Tasmanian Times

Economy

Peace deal shatters … ? The Facts on Log Supply, from Gunns, FT. Download agreement …

image
Pic: Emma Capp

Tasmania’s ‘once in a generation’ Peace Deal on Forests is about to fall apart.

As Tasmanian Times writers and commentators have been portentously predicting, the timber facts and the ‘Chinese whispers’ were telling us the Plan ‘A’ deal was unachievable.

Now it seems the deal is off … at least for the moment!

Put simply there is not enough high quality timber as sawlog and peeler billets available in the remainder of the State’s production forests if the industry surrenders over 500,000 ha of high conservation value (HCV) forests to conservation.

Put extremely simply – the remaining regeneration production forests combined with the eucalypt plantation estate (predominantly pulpwood trees) cannot sustain the annual wood supply of 265,000 cubic metres of peeler billets and the 155,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog.

Ta Ann, the silent player in these talks, has a wood supply agreement with Forestry Tasmania for 265,000 cubic metres of peeler billets stretching well into the next decade. Their specifications are tight and their logs come from mature regeneration native forests managed by Forestry Tasmania.

Something had to give and yet again it seems it was the high conservation value forests that will again be sacrificed in a clever game of high stakes poker by the forestry negotiators.

Watch this space.

Related:

David Obendorf: The Facts …

• THE NATIONAL PLANTIONS INVENTORY, ABARES Report May 2012

[Gavran et al Australia’s plantation log supply 2010-2054]

http://www.daff.gov.au/abares/publications_remote_content/recent-20?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkYxNDMuMTg4LjE3LjIwJTJGYW5yZGwlMkZEQUZGU2VydmljZSUyRmRpc3BsYXkucGhwJTNGZmlkJTNEcGVfYWZwbHNkOWFiZmUwMDEyMDEyMDUxNV8xMWEueG1sJmFsbD0x

TASMANIA [page 48-49]

Tasmania’s plantations are concentrated in the north of the state and in the south-east corner inland from Hobart. The softwood (Pinusra diata) plantations area has been steadily planted since the 1991–95 planting period, and most of the broadleaved (eucalypt) plantations were established from 1995–96 onward (Figure50).

The state’s softwood plantations supply a pulp and paper mill at Boyer (Noske Skog) and several sawmills. Most of the eucalypt plantations were established to supply the export woodchip market via ports at Burnie, Bell Bay and Triabunna.

Work has commenced on a pulp mill at Bell Bay that will use a large proportion of the available Eucalyptus nitens plantation pulpwood in Tasmania (de Fégely2006).

In 2009–10, the total plantation area in the Tasmanian region increased by 36% from 2004–05. The softwood plantation area has increased by 4% since 2004–05 to 74,700
hectares in 2009–10, and the eucalypt plantation area has increased by 51% to 234,400 hectares. 82% of the eucalypt plantations are managed for pulpwood production and 18% are managed for sawlog production.

Eucalypt plantations managed for sawlog production are expected to supply around 150,000 cubic metresof high-quality sawlog each year in Tasmania from 2025 (Forestry Tasmania 2007). The remaining sawlog supply will be lower-grade sawlog (see Table 16). The eucalypt plantations managed for sawlog production require specific thinning and pruning to produce high-quality sawlogs.

The eucalypt pulpwood volume is forecast to be 3,450,000 cubic metres a year in the 2015–19 period and to peak in the 2050–54 period at 3,778,000 cubic metres a year. The eucalypt sawlog volume is forecast to be 251,000 cubic metres a year in the 2015–19 period and to peak at around 931,000 cubic metres a year in the 2025–29 period (Table 16, Figure 51).

image

References:

de Fégely, R 2006, Expert witness statement of Mr Andrew Robert de Fégely, Expert of Gunns Limited, Melbourne: 62.

Forestry Tasmania 2007, Sustainable high quality eucalypt sawlog supply from Tasmanian StateForest – Review No. 3, Hobart, Forestry Tasmania: 28.

• Mercury: No agreement on wood supply or forest reserves

AN interim forest peace deal has been announced his afternoon — but there is still no agreement on wood supply or forest reserves.

Industry and environmental groups have been negotiating for two years and have twice extended the talks beyond their initial deadlines.

The deal is not a final agreement, which the signatories say should be delivered after about another four weeks.

The agreement comes after Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke spent the weekend in Tasmania trying to facilitate a deal.

The Inter-governmental Agreement on Forestry is aimed at ending the dispute that has dominated debate for 30 years.

It is understood industry wants stronger guarantees from environmental groups that the industry would not be undermined in overseas markets in the future by groups other than signatories.

Such an agreement would bind conservationist groups outside the discussions to not actively undermine the agreement.

It would include a pledge that conservationists would not oppose Forest Stewardship Council certification.

It is understood it would also cover behaviour such as a campaign by Markets for Change earlier this year which discredited products from Ta Ann that was bound for the basketball courts at the London Olympics.

Industry wants 155,000 cubic metres of saw log and 265,000 cubic metres of peeler billets.

Environmental groups have targeted up to 572,000 ha of forest for reserve.

MORE TO COME…

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/08/15/353855_tasmania-news.html

• Senator Christine Milne, Greens Leader: Yet another holding pattern for forests

Australian Greens Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said “Today’s Statement of Signatories to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is yet another holding pattern.

“While still holding out hope that agreement can be reached, it is critical that any agreement sees native forests permanently protected and is an honest reflection of the failed business case for native forest logging that has been perpetuated by Forestry Tasmania for far too long.”

• Miranda Gibson, Jenny Weber: Conservationists concerned about delays in forest protection

Today’s announcement from the signatories to the forest negotiations has added uncertainty to the future of forest protection in Tasmania. Environment groups Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Center are raising concerns about the failure of negotiations to deliver conservation outcomes.

