Levelling the playing field: reforming forestry governance in Tasmania

I remain an optimist.

But sometimes I tear my hair out because a lot of the people I talk to about the future of Tasmania’s forest industry see themselves as partisans and quickly take very predictable positions. Some who speak for the industry and for the environmental movement seem unable to recognise much, if anything, of merit in the views their critics. Our adversarial way of fighting forest wars like over and over again like groundhog day prevents them giving any credit for the gains that have been made by ‘the other side’.

Refreshingly that is not a flaw of the white paper we are launching today. While ‘Levelling the playing field’ has been commissioned by Environment Tasmania and makes a strong case for change, it also recognises, and commends, many of the past initiatives undertaken by governments and industry. The lack of any hectoring tone and CSDev Associates’ preparedness to give due respect to advances already achieved gives me hope that this substantial work will be received for what it is intended to be—a constructive contribution towards the debridement and healing of a wound.

But I’m not naïve. We Tasmanians have been stuck in forestry conflict for nearly 3 decades. That conflict has caused a deep divide within, and deep hurt for many of, our community. As a result we Tasmanians often talk past, not with, each other. Can this change?

I think we have a small moment to take a chance. And I think this white paper might just make a difference.

I am old enough to remember the first big changes to Tasmania’s forest industries: the shock waves in 1977 that followed the Everett Board of Inquiry reporting to the Tasmanian Parliament that the then royalties charged by the Forestry Commission were ‘quite uneconomic’ and that the then rate of harvesting of native forests was unsustainable. Based on economic and mathematical analysis the Everett report led to the closure of many small sawmills. It caused the first of much pain to those displaced.

And, of course, that also makes me old enough to remember the parallel growth of environmental awareness. I was in my twenties when I first became aware of, and was persuaded of, the argument that asserted a new premise based on the proposition that the protection of natural heritage and environmental sustainability was at least equally important.

But forgive me two personal detours which I put forward to show the folly of painting conflict flowing from that new way of looking at our world as one between environmental ‘goodies’ and industry ‘baddies’—or vice versa. Both illustrate how profoundly that new premise has already changed our view of Tasmania.

The first detour

In the early 1970s I took three months work as a labourer with the Forestry Commission. I used the money I earned to support me through my University studies. My job was to cut chain lines through the bush to find and ‘size’ quarter acre blocks of trees to enable mapping of how much standing timber was available to be cut. I was working in the North West in an area which now would be close to or within what is now referred to as the Tarkine.

I look back with real affection for that time. I was young and fit—working without a care in the world working with men who loved and knew the bush—discovering new animals—like the fresh water crayfish that lived in the creeks we crossed. The idea that I was part of an industry that could put all that at risk was never in my mind—any thought of that came long after.

The second detour

In 1987 I won the seat of Denison assisted by the Wilderness Society’s national campaign for the return of the Hawke Labor government—a government which had pledged, over the opposition of the Tasmanian Parliament, to protect the South West of Tasmania—what is now the South West World Heritage Area. I argued then, and still argue, that we should not be forced choose between jobs and the environment— and that as a community we must protect both jobs and the environment.

The Wilderness Society and I argued that the key to a solution was the wholesale transition from old growth to plantations for pulpwood. So when the Forestry Commission set up the ‘Tassie Trees Trust’ to allow private investment in the establishment of plantations I put my money where my mouth was and bought several hectares of plantations. I did not think about it at the time but almost certainly they were established on sites that had been logged as native forests.

Of course it is no longer possible to think of logging areas such as the Tarkine and long ago Forestry Tasmania recognised the folly of, and ended, clearing native forest to establish plantations—exactly the point I am seeking to make. My detours— personal revelations which in this audience are probably ‘against interest’–are simply meant to highlight the great changes that have occurred in the past 30 years—and how those changes have challenged the ways Tasmanians, me included, used to work and to think.

Like it or not our forest industries can no longer be pioneers opening up the county—they are now must also be guardians of our natural heritage and must work within those restraints. Legislation will limit, and the market will reject, a forest industry based on any other premise.

But it is absurd to expect such profound changes could have occurred without resistance—or without fear.

The hurt runs deep

And no one should underestimate the huge hurt that has resulted.

On one side forest workers faced what must have seemed to them endless politically imposed changes to their former way of life and livelihood. Sadly some were even confronted by an ugly minority of protesters who resorted to vandalism and other actions contemptuous of the decent men and women I happily worked alongside of as an employee of the Forestry Commission all those years ago.

On the other side equally good people who like me justly and courageously demanded changes to unsustainable industry practices were too often vilified, harassed and sued. Our state political leadership failed to respect the right to dissent and to agitate.

Tasmania’s most celebrated writer was told by the premier of the day that there was no place for him in the ‘new Tasmania’. For many the bruising remains raw.

A way forward?

Yet after nearly 30 years of forest battles I think most Tasmanians would like to lay down arms and be friends again. If we share that desire then we Tasmanians need to welcome a white paper like this with good will—not as just another missile to be hurled at opponents. No magic solution will be imposed from outside to make us make up. The Commonwealth Parliament has imposed many changes—profound changes—on the forest industry but the limit to those external interventions have probably been reached—it is up to Tasmanians to move beyond conflict.

The CSDev Associates’ white paper commissioned by Environment Tasmania assumes that we Tasmanians want a solution. I will leave it to the lead author to argue the case for the recommendations the Report—but it is promising that there are even some commonalties between this report and one recently produced by the Forests and Forests Industry Council. Both seek a review and refinement of all existing forestry related regulatory frameworks. The gulf between serious minded environmental advocates and thoughtful foresters may look wide but it is at the narrowest point it has been for any time over the past thirty years. Ideas such as separating the regulatory and commercial operations of forestry Tasmania and reviewing the minimum 300,000 cubic metres pa supply will look far less challenging to an industry which now needs to grapple with achieving FSC international accreditation.

So I wish this white paper well and hope it gets the reception it deserves. However, I have learnt that books and serious papers are like children—you can prepare them for life but once they leave home you cannot control their future. You hope they find good friends but they may not. Some reports will be influential, others not. This one deserves to be.

Finally the disclaimers.

No one comes to any discussion of forest policy in Tasmania without a past and without passion. I hope I have not sounded partisan but I owe it to those attending this launch to disclose that I will be spending much of the next few weeks until March 20 campaigning for the re-election of the Bartlett Labor Government. My commitment to the ALP is my past and remains my passion.

However, there is no property in ideas and most assuredly there is no political property in good environmental and economic policy. The ideas in this white paper are now available to all. May they be put to good and constructive use.

i FFIC ‘The New Forest Industry Plan” 2010 at 61