The one common interest that many TT readers, including Andreas Rothe and Frank Nicklason, seem to share is the absolute commitment to a commercial public native forest nirvana. They can’t agree on the detail nor how to get there, but the idea seems very attractive, nay addictive. It’s a commitment I gave up long ago.
Here’s my response to Frank’s recent article ( The false dichotomy of clearfell or reserve must be abandoned. Vica Bayley on free speech. ):
German forest scientist, Professor Andreas Rothe, has injected some much needed rationality and clarity of vision into discussions regarding the future of Tasmanian forestry practices. (The Mercury 20/7 and, TT here)
It is certainly curious that my response as a forester to Andreas’ vision was the exact opposite of Frank’s. Besides the views about stopping old-growth logging I was completely underwhelmed by yet another forestry vision built on spurious assertions and NO business case. For decades now we have been presented with these visions of a bold new forestry future. At best they have been failures (eg. Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement). At worst they have been absolute disasters (Forestry Growth Plan, Plantation 2020 Vision, MIS schemes, Gunns Pulp Mill).
One of the things that most struck me about Andreas’ vision was the old-fashion forestry rhetoric – leave it up to us the professionals, we know what we are doing with the public resource. Trust us!
I’m sorry Andreas but trust is in critically short supply right now.
Professor Rothe points to the folly of insisting on complete cessation of native forest harvesting and thus having a forest industry based exclusively on plantations.
Plantations are essentially monocultures. Plantations have many well documented downsides. Plantations are not able to supply the high quality timber which can be responsibly sourced from, non high conservation value, native forests.
The vast majority (99.9%) of the wood produced is either for the pulp and paper industry or for construction for which plantation-grown wood is perfectly suited. To say that plantations are a failure is like saying agriculture is a failure. Trees are just another agricultural crop. In fact for these markets plantations are absolutely essential. There is no alternative.
Andreas says that good sound sustainable public native forest management now means sending 80-90% of our native forest timber to the furnaces to produce bioenergy! There is no logic on this planet that allows that scenario to make any sense to me at all. Socially, politically, ecologically, economically, it just doesn’t work. And the fact that we keep saying that 80-90% of the harvest volume is “residue” is by definition completely bollocks!
That we are unfamiliar with high-quality wood from plantations is not due to the fact that such wood doesn’t exist. Teak is recognized as one of the world’s great timbers. All of the world’s native teak forests are now exhausted, so all of the worlds teak supply now comes from plantations and the wood quality is perfectly fine. The same story for Mahogany. Plantation mahogany timber is now displacing the last remaining native-forest supplies, and the wood quality is perfectly acceptable to markets.
New Zealand stopped logging public native forests 20 years ago and contrary to expectations the sky didn’t fall and the world didn’t end. And now NZ farmers are growing a wide range of different premium hardwoods and softwoods to try and meet market demand. It will take time to “sort out the wheat from the chaff” as markets interact with farmers to determine what wood goes where and at what price. But that will happen, and plantation-grown premium quality wood will be available in New Zealand. It already is.
It is possible to manage native forests for timber production in an ecologically sustainable way.
I’m neither for nor against logging public native forest. But after 30+ years of watching the forest industry fight and lose this battle I really do think the best thing is for us all to move on. The theory might tell us that “it is possible”, but reality and hard, painful experience says otherwise. There is no one right answer. No nirvana! Andreas doesn’t have the answer, neither does Frank S., nor Robin nor George. I certainly make no claims. Anyone who thinks they have the answer has to first get >95% community support. Good luck with that!
Reducing waste is a key requirement of any reform of the forest industry in Tasmania.
Clearfelling and broadacre burning is inherently wasteful and inappropriate at a time in history when global climate change and natural resource depletion should be amongst our top concerns.
It makes sense to use forest derived, as well as other organic waste, to generate energy in small dispersed power stations so long as the feedstock is obtained from operations which are conducted in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.
See my above comment on so called “residues” and bioenergy. Interesting that Frank fails to mention profit. Is this public native forest bioenergy to be non-profit, taxpayer subsidized just like the special timbers industry? I wonder what private bio-energy producers think of that idea? Hang on! Are there any private bio-energy producers in Australia? If not why not?
The false dichotomy of clearfell or reserve must be abandoned.
There is no dichotomy false or otherwise. There is no answer at all. No nirvana. But pretending that nirvana exists can lead to a lot of pain and suffering. The middle east comes to mind….
Restorative techniques to increase biodiversity in existing plantations are available and must be promoted.
Do we use restorative techniques in other agricultural crops? Onions, cows, sheep, apples, blueberries, grapes?? No? Why are trees so unique as a crop? I think cows are far more unique than trees. How about some restorative techniques for dairy and beef farms. (remove tongue from cheek….)
It is possible to have a profitable and ecologically sustainable native forest industry whilst rejoicing our great fortune in having, and protecting, high conservation value forests.
That sounds more like a plea than a statement! I’m sorry Frank and Andreas, et al, but we have been around the track so many times over the past 30+ years I would think the reality would have sunk in by now. Between the bureaucrats, the scientists, the politicians, the different industry interests, and the numerous, vocal and divergent community expectations there is absolutely no chance of coming to any consensus on commercial public native forest management.
The fact that new conservative Governments in Qld and NSW are now looking to open up national parks and reserves for logging should be a warning to us all.
Maintaining the dream that it a forestry nirvana is achievable and therefore perpetuating the forestry conflict in order to try achieve the dream is in my view reckless.
And Andreas makes the assumption that the forestry conflict is only about the management of public native forests. That might have been true 20 years ago, but since then the forest industry has successfully opened a vast array of new battle grounds for conflict which remain unresolved such as the pulpmill, MIS schemes, the waste of billions of dollars of investors and taxpayers money, political corruption, etc. etc…… How do Andreas or Frank propose that we resolve these issues? In the public’s mind they have all combined to become one giant mad monster of a problem called “the forest industry”.
And in the midst of all this confusion, waste and conflict I’m trying to convince farmers to grow commercial blackwood (yes we can grow quality blackwood timber in plantations). How do you think I feel?
• David Obendorf:
… or Download:
Koalas_face_carnage_as_loggers_harvest_timber_plantations.pdf
• Christine Milne, Peter Whish-Wilson: Rudd’s plan a mixed bag for Tassie “Kevin Rudd’s $100 million plan is a mixed bag for Tasmania.” “There is no way federal dollars should be propping up Ta Ann. Tasmania’s brand of clean, green and clever needs to be boosted, not undermined. “Tasmania needs new industries that build on our environment and our global reputation.
• Dr Rosalie Woodruff: Greens call for two valleys tourist drive
• Kim Booth: Ineffective payouts leave contractors out to dry Today’s hearings into the Federal Government’s botched forest contractor exit packages had found that many operators were left heavily exposed to the financial collapse of big forestry operations like Gunns and Forestry Tasmania because of unfair contracts.
