Tasmanian Times

Economy

Stalled FPA review delays move to improve forest practices code

The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) to recommence its review in relation to chemical usage, after revelations that the Agricultural, Silvicultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council (ASChem Council) has requested that the FPA amend the Forest Practices Code to improve risk assessment and land use practices to reduce the risks of chemical contamination.

Greens Water Spokesperson Tim Morris MP said it appears that the currently stalled FPA review has caused a delay in acting on the request from the ASChem Council, but that as the FPA does have clear direction on this issue there is no reason for it to not commence the work required to incorporate the ASChem Council advice into the Forest Practices Code.

Mr Morris also said the current suspension of the review of the Forest Practices Code was unlikely to be lifted in the foreseeable future, after Forestry Minister Bryan Green acknowledged that he would not be able to provide other crucial information requested by the FPA to inform the review until the future of the industry was resolved.

“Whilst it is pleasing that there has at last been official recognition that the current regulatory regime needs to be enhanced considerably, it is disappointing that there will be further delays in implementing these changes through the Forest Practices Code because the current review is on hold pending the outcome of current negotiations over the whole forestry sector,” said Mr Morris.

“Minister Green again laughably claimed that Tasmania has the best forest practices system in the world, but we are now seeing another area, chemical use, being required to undergo improvements in what is increasingly seen as a substandard and out-of-date code for regulating forestry in Tasmania.”

“This delay in reviewing the code reinforces the need for urgent and comprehensive reform in the forest sector.”

“I am calling on the FPA to recommence their review in relation to chemical usage as they do have clear advice from the ASChem Council on this issue,” said Mr Morris.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
22 Comments

22 Comments

  1. William Boeder

    October 23, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    #21. The Learned Professor Hugoagogo.
    Again you show yourself to be the master of cryptic and occasional mild humoristic comments.

    Perhaps you could re-submit your wit-riddled masterpiece in a slightly more banal form for the eludification toward Russell and myself, for we are but realistic men upon the street?

  2. hugoagogo

    October 23, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I notice as well that the (an?) editor chopped all the good stuff off the end of post 12.

    Now William and Russell, you’ll never know.

    Both of youse woulda enjoyed it.

  3. hugoagogo

    October 23, 2010 at 11:34 am

    #17, ABS

    Locally, last time I saw, the trout were fine. Preoccupied too I noticed, with each other.

    From where I’m sitting (the view is wonderful) the best fishing I can get is on the TT website.

  4. a bit straighter

    October 23, 2010 at 11:34 am

    twas a Collingwood related joke deemed not suitable for publication on TT

  5. hugoagogo

    October 22, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    13, 14, I’ve come out so many times I think I’m posting on the wrong thread.

    Russel, it’s all here on the TT archives, thanks to factfinder and his dogged ‘Harry “Snapper” Organs’ styled investigation following the ten foot high clues I left scattered all over the place.

    btw RL, what’s your day job?

    ABS, I did get an email from linz, but I forgot what’s in it. Did it contain a link to a functioning TT donation facility?

  6. Bemused

    October 18, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Hey Hugo, how are the trout in your locale? I heard that you are a keen fisherman.

  7. Russell

    October 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Re #14
    I don’t know, I’ve never seen anything. Please oblige.

  8. Frank Strie

    October 18, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Hello Max #10
    “Tongue in cheek” for sure!?
    However seriously the whole forest products debate has well gone down a poisoned road.
    In reality of responsible forest management that is following total forest, water, soil and landscape health pronciples, there is in fact plenty of goods coming from that can be used in various ways from firewood, proper scaled biomass technology, sawmilling etc.
    The reason why the topic of Biofuel for electricity is so hated is because the lack of trust and lack of understanding and lack of honest, open and transperent market accesss.
    The key issue that should govern any industrial project of any kind relating to natural resource management is a “whole lifecycle assessment proces” much more than a two sided “balance” cost benefit analysis.
    If that would be applied, a giant oversized Biomass powerplant that would require feedstock from a long distance radius would not be viable.
    This “Peace deal” we hear about in the news today is build on the secret, selective and two sided bargaining approach, I watch this space.

  9. a bit straighter

    October 18, 2010 at 1:42 am

    oh dear Russ, how many times does Hugo have to come out? ps Hugo, did you get the email from Linz?

  10. Russell

    October 18, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Re #12
    Hmmm, interesting last comment. Are you saying you’re from UTAS?

  11. hugoagogo

    October 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    #9

    William,

    Entertaining and candid? How gratifying. Observer reckons I’m banal and ass-brained, just because I don’t get one of his in-jokes.

    Look, I’m trying to grasp the cultural context of this online experimental media/clarion-call community organiser. I know it’s hard to get to the bottom of it in a quip (thanks ABS) on TT, and for the whole story, there’s probably three masters and one or two doctorates presently following this whole TT/Tamar Kraft bio-refinery Juggernaut at UTas. Don’t you find this sideline interesting?

  12. Robin Halton

    October 17, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Dear Editor
    You have not published my comments regen burning, sawmilling, growing future resource to maturity and social ethics why we should import timber from third world countries. I think I sent it just after midnight. Most of my comments are based on personal experience not myths.
    Thanks

  13. max

    October 15, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    7 # 21st Century forestry: Integrating ecologically based, uneven-aged silviculture is not suitable for Tasmania as it fails to supply wood chippers and wood fired power stations with the high volume low value wood supply that is considered accentual to the way things are done in Tasmania. This type of timber harvesting is not compatible with the high intensity burns that have become a way of life in Tasmania and the mushroom clouds of smoke that we are now familiar with would disappear. This type of forestry is only good for producing saw logs and high value timber and would deprive pyromaniacs of their Autumn, Summer and Spring pleasures. For these reasons it will never be adopted by Forestry Tasmania. Brian Green would become a green Green.

