Helen Gee
Dear Peter Garrett, Minister for the Environment,
I am writing to you on behalf of the South East (Tas) Forest Protection Group, to ask you to intervene to prevent logging in the Wielangta State Forest as well as in the Florentine and Weld River Valleys. I should think you are aware of the deep embarrassment the logging will cause Australia at the CCC in Bali. As the only developed nation still logging these old carbon-rich forests, we have the knowledge and ability to commit to a transition out of dependence on old forest logging. Any other behaiour is contemptuous in light of Australia’s comitment to assist other nations end clear-fall logging of their valuable native forests.
• The Federal Court Decision (Bob Brown v. Forestry Tasmania) of December 2006 was a watershed decision for endangered species. The intent of the EPBC Act (clause 102) was upheld by Justice Marshall. The successful Appeal by Forestry Tasmania this month does not overturn the full Judgement, it merely determines that the State of Tasmania can, by virtue of the RFA, opt for Jobs over Environment. If ever there was a time when federal intervention was required, it is now.
• I regard this as a test of your new power as Minister for Environment and invite you to visit the Wielangta Forest at your convenience to walk among the Ice Age refugia (protected by the Howard Government) and the surrounding forests which face an uncertain future.
Our Forest Group has developed a WildCountry proposal, for it is still possible to preserve connectivity from the sea, through Wielangta and right up into the Eastern Tiers. But time is running out for the endangered species here, should logging be allowed to resume in the Wielangta forest.
The South East Forest Protection Group has a few questions regarding the Gunns’ Pulp Mill Proposal and the desperate need to protect Tasmania’s high conservation forests:
1. Now that the pulp mill is your responsibility, who will you appoint to the Independent Expert Group? How stringently will they be expected to interpret the conditions placed on the mill?
2. Will the government insist on longer-term and more comprehensive studies relating to the 30 billion litres of effluent released by the mill each year?
3. Given that it is intended for the $2 billion mill to be under construction when those studies are finished, are you prepared to deny approval for the mill to operate if they don’t meet expectations?
4. The wood supply agreement has been finalised and there is scant protection for high conservation value forests. How will you honour your election promise to ensure as little high conservation value forest as possible is fed to the mill?
5. How do you intend to resolve the obvious conflicts with the Rudd Climate Change Agenda if approval for the mill, as currently proposed, is granted?
Yours Sincerely
Helen Gee
Convenor, SE Tasmania Forest Protection Group
Koonya
