Economy
‘Secret forest deal leaked. Draft agreement in full’
Karl Stevens, writing on his blog: West Tamar Talk, HERE:
Published Here (on Karl Stevens’ blog) For The First Time Ever.
Geoffrey Cousins revealed this deal in general terms before the talks had even started. Who do YOU think are the real ‘puppet-masters’ behind this plan? Why do they want to compensate Australia’s most corrupt industry for irreparably damaging Tasmania? Why has an unelected cabal tried to lock-in Gunns pulp mill with its corruption and totalitarian laws?
Below is the whole deal, in full, verified.
FINAL NEGOTIATING DRAFT
TASMANIAN FORESTS STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
TO LEAD TO AN AGREEMENT
To resolve the conflict over forests in Tasmania, protect native forests, and develop a strong sustainable timber industry.
Parties to the principles;
•TCA
•CFMEU
•NAFI
•FIAT
•AFCA
•TFCA
•ET
•TWS
•ACF
•TCSF
Parties to the Principles seek from the State and Federal governments:
* Support for and delivery of all principles in full.
* Interim support for a plan to deliver the principles; and
* Implementation of the Principles through a fully funded package and timeline that maximises benefits and reduces negative impacts;
* Immediate interim assistance for Tasmanian harvest, haulage and silvicultural contractors;
* Determine with industry, guaranteed sustainable quantity and quality of wood supply within 3 months, outside of the identified high conservation valued forests, for the period of the negotiations, to provide certainty to the industry, workers and communities.
* Progressive implementations of a moratorium on the logging of high conservation value forests commencing within 30 days ensuring that priority, (ie those in the most advanced stages of planning for harvesting) HCV coupes identified by ENGO’s are the first to be addressed. The full moratorium to be completed within 3 months. Any necessity for any proposed variation to this due to unavoidable planning constraints have to be independently verified.
* Provide exit assistance for industry where required; and
* No new entrants into the Tasmanian industry can be accepted or enter into new contractual relationships beyond parties who are currently in contractual relationships with the state while the negotiations are under way.
* Delivery of these Principles will require joint agreement of the parties to time lines and funding.
* The development of an agreed stakeholder led implementation process with a finalised full agreement within 12 months.
PRINCIPLES
General Wood Supply: Provide a sustainable resource supply profile to industry based on an agreed minimum quantity and quality requirements to industry. It will be underpinned by legislation.
Climate Change: Seek funding for improving carbon outcomes as a result of delivering these Principles.
Native Forest Wood Supply: Subject to the provisions of the transition, as legislated, Native Forest entitlement is handed back, it will not be licensed to new players.
HCVF: Immediately protect, maintain and enhance High Conservation Value Forests identified by ENGO’s on public land.
Transition: Transition the commodity forest industry out of public native forests into suitable plantations through a negotiated plan and timeline.
Industry: Create a strong sustainable timber industry including the development of a range of plantation based timber processing facilities including a pulp mill. There will need to be stakeholder consultation and engagement with the proponent, ENGO’s and the community.
Speciality Timbers: provide for ongoing speciality timber supply including eucalypt for our high value furniture and craft industries through a negotiated plan and timeline.
Plantations: Support sustainable and socially acceptable plantations, including agreed reforms and new agro-forestry outcomes, including pursuing certification.
Private Forests: Encourage and support, but not mandate, private forest owners to; seek assistance for certification; and protect, maintain and enhance high conservation value forests on their properties.
Communities: Support rural and regional communities, workers, contractors and businesses impacted, through a range of economic development, financial assistance, compensation and retraining measures.
Engagement: Engage and involve the broad Tasmanian community in the development and implementation of a durable solution to the Tasmanian forest conflict.
Tourism: Develop the Tasmanian nature-based tourism industry in line with these Principles.
Planning: Develop a fully funded, independent, scientifically led landscape conservation, restoration and integrated catchment management program, and associated governance and regulatory improvements.
Government: Reform and support government agencies, policies and legislation as necessary for the implementation of an agreement associated with these principles.
Biomass: Only permit plantation forest processing and plantation harvesting residues to be used as biomass for REC’s
Note. Agreement was not achieved on biomass fuels at this time. Environment groups oppose the use of all wood based biomass fuels while NAFI supports its use.
Certification: Encourage Forestry Tasmania to achieve Controlled Wood accreditation on delivery of the moratorium and full FSC certification; upon resolution of an FSC National Standard; and once this agreement has been finalised.
Durability: Undertake to ensure all elements of this agreement are fulfilled on a durable basis.