“Today’s announcement has left the future of Tasmania’s world-class forests uncertain. The interim agreement has given no clear outcomes or commitment to protect the full verified area that has been recommended for protection as world heritage and national heritage value forest. The forest that I have been living in for the past eight months remains under threat, as logging of high conservation value forests appear set to continue in the immediate future” said Miranda Gibson of Still Wild Still Threatened.

“Today’s announcement is yet another delay that will see key areas of high conservation value forest logged while talks continue over the coming weeks. This is nothing more than the window dressing as the critical issues have not been addressed. In the forest logging continues in areas with conservation values. Ta Ann continue to be a key driver of this logging, while misrepresenting the source of their timber in international markets. Tasmania’s forests need secure conservation outcomes immediately. Nothing else will suffice” said Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Center.

Still Wild Still Threatened is a grassroots community organisation campaigning for the immediate protection of Tasmania’s ancient forests and the creation of an equitable and environmentally sustainable forestry industry in Tasmania.

www.stillwildstillthreatened.org
stillwildstillthreatened@gmail.com

PO Box 295. South Hobart TAS 7004

• INTERIM FOREST AGREEMENT A STEP FORWARD

Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
Wednesday, 15 August 2012


The Tasmanian Greens Leader Nick McKim today said that today’s Interim Agreement signed by forest signatories was another step forward in the process, and called for signatories to be given support to reach a final agreement.

“This process cannot go on forever, but while there is still goodwill among signatories on all sides then we need to give them the space to reach a resolution,” Mr McKim said.

“The only thing now standing in the way of progress on forestry is the Liberal Party, whose policy is to continue ripping $100 million per year in ongoing subsidies to the timber industry out of education, health and public services.”

“The Liberals are clearly becoming frustrated because they know that none of the key stakeholders in this process support their position, including the industry representatives.”

“It’s a measure of how and desperate and attention starved the Liberal Party has become that they have resorted to using profanity in the hope that people will listen.”

First published: 2012-08-15 02:08 AM

• via David Obendorf: No forest deal yet – ABC1-TVNews 15 August 2012

State Political Reporter: Brad Markum

ABC News presenter Peter Gee: After two years of talking there’s still no final deal. But the signatories to the forest peace deal aren’t giving up. They emerged today to say they have struck an interim agreement, but any conclusion to the protracted process is still weeks away. State political reporter, Brad Markum joins us now from Parliament.

Brad, this isn’t the announcement Tasmanians were hoping for? [Brad nods negatively]

Brad Markum: Well, no Peter, it’s not. We were poised for a final announcement, especially after the involvement of the federal environment minister and the deputy premier over the weekend. But signatories have been given a fourth extension.

Now the stumbling blocks remain key issues of wood supply and areas of forest to be protected. So despite more than two years of talking the negotiations still aren’t over.[Brad nods negatively]

Terry Edwards, CEO of FIAT: We still have confidence that we can reach a final agreement. There’s a lot of hard work to be done.

PhillPullinger, Director Environment Tasmania : We absolutely want to deliver a strong and sustainable future for the forestry industry in Tasmania.

image

image

image

Brad Markum: It’s a goal that continues to drive the peace talks and keep industry and environment group[s at the table.

Terry Edwards: How much is a reasonable period of time to… to settle a war that has gone on for 30 years? Is 2 years too long? Is 3 years too long? Maybe not, if we actually achieve it.

Brad Markum: Signatories have been given another extension to enable further wood supply modelling [by Forestry Tasmania] to be carried out.

Terry Edwards; The modelling does right down to the coupe level and it has very detailed algorithms within it about the growth ahhm… status of any particular stand of trees.

Brad Markum: But they are making progress [shows front page of a document titled: ‘Interim Agreement on Tasmanian Forest Wood Supply and Conservation’] and have presented an interim agreement.

image

PhillPullinger: This really was an important and, I think, a major step forward [Edwards looks on smiling]

Terry Edwards: It is much, much more than just another extension. It’s about real words on paper .[Pullinger looks glumly]

Brad Markum: It calls on government to fast track a $15 million exit package for saw-millers. The move would help free up sawlog contracts, especially in regions where supply is challenging.

Terry Edwards: That’s why we believe it [the exit package] needs to be run sooner rather than later. Ahhm… so that we can ascertain what level of interest there may be.

Brad Markum: [Vision of protest outside Ta Ann head office in Davey Street] If a final agreement is eventually reached, signatories want a process set up to resolve disputes and prevent protests.

Terry Edwards:Which will give people an avenue to press their views or their claims or their grievances ahh… in a structured way. That doesn’t require direct action.

PhillPullinger: Well, we want to deliver to the forestry industry… is that sustainability and that security that they can have… an uncontested wood supply.

Peter Gee: Brad, what’s been the political reaction to today’s announcement?

Brad Markum: Well, the State government is hailing the signing of an interim agreement as a major step towards securing a final and lasting deal. But the Opposition has labelled it ‘a joke’.

Peter Gutwein: Two years, thousands of jobs; regional communities and families destroyed and the best that the Premier can deliver is this load of bull shit.

Nick McKim: Clearly, there’s still an element of goodwill amongst the signatories and clearly, there is still the hope amongst the signatories that they can reach an agreement.

Bryan Green: [smiling broadly] The war is over! There’s always going to be the odd fringe-person that, that is… is never satisfied. But at the end of the day… ahh… ahh… as we work through this process, they’ve called a truce.

Brad Markum: Clearly a level of continued optimism from Labor and the Greens. But remember this interim agreement won’t be implemented if signatories don’t sign a final deal. Now it’s expected to be up to 6 weeks before we know if they can.

• Markets For Change, JATAN Japan Tropical Forest Action Network, Huon Valley Environment Centre, The Last Stand, Still Wild Still Threatened:

Conservation groups active in markets and on the ground in Tasmania’s forests are very concerned that nothing has yet been agreed on the size and location of new reserves, and that logging continues to destroy high conservation value forests subject to negotiations about their future protection.