  14. William Boeder

    October 14, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    #4. Mr agogo, are you any relative of the Mr Hugoagogo whom we are more familiar with, he who generally provides an interesting abstract view-point to the scratchings of others?

    I note that you are now even prodding our Editor to perform some sort of forensic determination and analysis, or, expecting that of an even a ‘more precise diagnostic expert corrector by examination, upon the statements and publications placed into print by others?

    Are you writing on behalf of this generally more candid and entertaining Hugoagogo scribe, with your using of this intrepid man’s ‘Nom De Plume’ to sign off to your comments?

  15. Alison Bleaney

    October 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    In light of the current knowledge about pesticides and their toxic effects–it is unacceptable for FPA not to act on the ASChem Council recommendations re chemical use in the industry.
    Apart from potentially impacting adversely on human and environmental health, other industries are disadvantaged by this gungo-ho, and selfish approach. It is a very poor decision for Tasmanians and a bad advertisment for Tasmania itself.

    see
    Banned chemical a suspect
    Peter Gardiner | 15th October 2010
    One of the marine veterinarians investigating two-headed fish in the Noosa River has raised concerns about the safety of unreviewed chemicals after the recent banning of endosulfan in Australia.
    The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) this week advised it had cancelled registration of the insecticide endosulfan – a chemical residue indicated in testing after mass mutations and death of fish spawned at the Boreen Point hatchery run by Gwen Gilson.
    Dr Matt Landos said endosulfan had been under the review microscope for years, but going back just a few months the APVMA was “categorical and adamant it was totally safe for use under label conditions in Australia”.
    “Now it seems they have changed their mind, after exposing farmers and Australia’s ecosystems to years of extra harm, that the European Union avoided by removing it from use years ago,” Dr Landos said.
    “Will the organophosphates still be registered in 10 years?
    “Bayer has already voluntarily removed its product Neguvon (trichlorfon), the same active as is used in the macadamia nut spray Lepidex.
    “Many of the organophosphates are not allowed for use in the EU due to human and animal toxicity issues, including fenitrothion, which is being sprayed widely for locusts.
    “Bayer stopped making endosulfan last year.”
    Dr Landos now wants to see the Noosa fish health investigation results expedited after the State Government decided to withhold the final report.
    The report is pending a $2 million legal action by Ms Gilson against a neighbouring macadamia farmer accused of contaminating her spawning ponds.
    “All sides, including the macadamia industry, continue to call for release of the final report,” Dr Landos said.
    An APVMA statement on Tuesday said the decision followed a recent assessment of new information by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) indicating the prolonged use of endosulfan was likely to lead to adverse environmental effects via spray drift and run-off.
    “A full risk assessment conducted by DSEWPC concluded that these long term risks could not be mitigated through restrictions on use or variations to label instructions,” a spokesman said.
    Dr Landos also pointed to a new scientific study of Sydney rock oysters in the Maroochy and Noosa rivers, which demonstrates endocrine disruption (changes to hormone systems of the oyster) is “occurring in the Noosa River now”.
    The study indicated a possible source of the compounds affecting male oyster gene regulation found in Maroochy was from sewage, but the authors noted “no known sewage effluent enters Noosa River, although the results of this study suggest other possible point sources of contaminants must be considered”.
    Dr Landos said agricultural chemicals carbendazim, endosulfan, atrazine and nonylphenol were “all implicated in literature as being endocrine disruptors”.
    All have been found in low levels by Department of Environment and Resource Management sampling in the Noosa River.

  16. FS-ProSilva Tasmania

    October 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    21st Century forestry: Integrating ecologically based, uneven-aged silviculture with increased demands for forests
    September 23 – 30, 2010 Ljubljana, Slovenia

    When considering the size and location of Tasmania in the global context, the commercial reality of forest based industries, real change is the way to go.
    Here the latest publication, free for all and yes in English from Slovenia:
    http://web.bf.uni-lj.si/go/uafm2010/material/Book_of_abstracts.PDF

  17. Russell

    October 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Re #4
    Yes, it provides a jumping off point for people like you too, Hugo, or is it that you’d just rather no-one found out (includng the FSC panel)?

  18. Truth

    October 14, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    There really are trolls under them bridges…

    Really it will be the code ” a colouring in book at best” that will be compromised in the future to accommodate the sanctioned mismanagement and blind support in defiance of an industry that has been destroyed by those that had F**k all vision.

  19. hugoagogo

    October 14, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    #1 Good one ed.

    IMHO, it’s the trend in commercial nmedia to rely more and more on press releases seeing as journalists are considered an overhead to be minimised.

    And I understand the pressures of a near-unfunded alternative media in trying to do a better job.

    But still, in a cheeky alternative e-media the boundaries really ought to be pushed the other way (MORE analysis, more seeking alternative voices) etc.

    It’s OK, I get it, you post it here to enable TT writers to use it as their jumping off point for an article.

  20. john hayward

    October 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    This delay is of no real consequence.

    Even if the FP Code were amended, you still face the fact that the FP Authority simply doesn’t enforce it where it is inexpedient to the woodchip industry.

    If you want a regulator who is responsive to environmental and public health issues, you will have to replace the entire, preposterous, “self-regulated” forestry system, and its minister.

    And that’s just for a start.

    John Hayward

  21. Russell

    October 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Surprise, surprise.

  22. hugoagogo

    October 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    TT is really pushing the boundaries here by repeating verbatim a press release with neither analysis nor cross checking.

    Ed: 1. Boundaries are for pushing. 2. Publishing verbatim Media Releases is standard TT practice. If published in the Media Releases (MR) blog, it is self-evident. If published in the Articles blog the item is clearly defined as Media Release (MR). Even politicians are entitled to have published their exact words …

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top