Legislation: Require State and Federal legislation to implement agreed outcomes arising from these Principles, including appropriate review mechanisms, milestones and sanctions.
Signed:
Date:
What Phil Pullinger says to ET supporters:
Gday All,
Just an email to let you know that I got a call from Airlie Ward from
Stateline today who has put together a story about the forest talks, some
division within the conservation movement, some unhappiness with Environment
Tasmania, and some unhappiness about the Forests Reference Group process.
Airlie had been given a story which included a number of incorrect claims
about Environment Tasmania and the forests reference group process which I
had to do my best to clarify and correct before doing an interview with her
for tonight’s Stateline. (Airlie had been given a copy of minutes from one
of the Forest Reference Group meetings and some of the context of those
minutes had been given to her incorrectly. Some of the context of some
recent resignations from E.T’s management committee had also been given to
Airlie incorrectly.)
In regards to the interview, some of the points amongst others that Airlie
focussed on included;
* whether or not we were surprised that in the process of looking to solve
the conflict over forests and find a solution, some environmentalists had
left the forests reference group process and E.T, and were unhappy with the
talks
* whether or not we’ve found the talks with the industry difficult and
whether or not finding common ground across the environment movement and the
timber industry has been difficult
* why we have kept the process of the talks confidential, why the Forests
Reference Group process has been a confidential process, why some people
have left the process, and why we asked participants in the Forests
Reference Group not to comment to the media on the specifics of the forests
reference group and the specific details of the forests negotiations.
* whether or not I think the talks with the industry will be successful, and
how confident I am that they will be successful
In general some of the key points I made were that;
* There has been a 30 year intense and polarised conflict over forests in
Tasmania, with strong, passionate and diverse views on all sides of the
forests conflict and that finding a solution was inevitably going to be
incredibly difficult
* That the environment movement is a broad church and that finding consensus
across diverse and strongly held views on plantations, native forests
logging, water reform, governance reform, etc, etc is a very difficult task
that we have collectively been doing our best on
* That since the Forests talks started, Environment Tasmania has been
regularly updating our membership about the talks, and has helped put
together a broader forests reference group process for a weekly two-way
feedback, communication and consensus building mechanism that involves E.T’s
member groups, ET, ACF, TWS, and a number of other environment groups who
support forests conservation and forestry reform, and that 30 environment
groups from across the State are currently on the reference group list and
involved to varying degrees in that process.
* That on top of the Forests Reference Group process we have been holding a
number of face-to-face information sessions with environment groups and
activists in regional centres across the State
* That though there are clearly very difficult issues that have had to be
worked through and clearly some diverging views on different issues, that
the strong majority of nature conservation groups across the State clearly
want the ENGOs to continue to engage in the process in good faith to try to
find a ‘win-win’ solution that delivers a wholistic solution to the conflict
over forestry, and that delivers on the protection of native forests and the
policy reforms that environment groups and the broader community have been
fighting for for 30 years
* That from the start we have been very open about the fact that talks are
occurring between environment groups and the timber industry, that ENGOs
have put out a number of media releases about the talks, but that we have
had to keep the specific content of the forest talks confidential, and the
content of discussions and debates within the Forests Reference Group
confidential, in both instances to ensure that we can build a ‘safe space’
where trust can be built. I explained that the 30 environment groups
involved in the Forests Reference Group process had agreed that they wanted
to have a process where confidentiality was respected, so as to ensure that
people are able to put their hearts on their sleaves, speak their views and
state their positions about the various issues that we are working through,
frankly and fearlessly.
In relation to the opportunity for the protection of Tasmania’s native
forests, and the delivery of a wholistic solution to the forests conflict I
explained that everyone involved is very hopeful and we are giving it our
best shot!
Talk soon,
Cheers
Phill
Dr Phill Pullinger,
Director
Environment Tasmania
The Stateline Transcript
Cracks in the environment movement
Source: Stateline Tasmania
Published: Friday, September 3, 2010 9:10 AEST
Expires: Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:10 AEST
Forestry peace talks have created a rift within green groups.
AIRLIE WARD, PRESENTER: A resolution to Tasmania’s forestry conflict has been described as like trying to reach peace in the Middle East.
Players on both sides have held intractable positions so the fact they’ve made it to it the negotiating table has been cause for celebration.
Until last week’s leak of draft principles, the talks have been kept firmly under wraps.
Those principles include a three month progressive moratorium on logging high conservation value forests, the hand back of native forest and a pulp mill.
However, Stateline has learned that not all within the environment movement are happy with the negotiations.
