No wonder the forest industry is in crisis. One of the groups who stand most to gain from a positive contribution to the Tasmanian forest peace agreement is in fact opposed to it. Here is another shining example of the forest industry that defies imagination and beggars belief.
It seems that some of the greatest apologists for the forest industry are the very people and organisations who should be embracing the peace agreement as a rare opportunity for real reform. I’m speaking of the private forest growers, as represented by in Tasmania the TFGA and nationally by the Australian Forest Growers (AFG).
Here is an analogy to help set the scene. Imagine what would happen if the State government bought up large areas of land and started growing potatoes, onions, diary or beef cows, or some other agricultural crop and then sold these crops at below cost, outside normal markets, on secret, 20-year sales agreements. On top of this the Government then enacted legislation that gave them commercial and policy advantage over the farmers. What do you thing would be the reaction of the farming community? No Government would survive.
But this is exacting the situation with the forest industry both here in Tasmania, and on the mainland. Somehow normal agricultural policy is reversed with the growing and selling of trees for wood production, and this bizarre arrangement is vigorously supported by the farming community!! The State government dominates and controls the forest industry and receives the support of the farming community for it. This is despite numerous reports that have identified the damage to both the industry and the farming community (undervaluing of the forest resource, lack of commercial focus and competition, inefficient industries, lack of response to market and community changes) that has resulted from this situation.
Yes folks the growing and selling of trees for wood production is a commercial activity, just like cows, potatoes, apples and truffles. Many people I talk to seem to find this idea difficult to understand. Certainly when I did my forestry degree 30 years ago the general consensus was that growing trees was not a real commercial activity. Back then the industry was dominated by State public services. Of course it wasn’t commercial! This thinking still seems to pervade the industry, 25 years after the Hawke/Keating economic reforms.
This support of the status quo is highlighted in two recent documents from the TFGA and the AFG. The latter is a letter sent by the AFG to Bill Kelty, dated 4th March 2011, and to at least AFG Tasmanian members such as myself. Both documents support the status quo in the forest industry and the continuing logging of public native forest. Neither document identifies the peace agreement as an opportunity to end the domination and control of the industry by the State government, and for private forest growers to final realise the full commercial potential of their forest resources. To their credit the TFGA does identify that “it is time to update our forestry industry operating model. The historical model is outdated and needs updating and rejuvenating. Private forest owners are excited about potential opportunities that exist for their native forests to contribute to a revitalised industry with expanded market opportunities and social engagement.” But the document fails to build on this positive start, nor provide any ideas on what needs to change. The document certainly doesn’t identify the costs to private forest growers of continuing with the current industry model. No such honest admission from the AFG however!
The AFGs letter to Bill Kelty has a very similar negative, defensive approach. The organisation that represents private forest growers at the national level seems reluctant to see the peace agreement as an opportunity to have some of their own excellent policies on Government policy and markets implemented.
There is no mention of the problems with the status quo, and certainly no positive ideas for real change. The final paragraph from the letter really sums it up –
In summary, AFG is vitally concerned that any changes enshrined in the Tasmanian Principles of Agreement process, or following from it, do not impact on private forest growers’ access to their private native forest resource; that utilisation of the resource must not be restricted by purpose (eg. by precluding the utilisation of biomass for renewable energy uses); that forest certification does not become a requirement additional to the existing Code of Practice; and that it be understood that any reduction of processing capacity is highly likely to have a deleterious impact on market options for privately owned resource.
So private forest growers, the people who have most to gain from a positive contribution to the peace agreement (beside the conservationists), can see nothing but grey skys and gloom. Mind boggling! Clearly, farmers do not see trees in the same way that they see their other commercial activities. All of this makes my own goal of establishing a commercially-focused, profitable, farm forestry blackwood growers cooperative in Tasmania seem rather pointless. Establishing such a cooperative requires making real business decisions, investing real money, and having a strong commercial focus, in forest markets that are transparent and competitive (we don’t have those here). The New Zealand farm foresters seem to have this focus, and are growing blackwood for wood production.
Not so here in Tassie.
AsI say – it really does beggar belief.
