Peter Brenner
I COME from a country with a well-balanced compromise forestry policy that is regarded as highly successful by all stakeholders, from the timber industry, recreational forest walkers to biodiversity advocates. I am also a past “Head Information” of the Swiss Timber Information Council (Lignum) and therefore reasonably conversant about the direction that sensible forest and timber use policies can take.

This is my contribution to a fruitful dialogue between the Tasmanian population and the Tasmanian “Forestry”/Government.

Upfront I wish to encourage readers to keep an open mind of what I have to say and not to rush into the usual debate about management nitty gritty or wild accusations before digesting the philosophical and political angle I am about to present.

I also acknowledge a fundamental difference between Tasmania and a country like Switzerland: In Switzerland most of the forest has been subjected to human interference, whereas Tasmania still has forests with a natural biodiversity.

Forests are a highly valued common good

Switzerland made a serious false start with its forestry practices when it clear felled whole mountainsides for firewood to feed the glass industry furnaces from the 1750s through to the late 1880s. After wide spread disasters and fierce fighting the country then has (now well over 100 years) embraced a forestry system that we today call sustainable. In 1993 a century of well-tried and successful policies and principles were re-bundled and streamlined to form the current forest law.

The Swiss forest law now identifies three main forest functions of equal importance and of equal weight. The functions are
• Providing a common good (eg recreation, biodiversity, gene reserve)
• Providing protection (eg erosion control and watershed protection)
• Providing wood (from sawlogs to firewood)

Common good

Forest tapestry

The Swiss population is enthusiastic about the open access to all Swiss forests. The forests, by law, must guarantee biodiversity and sustainability as called for by the 1992 UNCED Environment Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The forests may not be clear felled. No monoculture. No fertilisers or chemicals may be used. Exceptions, (eg bark beetle infestation after storm damage) are strictly controlled and handled restrictively and non-chemical control alternatives are constantly investigated.

Generally speaking wood harvesting is conducted as a form of thinning, tree by tree.

A staggering 26,000 km of forest roads in the Swiss forests are open to pedestrians and bicycles, while motor vehicle access is restricted to forestry operations. Forest roads are kept to a minimum width but do accommodate log trucks (of a more modest size than the Australian trucks). The roads must be built to blend into the
forest scape. No hard surfaces, no concrete walls, no annual mowing of verges, no unnecessary traffic. Where they create light openings, care is taken that new life finds habitats in the verges. Often threatened species re-emerge in new niches in boulder walls that are the prescribed building method for retention walls where needed.

The Swiss forest is also regarded as a gene reserve. While forest covers only 29 percent of the Swiss land mass (of which another third is uninhabitable alpine territory) it shelters about 70 percent of all animals and plants. The forest edges are particularly rich in wildlife and habitat and kept as natural as possible. The forest tapestry is a central and much treasured part of the typical Swiss landscape.

Public access

Protection

Human life would be unthinkable in many alpine valleys without vigorously maintained forests. Protective forests prevent landslides, rock falls and avalanches. And more to the point in a Tasmanian context, they act as water reservoirs, water purifiers and reduce flooding in lower regions. The protective function of the Swiss forest is quoted as being worth around $6 billion per year at the current exchange rate.

Timber

The Swiss forestry and timber industry employs around 100’000 people. It is the second largest single industry (after the chemical industry) in this 7 million country of

Timber

about two thirds the surface of Tasmania. The timber industry has become technically very sophisticated, creative and exciting after an ambitious national “impulse programme for the promotion of wood” was conducted with great seriousness and success over a number of years around end 1980s/beginning 1990s.

Who pays for what?

The most contentious issue of the incessant forestry clash in Tasmania is the underlying expectation that some “economic” activity must be conducted in the forest and that such activity be executed within a well oiled, quasi religious belief system of private enterprise exploitation, facilitated by contracts issued by a Government.

However, many critics have painstakingly presented how forestry operations of the scale and techniques seen in Tasmania are only possible with the generous assistance of public funding from various sources and in various guises.

