, such conversion for plantation development has been their most fundamental concern with modern forest practices.”
Note “reputable environmental organizations, such as the WWF…” (World Wildlife Fund). Wonder if Senator Abetz agrees with that?

In another we’ve got:
The FT Murchison District Forest Manager saying to us, when we asked whether their stopping of conversion was due to public pressure (13 June ‘07),
“No it wasn’t, it’s because of customer pressure”.
Do they or don’t they care what the public thinks?

In another we’ve got:
As per FT’s Executive General Manager Hans Drielsma (Advocate 2 June ‘07),
“In economic terms it is more efficient to grow plantations, as they grow four to five times faster than regrowth native forests.”
“However, regenerated native forests are capable of maintaining wildlife and the environment, while also continuing to provide a source of sustainable timber.”
Do we assume from this, plantations aren’t capable of maintaining wildlife and the environment? Apparently so, well after all, Forestry basically says so!

In another we’ve got:
The FT Murchison District Community Liaison Officer saying to us (13 June ‘07),
“plantations take much much more water than regrowth.”
Based on this, one would conclude plantations established in water catchments, would, have and will, obviously significantly reduce water collected from catchments. How does the Lennon Government intend to fix this problem?

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“For pointing out that it is not forest harvesting which impacts widely upon water supplies, but rather the vast tracts of regrowth caused by massive bushfires due to inadequate bushfire mitigation measures (for example, it is estimated that the 2002/03 Victorian/NSW bushfires have reduced inflows into the River Murray by 20 percent);”
Based on this, one would conclude after clearing native forest, burning and resowing to native regrowth over vast areas in water catchments, it would significantly reduce water collected from catchments. How is the FT 10yr review going to fix this problem?

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“We hear almost every day from these extreme groups about climate change and water shortages and about how we should cease harvesting our forests in order to address this problem. Yet, as you all know, the reality is very different.”
Which reality are we talking about here, on the ground reality, virtual reality or spinning media/report/science fiction – reality?

In another we’ve got:
As per FT 05/06 Annual Report on Biology and Conservation: key research and development list,
“The aim:” “enable the effect of any large-scale influences such as climate change to be taken into consideration when interpreting small scale treatment effects of biodiversity.”

In another we’ve got:
As per above recommendation,
“the progress”:“No action taken”

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“If only the green movement knew what ethics were!”
Maybe he was alluding to a momentous move by a certain Mr Green?

In another we’ve got:
A Murchison District FT representative saying,
Their logging operations will silt up our creek (our water supply)

In another we’ve got:
The sacked Minister for Forests saying,
We will deny saying that.
Maybe this is encoded in the Forest Code of Practice Ethics?
Cont…

Cont…
In another we’ve got:
FT saying in response to logging part of Arve loop Reserve,
“Dr Drielsma said the decision to release information about the breach was consistent with FT’s efforts to be as open and transparent as possible.”

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“Most disturbingly, unlike professionals like you from the Institute of Foresters, these extreme Greens groups apparently do not feel themselves to be bound by fact or ethics – or bother to correct the record when exposed.”

In another we’ve got:
The Murchinson District Forest Manager and Road Construction Manager saying,
They didn’t know anything about the track that was bulldozed extending beyond the road we were inspecting, in fact saying it could have been anybody.
Anybody apparently who likes joy riding in this remote area on their trail blazing bulldozer! OR maybe it was setting out the trail for next years easter egg hunt?

In another we’ve got:
Murchison District FT staff saying,
Oh yes, there were two of our bulldozers who did that!

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“Similarly, it is time for the forest sector to move more positively to address its image.”

In another we’ve got:
The FT Murchison District Forest Manager saying,
They are concerned about our media input.

In another we’ve got:
After we suggested we had access to the media, the same Forest Manager saying,
He wouldn’t consider TT to be a media outlet, but yes he looks at it.
Wasn’t quite the media we were alluding to, but, interesting comment. Wonder why FT checks this forum out? Maybe they are gathering secret intelligence, or maybe taking notes on how to be open and transparent?

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“Tasmania will continue to have 47 percent of its forests, and 44 percent of its land mass, protected from harvesting from now and forever.”

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“I strongly support your theme of “growing forest values”, and commend you for working towards that goal this week.
But I emphasise the point: if the industry can bring the community with them, this growth will be exponentially bigger.”
How can the industry be “bigger” without taking more? It already takes, trashes, chips or burns every, tree and plant and displaces the wildlife when clearfelling massive tracts of land. Isn’t all this already sold for the best value? Or is this some new Tasmanian double cross eyed vision? Ahh maybe they are intending on harvesting the birds eggs out of the nests and selling them as sustainable, renewable, recyclable and biodegradable easter eggs?

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“And contrary, to Flanagan’s repeated assertions, old-growth forests aren’t harvested for woodchips. They’re harvested for craft wood, furniture, sawmilling and veneering. It is the residue which is chipped for paper, rather than simply being wasted.”
Balderdash! And blow up the biggest and best! Why then was the myrtle forest in the highlands trashed and purposely left, just to let the eucalyptus grow? Apparently twiddled to use the best values! Maybe if they whittle their twaddle, to true transparency.