• Download the Interim Agreement:
Signatory_Interim_Agreement_2012_08_15.pdf

• Peg Putt, Markets for Change, Jenny Weber, Huon Valley Environment Centre, Miranda Gibson, Still Wild Still Threatened, Ula Majewski, The Last Stand:

FOREST RESERVES DELIVERY IS VITAL TO FOREST PEACE BUT MISSING FROM ‘INTERIM AGREEMENT’

Conservation groups active in the markets and on the ground in Tasmania are concerned that forest peace talks have so far failed to agree on the size and location of new reserves to protect Tasmania’s high conservation value forests, while logging continues in forests whose protection is under negotiation. They are urging delivery of comprehensive forest protection as a top priority of forest negotiations.

“The core of a forest agreement, the agreed delivery of reserves whose size and location are known and which adequately protect the high conservation value forests of Tasmania, is missing from the interim agreement released yesterday. It is a serious concern that this most basic requirement has not been able to be agreed upon,” said Markets for Change spokesperson Peg Putt.

“Unless forest protection can be rapidly progressed, the attempts for forests peace will fail. The significance of this problem should not be understated.”

Mr Akira Harada, a spokesperson for Japanese ENGO JATAN who is currently in Tasmania inspecting the logging of high conservation value forests that were exempted from a logging moratorium, said “I am not happy to witness the logging destruction of Tasmania’s magnificent forests that are of global importance. It is not acceptable for the market in Japan to buy the product of such forest destruction sold as ‘eco’ wood.”

“It is vital that such forests are protected, and that Japanese customers of Tasmanian product such as that sold by Ta Ann can then have confidence that their product is from acceptable sources. This is not yet the case,” Mr Harada said.

“There was no progress on our core issue in the signatories’ announcement, but instead an admission that securing reserves has been a sticking point, and now we are seeing further delays. We want reserve creation to be unstuck,” said Ula Majewski of The Last Stand.

“We remind everyone that every single day for the past 2 years of negotiations, precious forests inside the identified high conservation value areas have been logged. These forests are continually being compromised and still we have no firm agreement to protect any areas,” said Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Centre.

“My stand for the forests will remain unchanged until we have something firm, not vague pronouncements,” said Miranda Gibson from the Observer Tree.

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

39 Comments

  1. Garry Stannus

    August 21, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Current agreements as at 9May2011 (from FT RTI) include:
    Agreement No Agreement Name Start Date End Date

    917 Pulpwood 1/01/2008 31/12/2027
    918 Eucalypt sliced veneer log and Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3, Category 2 and Category 8 and Pulpwood and Fuelwood 1/01/2008 31/12/2017
    611 * radiata pine pulpwood and sawlog 12/05/1997 27/06/2022
    855 * Eucalypt peeler billet 16/06/2006 31/12/2021 (may be extended by written notice during 2018 to 31/12/26)
    856 * Eucalypt peeler log 1/02/2009 31/12/2022 (may be extended by written notice during 2019 to 31/12/27)

    Current agreements as at Oct2011 (from FT RTI) include:
    922 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 2 and Category 1/3 surplus only 1/03/2009 30/6/2021
    961 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 2 and Category 1/3 surplus only 1/07/2009 30/6/2021
    855 * Eucalypt peeler billet 16/06/2006 31/12/2021 (may be extended by written notice during 2018 to 31/12/26)
    611 * Radiata pine pulpwood and sawlog 12/05/1997 27/06/2022
    856 * Eucalypt peeler log 1/02/2009 31/12/2022 (may be extended by written notice during 2019 to 31/12/27)
    860 Category 2 and special species sawlog 1/07/1995 30/06/2027
    717 (997) Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 1/01/2001 30/06/2027
    999 Eucalypt sawlog only – Category 1/3, Category 2 and Category 8 1/07/2001 30/6/2027
    705 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 1/07/2002 30/06/2027
    730 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 1/07/2002 30/06/2027
    736 (998) Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 1/07/2002 30/06/2027
    702 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 and Category 2 4/04/2005 30/06/2027
    895 (991) Eucalypt sawlog Category 1/3 and Category 8 1/07/2007 30/06/2027
    875 Eucalypt poles and piles 1/07/2008 30/06/2027
    975 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 and Category 2 1/07/2010 30/6/2027
    721 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 1/01/2011 30/06/2027
    1011 Eucalypt sawlog – Category 1/3 1/07/2012 30/06/2027

    * Agreements cited by FT as current in Oct 2011 and also earlier in May 2011. Note that Agreement No 855 is for Huon, and 856 for Smithton.
    Forestry Regulations 2009:
    Eucalypt – Category 1 (First-grade mature-timber sawlog)
    Eucalypt – Category 3 (First-grade regrowth sawlog)

    ……………………..
    The above is a collection of details of Wood Supply Agreements which extend beyond 2020. I got them from FT’s RTI section of its website. If someone could add details to the agreement numbers, I would be grateful. (i.e. who the Agreement is with, and where…)
    Also, what are Category 2 and Category 8? Where are they defined?

    So what I’m left with, a particular puzzle is … how is it a number of contributors to TT have written of the Ta Ann contracts having been extended to 2027, (thereabouts) while on FT’s website the Agreements show the terms (duration) of the two Agreements with Ta Ann as still at 2021 and 2022 for Huon and Smithton respectively? I note the dozen or so Agreements cited in Oct 2011 as extending beyond 2020, which did not appear in the RTI information given 6 months earlier in May of that year. What are they?

    HELP!

