A chopper, spraying plantations, is just visible through the mist at Lake Cethana
The recent signing of an agreement on forestry in Tasmania has been hailed by some as a step forward. But before we start celebrating, I would like you to consider the following:
The Premier has not backed down from her assertion that this Agreement is all about clearing the way for a pulp mill. There is no reference in the Agreement to the proposed mill, and of course the supporters of the Agreement will argue that the reference in the Statement of Principles on which the Agreement is based was to “a pulp mill”, not the pulp mill as planned by Gunns in the Tamar Valley. As long as the site and the permits are for sale from Gunns’ Administrators, and no other site, no other sized mill or other pulping process is being proposed, we should be suspicious.
The Legislative Council will consider the Agreement on December 11 or 12 and it looks as if they will knock it back anyway. Even if they don?t, the Libs will tear it up if (probably when) they get into office. There appears to be no fall-back position for that eventuality. If there is no legislated way to enforce the Agreement, what happens? If it’s a case of going back to square one, then we must avoid the secrecy, the exclusivity and the unrepresentative nature that characterised the past two years of talks.
Those who can?t (or won?t) see past the saving of the high conservation value forests as an aim (and this includes some Greens politicians and Wilderness Society members) are indirectly contributing to economic and ecological disaster. Either Tasmania will have to be covered by an even greater area of plantations or or the whole industry will have to be wound up. We must look at a future with neither of these disastrous outcomes.
Forestry Tasmania has proved to be incompetent and it is a matter of urgency to find another model for the management of Tasmania’s forests.
Any legislative approach must take into account the need for conserving and managing the biodiversity of our forests. The Federal Government has a role in backing up this biodiversity protection through international agreements.
The key issue of the conversion of Tasmanian trees (whether exotic plantations or native forests) into short-lived paper products instead of lasting, carbon-retaining products, has not been addressed. The State Government, by its support of the Norske Skog mill at Boyer with taxpayers’ funds, in addition to the millions it gave to Gunns (and now sucked up by the voracious banks) has demonstrated that it is keen to see our trees contribute to climate change.
These are just a few of the reasons why we should oppose the Agreement and continue to fight for a forestry industry that is conducted transparently, sustainably, equitably and in an economically realistic and socially beneficial way.
In conclusion, I remind you of some of the things we asked for in our discussion paper on forestry in early 2011. Most of them are not only still relevant but even more urgent. Some of them have been addressed in the Agreement, but we need to do more than just hope that, simply because a few people have signed a piece of paper, anything of importance will change. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the changes needed, and most of the points need to be fleshed out with more detail, but the document they were originally included in was a discussion paper; in other words they are intended as starting points for discussion. That discussion is needed more now than ever before.
• The phasing out of those plantations which are only of use for pulp from woodchips
• Selective logging in native forests rather than clear-felling
• Where feasible, the restoration of plantation land to either agricultural use or mixed species forest
• The production of biochar by pyrolysis from forest waste, rather than burning off
• An approach to the Federal Government for funding to research alternative sources for paper production (eg banana waste, wheat straw, hemp);
• Managed preservation of some iconic old-growth forests (eg Upper Florentine, Tarkine)
• Decentralisation of decision making and planning control, including the breaking-up of Forestry Tasmania into a number of localised forestry management bodies, working closely with Local Government ? Removal of the exemption of forestry activities from State and Local Government planning regulations
• Recognition of the value of minor species for craft use and of the leatherwood honey industry
• Adoption of the principles of Community Forestry with a triple bottom line (economic, ecological and social)
• The recognition of the economic value of carbon stored in our trees
• Annual measurement and reporting of water uptake and outflow from forestry production areas
• Banning the use of triazines, 1080 and similar toxic chemicals in forestry areas.