In another we’ve got:
As per “Table 7.1.b.8 Number of investigations undertaken by the Forest Practices Authority 2005-06
“Formal investigations 93
Investigated and no breaches 36
Identified number of minor breaches 38
Number of major breaches 19

Note: Minor breaches include notices to rectify and warnings, but no further action.
Major breaches include penalties, legal action and breaches where no action was
pursued due to insufficient evidence and/or legislative time constraints.”
How can a major breach, not have action taken? The laws must be changed then! Maybe you would be able to see to that Mr Turnbull and Mr Lennon?

In another we’ve got:
As per the FT 05/06 Annual Report Under the heading of “Triple bottom line”, on Environmental Compliance,
“Environmental Compliance. External audits of the Australian Forestry Standard and the Environmental Management System (ISO 14001) were completed with no non-conformances. We achieved a performance rating of ‘sound’ across all elements of the Forest Practices Authority audits in 2004/2005, despite more stringent scoring in 2004/2005. Forestry Tasmania received one fine from the Forest Practices Authority in 2005/2006. Forestry Tasmania was fined $5,000 for incorrect boundary marking within a coupe in the Derwent District.”
So we’ve got 19 major breaches, 38 minor breaches, but only one fine. That looks good in an annual report doesn’t it? And obviously breaches aren’t considered as non-conformances. No wonder what the industry looks like on the ground, doesn’t look like anything written in a report!
Looks like we’ve got tweedle dee reports, trying to tweedle us all dumb!
Cont…

Cont…
In another we’ve got:
As per Forest Practice Plan on construction of roads in relation to areas containing the Giant Freshwater Crayfish,
“Any roading that must cross streams should have drains installed to ensure runoff is diverted into vegetation and does not directly enter the stream. Sediment traps should be used wherever necessary.
“… operations should be timed to avoid periods of wet weather.”

In another we’ve got:
As per our 2 visits, one with accompanying FT staff,
Road runoff directly drained into creek, no sediment traps, and subsequent sediment in the creek. (photo evidence). This area contains Giant Freshwater Lobster. 4Km of road is currently being constructed in extremely wet weather.
But note the IMPORTANT excuse we get, the Forest Practices Code says “SHOULD” not “WILL”. So save the spin on it ALL being done environmentally well. Because it “SHOULD” be, but it ISN’T!!! Maybe this SHOULD, should be fixed in this year’s 10 year review too?

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“Forestry has a great, renewable, and job-rich story to tell – bolstered by science and the facts.”

In another we’ve got:
Some FT workers complaining to us,
That they have been warned about big changes and are currently being forced to sign new work place agreements that they don’t agree with.
Maybe FT shouldn’t sell our forests so cheap. This industry is set up for lowest price quantity, not high priced quality. The 2 new peeler mills have been designed for much smaller forest logs, because, they couldn’t be bothered waiting for a few more years until the trees got bigger, but instead chipped them and now they are struggling to find bigger saw logs. Ultimately they have and are taking the next generation’s timber. All based apparently on science and fact.

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“Compare this to a mine: when the mineral is extracted, it is gone forever from the ground. Albeit mining sites are rehabilitated, they cannot be replanted for harvesting in 50-60 years time.”
So what do people build with for the next 50-60 years, whilst waiting? matchsticks? All stamped “certified from reserves” by Hr puff and stuff, we’ll blow a smoke screen, now we are purely pulp wood driven? Oh that’s right, the peeler mills are sending the peel away, the next generation can buy their timber products from overseas!

In another we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“It is a fact that forestry has an ever better environmental story to tell than today’s environmentally conscious mining industry. When a tree is harvested another is planted.”
A lovely “basil sweeping brush” statement. This is worded to suggest for every tree harvested another is replaced. That is simply untrue. What about understorey trees/plants? Where are they replaced in plantations? Except often just with weeds. When and where has this industry ever replaced a harvested or trashed manfern? Most of these manferns are in the wettest areas and along edges of creeks, places where forestry operations should not be occurring. There is nothing environmentally diverse in a monoculture. And of course, we must remember it is only Forestry and Gunns who have stopped conversion of native forests to plantations, other forest companies are still allowed to.

In the right hand we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“But the unfortunate reality is that most mud, when thrown, sticks.
And make no mistake. The mud thrown by the extreme Greens over the past three decades has stuck.”
Mud cakes and only sticks well when you have covered yourselves in nothing but lashings of whipped cream! But of course any complaint is lumped into as one being an “extreme green”, when in fact many are purely the victims of unfair practices. Please call us “monumentally jaded”.

Now we could go on and on but, ultimately, it certainly sounds like Forestry Tasmania has too many hands fumbling to keep hold of the “right” and “true” balls!

But maybe they need an extra hand? Let’s give them a hand, for at least being consistently inconsistent, and a round of applause, for bumbling and stumbling for Forestry’s true, blinding transparency cause.

With the final left hand hook we’ve got:
Senator Abetz saying,
“But we must keep on taking the fight to those who try to talk the industry down.”
OK, we accept the challenge, we’ll play our hand,
Bring the fight to us then – here we are – ready, waiting for it to be done openly and truthfully! Apparently this industry is not shy?
“… I do note that the recent record shows that the Australian Institute of Foresters has never shied away from putting the facts on the record when it comes to public debate about the forestry industry – including in the areas of bushfire, or climate change, or water…” (Senator Abetz)
It’s not like we don’t know your people are watching/hiding amongst us! It’s our island too and fight for it we will!

And the response was silence!