  2. Robin Halton

    August 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    #33 William, I agree with the content of your appraisal.
    Too much is being directed at Terry Edwards, he should not be expected to be a de facto rep. of FT on the panel at all.
    The man is finding himself caught among excessive poorly conceived controversy over Wood Supply modelling which really is a direct matter for FT to advise the IGA panel.
    The CEO of FT Bob Gordon or his nominee ( a forester familiar with the workings of FT) with the approval of the Minister for Forests Bryan Green should address the IGA panel after the break, in an attempt to clarify the issues surrounding sustainable wood supply.
    Mr Edwards as a former truck driver, I believe was elevated to CEO of FIAT on his meritorious life skills as a worthy representative, supported by the forest industry who assist with funding of FIAT.
    In fact Mr Edwards is standing up well to the pressure so far and I wish him all the best when he returns from his well deserved break in Fiji.
    The problem we have is a Minister for Forests Bryan Green who lacks suitable life skills to be in his position at all, one has to only look back at the furore he created for himself and Labor during his prolonged stay on the back bench over the Tasmanian Compliance Corporation.
    Green is vague, that is becoming more evident as the talks head into the unknown, most likely the talks will fail anyway due to insufficient wood supply being available to progress to the next stage of determining the permanent reservation of public land!
    The ultimate terms of the Ta Ann Wood Supply contract need to be made clear as they are the major user of younger age wood which reflects availability being at a harvestable age for a far more valuable product starting approx mid way this century.
    I only wish that I could provide a more constructive solution, as everything is circling around prevailing uncertianty.
    Again thanks for your comments.

  3. TGC

    August 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    We know Nick McKim’s views on anything to do with forestry and the language he uses when discussing that(those) issue(s) is enough to make timber workers and sawmill operators close off their hearing.
    But, as Education Minister he is right to be concerned about how bad (foul) language can affect the dear little children.
    He should wander by school-bus stops when children are going or- much more colourfully- as they are being disgorged in the p.m.

  4. jack lumber

    August 17, 2012 at 12:50 am

    Dear Esteemed (?) fellow TT contributors , take a chill pill.I have seen a frenetic flurry of numbers all escalating bit without any substance . seriously lets see what the numbers are ex new modelling and se what is the available supply for sawlogs and peelers . It will be lower than any number you have guestimated
    How about we focus on the we try to together try to understand what is the current position of the Tasmanian green re plantations and will the engos accept the durability criteria

  5. William Boeder

    August 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    #15. jack lumber, Re 13 LOL or whatever it is, I have no idea what this refers to, perhaps you might have had something relevant to add to this subject matter but got waylaid by the neighbours dog or whatever?
    If you regard my comments as muck, good for you, perhaps you should bypass my comments and continue with your desperate search for an opinion that may be possessed of merit or could even suggest a relevance to the articles published in this Tasmanian Times forum?

    If you are not yet up to the task of creating an interesting and relevant comment you might practice/try by sending your sample comments in to the Examiner Newpaper.

  6. John Powell

    August 16, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    #31, gross negligence,lack of due diligence, a breach of fiduciary duty, possibly illegal and certainly immoral etc, all delivered by the Board/CEO. I suspect all is true!

  7. William Boeder

    August 16, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    The very fact that Tasmania via its government ministers, (and or its GBE of Forestry Tasmania,) are the only people who could have the authority to have enabled Ta Ann to dictate the volumes of timber they expect to have delivered to their Veneer Mills, in my mind this alone cannot constitute a binding contract for the following reason.

    Currently the State government of Tasmania, via its many agencies and departments, even and including the unverifiable therefore contestable information provided by Forestry Tasmania, collectively each and all are still unable to accurately determine the level of logging in our Native Forests that will prove to be sustainable as opposed to just attending to the demands contained in the Ta Ann contract.

    At this stage no person or agency can accurately predict what actual volume of forested Crown Land is effectively available to support the claims of Forestry Tasmania in fulfilling its side of the Ta Ann contract.

    As all the while the appointed representatives are still involved in complex and disturbingly stubborn negotiations, (which are still being undertaken on behalf of both State and Federal government ministers,) Environmental representatives and agents acting on behalf of the many splinter-groups, that actively and unwaveringly support Tasmania’s logging industry.

    A major difficulty in each and every claim put forward since a recent the many faceted review, (by Professor West and others,) of the “available forested land for logging purposes, (or is finally identified as approved log production zones,” is that Forestry Tasmania itself, (though not represented in person in the complex logging probability negotiations,) are yet still hovering in the background to these negotiations, serving as a major cause of the enumerable amount of disputes and un-settlements.
    (I speak here of the specific role of Terry Edwards in his attending these discussions et al as a preferred logging industry representative, yet all the while to me seem to be acting for Forestry Tasmania, a “non-signatory”.)

    Nobody at all can verify in actual fact and reality or can claim that this volume of native Forest required to serve the Ta Ann contract is readily available throughout the duration of the dates set out in the Ta Ann contract?

    Until this particular volume of timber is found to be available and is agreed to by all parties in the present IGA negotiations and can be attested to, there can be no certainty provided of log supply to serve out the terms of the Ta Ann contract.

  8. John Powell

    August 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Peter Henning, if someone had the patience to troll back through the 7000 plus articles relating to
    Ta Ann on TT I would suspect they would find a reference that the Ta Ann contract extension to 300,000 tpa and 2027 was finalised not long after the SOP was announced in 2010. That is how FT was working about that time…..perhaps still are.

  9. john Hayward

    August 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    The continual references to long-term contracts with Ta Ann as precluding reserves is nonsense. If they provided for more wood than was actually there, they are probably illegal for violating FT’s powers and guidelines.

    In any event, the contracts should have provisions in respect to breaches and abrogations. If not, FT would seem to be liable in respect to gross negligence.

    John Hayward

  10. David Obendorf

    August 16, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Peter Henning – the early signing of Ta Ann’s contract of wood supply was – mny peoples’ view – a deliberate pre-emptive move by Forestry Tasmania to interfer in the forest roundtable talks. I believe that contract was signed when these talks were underway and FT was merely in the ‘seconds tent’ barracking for the industry.

    They arranged a classic Chess move – to thwart the ENGOs capital piece – block the movement of the opposing Queen.

