A report in The Australian newspaper (10/07/2012) tells us that the forestry IGA parties are currently in Melbourne in a four-day lockdown to finalise an agreement. (Rivals meet to end war on forests)
The report includes the statement “a compromise may involve selective logging of some new reserves for speciality timbers, such as blackwood and sassafras.”
This would be an extraordinary compromise indeed if it is true.
Politically it would be very contentious and within the current industry and political climate it would set a dangerous precedent. I suspect this compromise just by itself would guarantee the continuation of the forestry wars regardless of any agreement between the IGA parties.
Commercially it would never be profitable. Just the regulatory and administrative costs alone, for such tiny volumes of wood, would make it a loss-making venture, let alone the harvesting costs. Would the Tasmanian taxpayer be happy to subsidise the harvesting of tiny volumes of high value timbers, when we can’t even afford policemen or hospital beds?
Tasmanian taxpayers subsidising the speciality timbers industry’s dependence on public native forests would also undermine the commercial viability of the proposed Tasmanian Blackwood Growers Cooperative.
80-90% of the volume of speciality timbers harvested in Tasmania is blackwood which can be grown successfully in profitable plantations by following the example set by farmers in New Zealand, and outlined by the proposed Tasmanian Blackwood Growers Cooperative. The tiny volumes of “feature” grade blackwood timber, which craftsmen such as George Harris require, could be readily sourced from the huge native blackwood resource that currently exists on private land in Tasmania.
Again one of the objectives of the proposed Growers Cooperative is to help realise the commercial potential of this private native blackwood resource.
In my travels around northern Tasmania talking to farmers I have seen enormous quantities of private native blackwood timber. It is widely scattered and in short lengths, so harvesting will require expertise and planning. But there is more than enough to meet local craft market demand, provided they are prepared to pay a real price for the resource. Many farmers would be very happy to get some money for these trees that otherwise are a cost to the farmer.
So this compromise is primarily about miniscule volumes (maybe 200-300 m3/year) of myrtle, sassafras and celery top pine. That is a very high social and political price to pay for something so small.
And finally this compromise, if true, would entrench the continuing political and commercial dependence of the speciality timbers industry on political favour and patronage. Surely we need to move away from this situation. The proposed Blackwood Growers Coop, while initially seeking public funding, is looking to move the industry away from long-term political patronage by encouraging profitable private tree growing. Once harvesting commences the Coop would be self funding.
Twenty years ago the Tasmanian public might have accepted such a compromise if it was well managed, transparent and profitable. But the past 20 years has seen the mistrust and anger escalate to the point where I doubt very much this compromise would get universal support.
