Dear Christine,
You may recall that I have a good working knowledge of the Swiss forest and timber industries as well as the current Swiss forestry law, being a former “head of information” of the Swiss Timber Information Council (Lignum).
I would like to put the following points forwards as my contribution to the upcoming forestry round table (which I regard as an illegitimate approach (see below “social licence”) to rebuilding a new forestry policy, but nevertheless …):
• The Tasmanian world heritage wilderness area should not be mixed into the discussions about forestry practices. It is useless to engage in arithmetic and semantics about how much of the total “forest” in Tasmania is protected. The area is protected, that’s wonderful. Thank you.
• For the remaining areas under “forestry” influence an initial distinction between “forest” and “fibre plantations” should be introduced.
• The term “forest” should be limited to forests that have or aim for an “original” or man-made, well defined biodiversity.
• “Fibre plantations” may only be established or continue to be operated if they can be demonstrated to: NOT damage water catchments, not compete with viable agricultural land, not be treated with chemicals of all sorts, be managed to avoid fire risk, not negatively affect landscape values, not impoverish local councils, not lead to depopulation of country sub-centres etc.
• The terms “forest” and “fibre plantations” should be enshrined with full and clear definitions in legislation and may not be tampered with by any stakeholders.
• “Forests” as per the above definition will be managed by “nature based, bio-diverse” methods and selectively logged for a wide variety of quality timbers of grades from construction to furniture and other special applications.
• Leftovers after harvesting should be composted on location or “bio-charred”.
• Wood heating or wood-power (co)generation may only happen in small local plants attached to installations such as saw mills or similar using genuine wood- or fibre waste.
• Ongoing education of the population has to be built into a new forestry policy.
• The society- and bio-diversity related benefits of “forests” should be subsidised where necessary.
• Plans to use any land, public or private, for “fibre plantations” have to be assessed against a range of criteria such as natural sustainability, economic viability for a variety of possible uses, their role in CO2 management and more.
• Certifications such as Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) should not only be subscribed to, but closely monitored by a critical, independent watchdog to avert undermining of the initial goals.
• If a stricter certification system appears on the scene it should be mandatory for the Tasmanian forestry bodies to adhere to that. The goal being a Tasmanian role at the forefront of a progressive, totally balanced forest and timber industry with a multiple bottom line reflecting the most careful resource use possible.
A Response to: Canadian Forestry Solution offers lessons for Tasmania, HERE
Dear Judy Tierney,
Social licence:
No, Ms Tierney, the only “two bodies which can deliver a lasting solution” are by far not “the timber companies and conservation groups”.
The decade old forestry crisis is the result of a fundamentally flawed forestry policy which is based on forest mining and the ruthless pursuit of low quality returns by harvesting wood fibres at all environmental, social and economic cost.
Such monumental mismanagement of valuable public (and private) assets must be addressed by the entire population of this island. The main perpetrators (forestry industry and complying legislators) and a handful of well meaning but outfoxed environmentalists are absolutely not entitled to hammer out deals between each other and claim that they have addressed the fundamental wrong.
We are looking at a very complex problem of major injustices having been committed to the natural environment, the social coherence, the economic well-being and the philosophical soundness of an entire Australian State and its population. To repair this damage entirely different mechanisms are required. A truth and reconciliation commission comes to mind.
Once we face the enormity of the problem and start dealing with it, we can then start developing the long overdue, entirely new forestry policy that must be based on “nature based, bio-diverse” practices and answer to a multiple bottom line.
Such policies have been very successful in other countries and more of this approach is being planned around the globe.
The current de facto fibre harvesting moratorium must now be formalised by the Government and the time spent to rebuild the approach to forestry.
A single gathering of a few hand-picked individuals is well short of even vaguely touching the core of the problem.
Please don’t lose the plot, Christine and other Greens.
Kind regards,
Peter Brenner