    That legally binding wood supply agreement – out to 2027 – locked in the ENGOs in their talks with IGA negotiator – former unionist and Labor-hack Bill Kelty. No getting around a long-term signed contract for 265,000 cubic metres of high quality, highly specified peeler billets per annum.

    When I have some time Peter I will chase up the date… or you might put a polite call in to one of the ENGO negotiators and ask, they would definitely know!

  11. Peter Henning

    August 16, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    #26,27,28. The questions this all prompts concern the issue of the motives behind the contractual arrangement made between Ta Ann and FT, don’t you think?

    Supplying Ta Ann with nearly 300,000 tonnes of wood pa throws a deliberate spanner into any attempt to lock up more native forests in reserves.

    Does anyone know when the contract was finalised?

  12. Robin Halton

    August 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    #25 William, good point I agree that there are Wood Supply short fall risks associated with Ta Ann well before any land swaps are envisaged!
    I have not comprehensively studied Ta Ann’s contract for Wood Supply with FT similarly I am unsure of existing sawmillers rights/Contract of Sale that will be affected by volume shortfall.
    In both cases compensation may be payable for projected loss of available resource!
    It is my fear that eucalypt regrowth stands in various stages of maturity may not meet with susainability targets therefore Ta Ann’s contract may be unachievable also leaving insufficient regrowth to grow onto to maintain a sawmilling industry!
    The projected supply of up to ~150,000 M3 of pruned euc. plantation wood from ~2020 is unable to replace either shortfalls in peelers or sawlogs coming from native forest and should not be used as a cover up for native forest shortfall
    The last thing I want to see is the sawmillers being forced to sell out and Ta Ann becoming the new Gunns in the Tasmanian forests.

  13. David Obendorf

    August 16, 2012 at 11:40 am

    RE: #25 from Wiliam Boeder – from Factsheet No. 4 from the Independent Verification Group

    The recent Independent Verification Group’s Wood Supply Review found that the sustainable yield of wood which our native forests can supply is considerably less than both the current legislated requirement and the volumes required under current contracts.

    Risky business:

    A key finding of the review was that the risk buffer that has been used to date means that the previous volumes of guaranteed and contracted wood supply cannot be met into the future.

    The authors found that while Forestry Tasmania’s data systems were suitable for assessing existing eucalypt native forest timber supply and future scenarios, the buffer used for risk was inadequate.

    The two authors, Mark Burgman and Andrew Robinson, the Director and Deputy Director respectively of the Australian Centre of Excellence in Risk Analysis, were well qualified to assess the risk management systems being used. Their report support the findings of the two independent forestry experts who last year also found that the 10% risk buffer used by Forestry Tasmania was inadequate.

    What this means:

    The new modelling shows Tasmania’s public native forests cannot supply the contracted amount of Ta Ann peelers under ANY scenario.

  14. David Obendorf

    August 16, 2012 at 11:32 am

    RE: #25 Media Release from Forestry Tasmania

    Forestry Tasmania releases list of contracts

    A list of wood supply contracts released by Forestry Tasmania confirms that it has contractual
    obligations to supply timber until 2027.

    General Manager Corporate Relations and Tourism Ken Jeffreys said the list was released in
    response to a Right to Information request.

    “We have also released a list of forest areas that have been the source of supply for the rotary
    peeled veneer mills at Southwood and in Smithton.

    “The release of information confirms what has been on the public record for a long period of time, and that is that FT has contracts that extend out until 2027.

    “Consistent with previous undertakings provided by the government, FT is in the process of
    negotiating contract renewals with a number of small sawmillers and is confident terms can be
    agreed in the near future.”

    Mr Jeffreys said Forestry Tasmania hoped the information released would be used responsibly
    and was not part of a campaign to denigrate Ta Ann, which has invested heavily in Tasmania.
    “Ta Ann can only process small diameter regrowth logs, and can’t use the bigger old growth
    material.”

    “If environmentalists had hoped the list of coupes that have been used to supply Ta Ann over the past two years would show anything different, they will be sadly mistaken.”

    “Of the more than 500 coupes listed, virtually all include regrowth from which peeler billets are
    sourced. Only eight were mapped as not containing regrowth, and in these cases, the small quantity of peeler billets would have come from young trees that would otherwise have been exported as pulpwood.”

    The released information is available at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/right-toinformation/release-of-information/7-lists-and-registers (../../../../right-toinformation/release-of-information/7-lists-and-registers) .

    ENDS
    09 May 2011
    Forestry Tasmania

  15. William Boeder

    August 15, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    I noticed a comment posted recently on Tas Times that specifies that Forestry Tasmania quickly engaged with Ta Ann to immediately extend the number of years that will guarantee a far longer term of contracted wood supply to Ta Ann that was to hand at this moment in time, just prior to, or soon after, the nature of the discussions were known and were being negotiated by the “Round Table Talks” participants.
    Thus I now refer to that comment here and wish to identify the date that Forestry Tasmania re-signed the Ta Ann wood supply agreements.”

    My having failed to obtain this information from the specific government web-site that records this information, apparently my not being entitled to view such Commercial in Confidence or restricted information.
    Perhaps there is somebody out there in our Tasmania that has this information readily available as there is little likelihood of any success in gaining this information from Forestry Tasmania sources.

    (There is scarce the need for me to dwell upon the fact that information originating from Forestry Tasmania can at most times be considered entirely false, or to contain an enormous amount of spin-orientated misleading content.)

    This specific date of the renewed Ta Ann/Forestry Tasmania contracted wood supply, may play an enormous part in reversing the losses incurred by Forestry Tasmania to uphold this contract “to the extent that this contract could be judged as void, therefore an unenforceable contract.
    Particularly so if this contract is proved to be an especially onerous burden upon this State’s economic futures, also that it may deny the actual reality of Forests available to provide such contracted volumes of log supply.

