12 April 2010
Dear Member of Parliament
A reply to the open letter to all members of parliament: On Tasmanian Times: HERE
Each member of the House of Assembly will have received recently an open letter signed by Max Bound and 15 others concerning forestry governance, amongst other things.
They refer in particular to some reported results of water sampling in the St Helens catchment collected and compiled by Drs Alison Bleaney and Marcus Scammell which were the topic of considerable media coverage during the election period. The two asserted that toxins were present in the leaves of E nitens plantation trees and that they had made their way into the water and could be the cause of water toxicity issues in the George River catchment. The Government has since established an expert panel headed by John Ramsay to investigate these claims.
We wish to draw to your attention that at this time these claims are just that – claims. They have not been verified, the substance(s) – if it (they) exist/s at all – has (have) not yet been identified – and there is no evidence to suggest proper scientific sampling method was performed throughout the catchment. In fact, since their claims were first aired on “Australian Story”, Drs Bleaney and Scammell have been at pains in their subsequent public comments to state that they are not drawing conclusions from their research, but that they wish more investigations be done.
Although the claims are disturbing and are cause for concern, we can only caution against drawing any conclusions at this time. This view was also put forward by five University scientific personnel, including two life science professors, in an article published in the Mercury’s Talking Point column on the 25th February.
However, what strikes us as odd about this letter is the manner in which the claims are being made.
In particular:
• The mistrust being placed on government laboratories and their staff is appalling and without any foundation whatsoever. Such a slur must be challenged.
• The open letter fails to acknowledge that in the interests of openness and transparency, the expert panel has created a web site for the publication of results and information related to the testing of these water quality issues. (To date the Panel has published details of the expertise of each individual as well as comment on the independence of the panel).
• The signatories move on to challenge plantation forestry on the grounds that it requires management, uses chemicals and establishes a monoculture. This bias against forestry should be seen in the context that agricultural pursuits such as orchards, vineyards, pasture and cropping have received no comment at all from the signatories, and yet each of these pursuits have a higher chemical usage and a much more damaging environmental effect than plantation forestry, including a permanent alienation of land.
• The comment that logging has been a source of corruption should be linked to the evidence they provide to substantiate that claim. Which is ZERO. That academics would put their name to such an unsubstantiated claim significantly diminishes their professional standing.
• The assertion that politicians and high level public servants have been the recipients of “favours” from corporations is repugnant and made without one scintilla of evidence and borders on defamation.
• The claims against the government’s forestry corporation and its management approach needs to be answered by the corporation. However, the suggestion that industry has in some way corrupted the corporation is laughable. It is all very well to harbor conspiracy theories based on personal attitudes to the industry, as sourced to an opinion poll conducted by Essential Research (a company which we believe should be placed under some objective scrutiny). It is a different matter altogether to present these theories in the public arena as facts without any substantiation.
It is totally acceptable in a democratic society such as ours for people to hold a view about land management issues, forestry as a source of fibre, and water quality issues and for these views to be expressed. However it is another thing altogether to lay claims to corrupt practices, toxins in the water supply and degradation of agricultural land without a skerrick of evidence to support such claims.
We would ask that you take these views into account when considering the letter from the 16 signatories and recognise it as an exercise in political activism, as distinct from scientific and academic endeavour.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Julian Amos (Chairman, FIAT)
Terry Edwards (CEO, FIAT)
This comment appears appears on this article HERE. Comment HERE