Forestry activities in Tasmania must thus be described as subsidised.

Public subsidy

Forestry operations in Switzerland are also subsidised.

But the policy, and therefore the reason for the spending of public money, are totally different in Switzerland from what we see in Tasmania. In a contemporary social and economic environment Swiss taxpayers are happy to have their money spent on forest preservation and wise utilisation on a continuous basis. There is no resistance to subsidising a truly sustainable forestry practice that takes care of all stakeholders’ interests, including biodiversity and other ecological considerations. On the contrary, the Swiss forestry policy is a source of great national pride throughout the population.

In that respect alone it differs vastly from the Tasmanian forestry environment. Try as one may, the Tasmanian forest policy cannot be regarded as sustainable. It cannot provide biodiversity. It is not chemical or fertiliser free. It does not make the forest accessible for recreation and similar values now strived for in developed societies. It does not play a positive role in water or microclimate management.

Forestry Tasmania, while professional in their military style exploitation of forests, promotes practices that have very little to do with the careful management of a fragile and unique natural resource. A resource that is under immense pressure worldwide.

Moratorium

The discussion here should therefore be conducted about the fundamental values underlaying forestry practices. It is clear that a revision of the old Tasmanian ways is unavoidable. It may as well be undertaken sooner, rather than later.

Compromises will have to be made and should not scare the discussing partners from the outset. Compromises are possible and the outcomes can be acceptable to all. But honest attempts to integrate ALL aspects of the available science and experience must be sought from the start in order to achieve a tenable forest policy.

It is clear that such a fundamental policy shift cannot be drafted on the back of an envelope and fast tracked through Parliament in a matter of weeks. The seeds of new thinking have to be given some time to germinate and the technical debates must be led based on a set of new values. So, fast track no! Priority yes!

While such a mind shift is prepared, a moratorium of a realistic duration must be declared regarding all clear felling and other operations involving the transformation of any land (forest, agricultural or otherwise) into tree monocultures. The current slump in woodchip demand is an ideal moment in time to call such a halt without too much disruption.

An agenda must be prepared that answers such questions as
• How do we wish to manage fertile agricultural land and general open space?
• What role can/should old growth forests play in Tasmania’s water household?
• What role can/should reafforestation play in Tasmania’s water household?
• What role can/should forests play in climate micro management?
• How do we best optimise downstream forest and timber operations and spread them across Tasmania?
• Who or what should benefit from our policy?
• How can we assure, improve and sustain biodiversity
• What management and judicial structures and guidelines need to follow on from the policy decisions.
• How can we optimise management structures and keep them cost effective?
• How do we educate the population and keep it informed comprehensively?
• etc.

Individuals who are too stuck in outdated belief systems or nepotistic arrangements should be suspended from their responsibilities as policy developers.

There is of course a solid body of contemporary knowledge available, from which guidelines for realistic forestry policy developments can be drawn. This knowledge should be accessed without bias.

Discussions involving the public should be preceded by genuine and impartial public education so that interested stakeholders turn up to policy discussions with a sound knowledge background.

Experts

There are enough qualified people, even within Tasmania, who can contribute positively to acceptable change. A vast international body of knowledge and proven experience is also available to tap into. And yes, it is all in English, even from non English speaking countries.

It’s actually not rocket science but it takes the personal courage of all involved to shed whatever blinkers they might wear and be open for a new era. An era that promises to be much more exciting for all stakeholders than what we currently have to endure.

Finally, I am not advocating that the Swiss forestry model be replicated 1:1 in Tasmania.

What I am urgently promoting though, is that a contemporary, all encompassing forest policy be developed that properly values all aspects of forest management, from carbon store, biodiversity, public recreation to specialty timber and more. There is little doubt that the amounts of money spent on the current direct and indirect subsidising of the Tasmanian forestry practices can easily finance a contemporary forestry policy, which redresses the balance and leads to a truly sustainable and justifiably proud forest and timber industry and a contented population. A population that can relax in the certainty that their precious forests are utilised in the wisest possible way.