    For this contract already displays an onerous burden upon this State when consideration is given to the “stumbling block negotiations of available forest,” now taking place in regard to the IGA processes and of an ultimate IGA agreement being achieved.

  16. Andrew Nutwein

    August 15, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    The Tasmanian House Committee on anti forestry Activities is joint committee comprising MHA’s, MLC, Police and armed forces. It will be set up as a permanent standing committee of the Tasmanian Parliament under the Tasmanian Forests Agreement legislation. The committee will investigate anti forestry protest activity and will be give powers to blacklist & subpoena persons suspected of subverting the forest industry & engaging in anti forestry behaviour. Such behaviour includes direct action, propaganda, inciting community opposition to Forestry Activities & other bullshit.

  17. David Obendorf

    August 15, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    The Huon Valley Environment Centre today labelled the Interim Forest Agreement on Wood Supply and Conservation as ‘window-dressing’. That’s rather tactful and polite description Ms Weber.

    Bryan Green is crowing that ‘the war is over’ because the signatories have signed ‘a truce’.

    Nobody knows what Dr Pullinger has suggested that he might try to promise on behalf of Tasmanians who care about their islands’ ecology.

    How can Dr Pullinger pretend to offer ‘durability’ against protests in the forest… where has the good will been reciprocated from the forestry industry?

    Dr Pullinger [ET ENGO negotiator] wants to offer the industry ‘uncontested forests’ and Mr Bayley [TWS ENGO negotiator] has stated that Ta Ann is now part of the Tasmanian forest industry into the future.

    In my humble opinion, that’s worse than ‘window-dressing’ Jenny, far worse!

  18. David Obendorf

    August 15, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    ‘Ben’ [Comment #19] I apologise for mis-spelling Brad’s name. I hope Brad will forgive me.

    Thank you for reading these transcripts.

  19. john Hayward

    August 15, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    The Roundtable is looking increasingly like A Midwinter Night’s Dream, with Pullinger reported in the Ex as joining Terry Edwards in plans to give over a third of the State Forest to Michael Mansell & Co, presumably before a private deal to lease it back.

    They also seem to be presuming a thorough revamp of the Australian legal system.

    This is public forest they’re talking about.

    Before they go any further, the Roundtable’s water cooler needs to be thoroughly checked for lead and mercury.

    John Hayward

  20. max

    August 15, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    17 # Robin. Exit money for sawmiller and at the same time the railway is talking up a contract to cart 100,000 tonnes of logs from down south to Burnie a year. Presumably these logs are for export and are they still exporting from the Hobart wharf. Just what sort of sell out is happening right in front of us. If any of the environmental groups that are not even in the agreement fail to toe the line, the agreement will be torn up. This would be after all the Federal Government millions have disappeared and after all this wasted time and money it will be business as usual. If this is not blatant corruption it is the next best thing to it.

  21. Ben

    August 15, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    I’m really struggling to understand what it is that David Obendorf is seeking on TasTimes of late, and I am especially confused by his constant attacks on the IGA and the people involved, as well as the regular boosting and defending of the Liberal Party.

    David – do you believe that the Liberals will offer a better alternative on forestry than Labor and/or the Greens, or is it simply a case of ‘the enemy of my enemies is my friend’?

    Do you want to return to business as usual in the forests, or do you want peace?

    What outcome are you actually seeking here?

    Also, given your slightly disturbing focus on other people’s names, you should probably try a bit harder not to mis-spell them, especially when the person’s name is available all over the Internet; its Brad Markham, not Markum.

    Thank you.

  22. moo

    August 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    #17 Robin….

    “Before we know it Ta Ann will be allowed to become the new Gunns controller of State Forest”

    That has already happened! The schmozing by pollies ramped up after Triabunna was sold to Cameron and Wood

  23. Robin Halton

    August 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    #14 David, Indeed what a nerve,Terry Edwards, a former truck driver implies that a process that involves freeing up the Wood Supply having $15M set aside for sawmillers to exit the industry to resolve disputes and issues to prevent protests in the future!
    Who gets the wood supply, the ENGO’s for Reservation purposes or Ta Ann to control future Wood Supply arrangements.
    The IGA is on the verge of a major internal foresty war between competing parties for the spoils.
    I am sure that not every sawmilling business wants to give in and join the dole queue.
    Terry Edwards of FIAT by taking on all of the media focus is creating a monster whereas it may have been unintentional in the first instance there is now a need for arbitration to be put in place before the next showdown becomes nasty.
    It is pointless for Edwards to take the brunt of the IGA group and worse still the indecisive farcical mutterings of the Forest Minister Bryan Green are not helping either
    Before we know it Ta Ann will be allowed to become the new Gunns controller of State Forest.

  24. David Obendorf

    August 15, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Pilko, Gutwein’s expletive is an example of how political goverance has basely played in Tasmania; it has been for generations and I do not condone it.

    Mr Gutwein’s expletive , as you suggest, may have consequences… you call it a ‘dog whistle’.

    What is the alternative approach from the ENGOs and the Tasmanian Greens?

    A culture of compliance and appeasement? Use of reason, methodology and facts and science?

    To swallow your whistle and allow leering bullies to silence you and stand over you?

    Recall that FIAT [Terry Edwards] tactically left these signatory talks for a long period and now he is their demonstrative media spokesperson.

    ‘Bullshit’ is an artless mediocre way to describe an unrepresentarive, selective, secretative and controlling process that has not been equitable, ethical or fair. Thank you.

    Welcome to Tazmania!

  25. jack lumber

    August 15, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Re 12 and 13 . Dear William good to see your standard has slightly improved on this post when compared to the muck you posted on “The Mercury” . Re 13 LOL – classic dog whistling yourself by accusing another .

  26. David Obendorf

    August 15, 2012 at 4:40 am

    No agreement yet on forests deal – ABC News 24 5.27 pm

    Commentary from ABC State Political Reporter, Brad Markum about the Signatories Press Conference at 1pm Wednesday 15 August, 2012.