Negotiators have been keen to present a united face and keep a lid on any descent.
BOB MCMAHON, PULP MILL OPPONENT: TAP, we’ve come under a lot of pressure from certain amounts of the Green movement to toe the line on this secret negotiation business and not to express our dissent, not to express our refusal to be part of it.
AIRLIE WARD: Tasmanians against the pulp mill, known as TAP, are not at the table but are worried about what might be negotiated.
BOB MCMAHON: There’s only one pulp mill proposal on the table and that’s the Tamar Valley pulp mill.
AIRLIE WARD: Stateline has learned there is broader dissent from members of Tasmania’s peak environment group at the negotiating table.
Environment Tasmania has a key role at the round table.
There’ve been four resignations from its management committee in recent weeks.
Chairman Peter Hay says his reasons were personal.
In his letter of resignation, secretary Kevin Knowles from the Meander Valley said,
“I’m a strong believer of a peak body that represents and assists all environment organisations in Tasmania.
I also believe in openness, transparency and due process. ET has failed to do that this.”
He added:
“I have serious concerns of the outside influences that are running the ET agenda and the legal ramifications involved with ET association with non-member organisations.”
Todd Dudley from North East Bioregion Network said he resigned because Environment Tasmania was too narrowly focussed.
Mr Dudley, who has been an environmental activist in Tasmania for over 25 years said he feared Environment Tasmania was only targeting forestry activities on public land and ignoring other environmental issues.
Deb Hunter who’s also quit, said she was busy doing her PhD.
None of those who resigned from Environment Tasmania would agree to an interview.
The environmental negotiators at the forestry round table have been disciplined about keeping talks in house.
That was reinforced this week in an email sent by Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger to the round table’s forest reference group after Stateline started making inquiries.
“Some of you might be called by the ABC trying to dig up a story about splits within the environment movement and to ask you if you do get a call to not comment.”
BOB MCMAHON: Do they want to fail because once you start this secrecy, once you start muzzling people, that is the first step down the road to utter failure.
AIRLIE WARD: Bob McMahon from Tasmanian’s against the pulp mill says people should not be preventing from speaking out.
BOB MCMAHON: We have a particular view and it’s based upon our experience in Tasmania over the years that it’s far too much dealing being done behind closed doors, too many under the table type arrangements, semi cosy relationships. No we are very much opposed to the whole idea of secrecy.
Secrecy breeds suspicion.
AIRLIE WARD: Also leaked to Stateline were minutes of a meeting held by the forest reference group a couple of weeks ago.
Those minutes included a vote on whether biomass or plantation residue could be burned for renewable energy certificates.
Some concern was expressed to Stateline that the vote was recorded differently to how it was in fact made.
In his email to the forest reference group advising members not to speak to the media, Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger warned:
“A former participant in the Forest Reference Group has been involved in leaking to a journalist at the ABC some specific discussion points of a previous Forest Reference Group meeting – which is obviously totally unacceptable.”
Bob McMahon says they have got a caucus mentality like major political parties which expect members to vote as a bloc.
BOB MCMAHON: It reminds me of a few totalitarian regimes actually Airlie, I think it’s a disgraceful state of affairs and this precisely what we’re objecting to.
AIRLIE WARD: Bob McMahon fears the negotiations are too one tracked.
BOB MCMAHON: You have got let’s say the environment groups going for a glittering prize, which is the cessation of all native forest logging and you’ve got the industry going for their glittering prize, which is is the Tamar Valley pulp mill.
You put both groups into a room, where do they meet?
Who compromises with whom?
AIRLIE WARD: Among the concerns expressed to Stateline were that native forest logging was dominating negotiations.
Some of the environmental groups said they were not opposed to selective harvesting, just the current scale of it.
Others feared it will mean an increase in plantations to provide stock for a mill.
Recently formed Our Common Ground has also had casualties.
Former State Labor forests minister Andrew Lohrey said he was no longer actively involved.
St Helen’s doctor Alison Bleaney admitted she has left Our Common Ground.
She said it was difficult to work out what they were doing and that she was concerned about the group’s focus and processes.
Lesley Nicklason, a campaigner from north east campaigner concerned about the spread of plantations also confirmed she is no longer with Our Common Ground.
None of those who have resigned from Our Common Ground were prepared to be interviewed.
Some environmentalists who spoke to Stateline were concerned about the relationship between Our Common Ground and Environment Tasmania.
They share office facilities and Our Common Ground member Rod West is Environment Tasmania’s landlord.
First published: 2010-09-04 09:45 AM