    Presenter Kim: Brad Markum tell me a little about what are the sticking points that are preventing this final deal?

    Brad Markum: Well Kim, the main sticking points are over that crucial wood supply to keep industry going here in Tasmania. Now what they’ve been doing up to now, is using Forestry Tasmania to run modelling or testing of their preferred agreement; their preferred scenario if you like. So, essentially that they say, you know, if, if… we protect this area of native forest from logging, can wood supply agreements for industry still be met? And ahh.. at the moment the modelling is coming back saying; ‘No, this is just not possible’. So it’s ahh… essentially back to the drawing board and ahh… part of this 4 to 6 week extension that the signatories have been given today ahh… There will be more modelling carried out. More modelling conducted by Forestry Tasmania as part of that. And at the moment it is only one scenario that they are putting into the computer to be modelled. But at this stage they are not really giving us any detail about that exact figure – that exact reserve figure that ahh … is being modelled. I mean there has been some speculation in the media, and ahh… of, of a figure around 572,000 hectares. But at this stage signatories are not confirming what that is.

    Presenter Kim: So dare I ask, what have they managed to agree on?

    Brad Markum: Well, they have actually managed to agree on a couple of things. I mean today, for journalists, it was a bit like ’ground-hog day’. We… we were poised for… for a final agreement… for a final outcome ahh… to this process. But it wasn’t to be. There was a fourth deadline extension. But there was a little glimmer of hope. The signatories has struck, what they are calling – ‘an interim agreement’. Ahh… there’s not a lot of detail in terms of numbers inside that, but there are a couple of key points – key things that ahh… industry and those environmental groups are keen to see happen.

    One of them is ahhm… $15 million has been set aside as part of this Intergovernmental Agreement to ahh… enable saw-millers to exit the industry if they want to. They [the signatories] want that process now, fast-tracked to hopefully free up some wood supply – some supply volume – to ahh… hopefully sort of help out, where reaching contracts is challenging. So they’re hoping that perhaps by getting a couple of players – some players – out of the industry that there maybe enough wood for the remaining suppliers to – sort of – go around.

    Ahhm… they also are pushing for the establishment – if there is a final agreement – of something that they are calling a ahhm… kind of a – a process really – to resolve disputes and issues, that would essentially prevent protests in the future. Terry Edwards from the Forest Industries Association is keen to see this; to make sure there isn’t protests if an agreement is finally reached.

  27. Pilko

    August 15, 2012 at 2:53 am

    #10 Re Peter Gutwein Bass MHA and most likely the next treasurer of Tasmania – and todays profane outburst. I have to disagree with you David Obendorf. Check into Nick Mckim’s Facebook page and check out the orgy of abuse & hatred that has been unleashed on Mckim & The Greens on the back of Gutweins temper tantrum and The Liberal’s recent Greenie hatin travelling circus. The rabid greenie haters can read between the lines and have been whipped into a frenzy. Tonight they are off the leash.

    Gutweins “Bullshit” expletive is classic dog whistle politics from a man who hates anything and anyone with a conservation bent. And tonight the dogs are barking. Keep an eye on the media & social media over the next 24hrs or so and you’ll see what i mean. The greenies in Huonville and beyond would be well advised to stay low tonight & tomorrow. It wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to see some greenie hatin vigilante attacks in the next few days.

  28. William Boeder

    August 15, 2012 at 1:49 am

    Let’s for a moment get back to what Forestry Tasmania do with manic gusto, that is to barge forward clear-felling our Ancient Native Forests, preferably without scrutiny and importantly without any inclination toward accounability.
    Bad luck to anybody who thinks that there are profits being created to flow into Tasmania’s treasury, no, there are not, all we hear from this mob is more of their beggaring clamour, (I refer here to the upper reaches of this dud outfit of Forestry Tasmania,) is for more taxpayer funds and free access to whereby they can continue their devastion and slaughter.

    The present ruse of Forestry Tasmania is to plead the needs of log supply for Ta Ann.
    The whole of the Ta Ann Veneer mills deal had been architected to create profits for their malaysian owners only, no one else!

    Wake up all those who pontificate otherwise, look about you, now tell me if Forestry Tasmania are still clear-felling our Ancient Native Forests, also in that over the past 3-4 years they have never halted supplying subsidised logs to any and all overseas buyers.

    Nothing else within Forestry Tasmania has changed during the 10 years I have lived in Tasmania.
    their every evil has triumphed over all and every obstacle in their path, including the following: honesty, probity, integrity, liquidity, honesty, fealty, objection to their wildlife slaughter,
    Crown Land pillage, atrocious accounting ability, their guilt of misleading the entire of Tasmania’s people, on and on it goes….

    The current Forestry Tasmania hero is Terry Edwards, watch as he feeds the media with “claims of a legitimate contract of supply to Ta Ann,” for that is the only excuse that Forestry Tasmania can muster up to throw into the arguments against the revocation of all their authorities that allow their very existence?

    William Boeder.

  29. Big Sim

    August 15, 2012 at 12:37 am

    Aha, they have agreed that there will be an agreement…there’s almost 200mill well spent…by not tying the fed cash to an outcome the Gillard govt ensured that this was the only outcome possible…noses in the trough sucking up until its all gone then blame the greenies for their refusal to compromise as the root cause of the failure of the gabfest.

    Its groundhog day in Tasmania folks. Note the environmentalists already singled out by the MLC lynch mob have now been tied to the agreement…lining up the ducks…bang bang bang…


    Editor’s note: edited to comply with the TT code … please, no capitals see http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

  30. David Obendorf

    August 14, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    The use of ‘bull shit’ by Peter Gutwein MP is hardly hard-core profanity, Mr McKim MP. I’ve heard stronger venacular from pollies of all persuasions than that meek offering!

    Would ‘bull dust’ have been more parliamentary… more civil?

    McKim writes: “The Liberals are clearly becoming frustrated because they know that none of the key stakeholders in this process support their position, including the industry representatives.”

    Another way to see this intermin stand off, is as a form of grinding compliance culture, geased with Canberra money. It is the sense of despondency and disempowerment that so many Tasmanians feel over this unrepresentative, secretative and politically-orchestrated process commenced after the 2010 State election – over 2 years ago. Thank you.

  31. David Obendorf

    August 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    The hidden aspect behind those vacant faces in front of the Governmet’s Executive building this afternoon from Dr Pullinger and Mr Edwards is the proposal that bailing out a few local sawmillers will make the FT sawlog supply bottom line better.

    And why is that so necessary?

    Simple Ta Ann wont budge, they want their peeler billets wood supply of 265,000 cubic metre every year. They want it lock, stock and barrel and the local Tasmanian saw-millers will be shown the door with another $15 million of money to pay them out.

    Gunns Ltd is depicted by The Examiner newspaper on Sunday last as a bleeding bull, near dead but Ta Ann is the new bull in ring and it’s not budging.

  32. Karl Stevens

    August 14, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    Another 4 to 6 weeks for Miranda Gibson’s tree sit. Obviously to the signatories she is only a human being and not a tree.

  33. David Obendorf

    August 14, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    The latest analysis from ABC1-TV Brad Markum at 5.30 pm today – video

    “No agreement yet on forest peace deal”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/no-agreement-yet-on-forest-peace-deal/4200954/?site=hobart&ref=m21

  34. Pete Godfrey

    August 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    I don’t believe that the SOP was ever meant to be any more than a smokescreen. It was designed to give the Pulp Mill a claytons social licence and to buy time so that the woodchip export industry could pick up after the GFC.
    For the industry representatives to want environment groups outside the discussions to be bound to not actively campaign against bad practices is just ridiculous. To want others who were not invited into the negotiations to promise not to campaign against markets or FSC certification is a dream.
    Sorry but that is not going to happen. You can’t refuse to include members of other groups, leave out the social aspect of the triple bottom line and then say but those three environment groups will not allow you to campaign against us.
    Stiff cheddar.
    Either the people are included or not, if not which is the case here they are free to do whatever they want.

  35. Claire Gilmour

    August 14, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    http://www.examiner.com.au/story/216899/interim-forest-deal-made/?cs=95

    “Terry Edwards said the politicians’ involvement had provided fresh momentum …”

    Don’t get fresh with me baby! … one already knows the whole thing is a political ploy to start with.

    “… scenario will be tested by Forestry Tasmania before the groups resume discussions.”

    Oh jesus, a politically run, useless, money hungry, public ignoring enterprise testing it all … I feel so much more relieved now!

    They want another 4-6 weeks now – which is rather telling. They have yet to be able to pacify many in the community, so political as it always was, they want to be able to find the right words, con words to appease.

    Obviously they are watching big time at what is being said publicly. Their hope now is they have learnt enough and things will calm down and they’ll be able to ride their donkey quietly in without too much public question. Think again boys … I’m just waiting for the opportunity to expose it all in the forest … especially now it’s warmed up a bit!

    How about this … naked bod on native forest log, splashed with pure rainforest water naturally infused with FT poisons, whilst stroking a niten and diseased tassie devil and having toes nibbled by a fox puppet … oh god it sends a tickle up a monetary spin doesn’t it! Oh apparently only another 6 weeks and it will all come to fruition … the rise of 30 years of political skill – can I get a refund on the chainsaw?

    In the meantime, lets see if Christ the redeemer can walk on water, get moses to part the waves, get mother mary to give birth to something unnatural and … lose money whilst playing bingo online.

    I’m looking forward to watching the independents rise out of the ashes.

  36. moo

    August 14, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    “It is understood industry wants stronger guarantees from environmental groups that the industry would not be undermined in overseas markets in the future by groups other than signatories”…….

    …..or what? They will tear up the ‘agreement’ of course.

    The industry know full well that environmental signitories are not able to control who or what form future activism will take.

    This is about trying to control activism against Ta Ann most likely because assurances have already been given to Ta Ann that the IGA will stop any impediments to their markets. The IGA must fail to get certian people out of a sticky situation

    This condition is sabotage of the entire process…..that is all

  37. max

    August 14, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    The Forestry peace deal is a farce, was always going to be a farce and always will be a farce. On one side of the table you have a bunch of incompetents who have overseen the destruction of a viable industry and are fighting a tactical retreat hoping that they can delay the inevitable truth. On the other side, the starry eyed dreamers chasing a pot of gold at the foot of the rainbow. Please sack the lot and give us something that will give us a viable forest industry that gives a good return to the state and at the same time doesn’t destroy the tourist industry and our environment.

  38. Karl Stevens

    August 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    Forestry Tasmania’s mandate is to return a profit to the state so why can’t that include stored carbon? FT does not have a mandate to only cut trees or even to create jobs, but to manage forests. The IGA process has been perverted by lies. The whole idea of appointing other people to perform Bryan Green’s job was always going to be a joke. When was the contract with Ta Ann renewed? I’m betting just before or during the IGA process. The ENGO’s had many warnings about this from people who were abused and bullied as a result. So much for a ‘community agreement’.

  39. Richard Barton

    August 14, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    Let’s not forget that the parties to the negotiations received some $2 million of our dollars for their time etc.

    The ENGOs never had the right to speak on behalf of taxpayers but they seemed content to propose that we buy our own forests for nearly $300 million and then hope that forestry left them alone.

    Since FT wasn’t a signatory, they could pretty much do what they liked. If there were protests then the industry could claim that the ENGOs had breached the agreement by no policing it.

    It was always crazy stuff. I don’t think the forestry negotiators were playing a ‘clever game’ at all, the ENGOs were just naiive and anxious to ‘sit at the top table’.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top