Dudded on Durability: How the Members of the Legislative Council are being misled

Dear Legislative Councillors,

Nothing would please me more to be able to say that we support this durability report, the Governments response to its deficiencies and subsequently the continuation of the legislation. I would also like to be able say that since the passing of the TFA legislation earlier this year that there has been good progress made in resolving the issues that we have highlighted to you all regarding Special Timbers (ST). I would also like to be able to report that we have found a new way to make pigs fly.

Unfortunately this is not the case.

Before you all put this aside and groan, thinking “not bloody special timbers again”, I would urge you to continue reading – I will try and make it interesting.

What has happened and continues to happen with the issue of ST and the forest agreement can only be described as a calculated, intentional strangling of a strong and vibrant industry sector with the direct intent to shut it down. I will not mince words here because this is exactly what is occurring.

The Durability report and special timbers

Over the past 6 months we have consistently heard from industry experts, the forest manager in Legislative Council committee hearings and most recently the resources Minister in an estimates hearing (June 5th) that the supply target of 12,500 cubic metres cannot be met given that the areas set aside for special timber production under the agreement cannot provide this volume. In fact FT’s own analysis in February this year showed that only 600 cubic metres combined for celery, myrtle and sassafras could be achieved with the reserves as they stood.

As it turns out, and according to FT, the SCTZ was chosen without any FT input by the TFA Signatories. Conveniently, the modelling used by the signatories to choose these areas is not subject to RTI. The modelling used to choose these and the Schedule C coupes was also meant to be tabled in the legislative Council with the Durability Report but has not been seen. From Hansard 16th April 2013:

Mr FARRELL – The House will get the information on this matter in the first durability report to be provided by the special council and tabled with the first proposed reserve order. Members can then judge the issue at that time together with all other durability issues

So where is it? Should make for very interesting reading.

The Schedule C Contingency areas

“Why would you have a contingency that could not provide you with what you are looking for?” – Hon Ivan Dean MLC, Hansard, 16th April 2013

Now the plot thickens.

In an effort to appease upper house MP’s concerns on special timber supply and to allay the fears of the special timbers sector, the Government introduced 24 Special Timbers Contingency areas totalling just over 10,000 hectares – the so called Schedule C coupes, to the TFA Bill. When speaking of these areas in parliament earlier this year the Resources Minister, Mr Green called the Schedule C areas an “insurance policy” and they were similarly referred to as such in the upper house.

Although FT acted in a consultancy capacity with regards to these areas, the final boundaries for these areas were chosen by the ENGO signatories.

After a number of drawn out RTI applications, the truth about the Schedule C coupes has come out. The size of the coupes had been “inflated” with FT advising that of the 10,000 odd hectares in these areas, only approx 4700 hectares were actually possible special timber areas. An on ground investigation has shown that some of these coupes have been harvested as recently as 2010 and have been re-sown as monoculture eucalypt.

Other coupes contain large areas of button grass plains with no trees at all and whilst some of the coupes do contain special timbers, it is certainly not anywhere near the quantity or quality required or fit for purpose to supply the industry and be our “insurance policy”. A further RTI has been submitted requesting clarification on what is in these areas, how much has been harvested, etc.

We’ll briefly have a look at WE25S, WE26S and BF19S. I have personally visited the WE25S and WE26S coupes again recently but due to the time constraints of running a small business I have not made it up to BF19S but intend to do so in the near future.
Here is a satellite picture of a part of WE25S contingency coupe. The white outlined area is as per official FT maps of the coupe shown below this photo.

In the map above the area outlined around “WE25S” is part of the special species contingency area.

Below is a picture taken a few weeks ago in this coupe. The coupe boundary is the taller trees in the background. The coupe has been re-sown with eucalypt and no special timbers. See the full article here for some further examples of this deception.

A video showing what is contained in the the Wedge coupes is at the link below

Conclusion

I would ask a simple question at this stage. What would FIAT or TA Ann say if their agreed wood supply was reduced by 20% or 30%? Would the agreement be durable? Of course it wouldn’t be. They would not accept it and would likely call on the parliament to rightly do something to remedy the breach of durability.

Whilst you all may have different views on the TFA and many other issues, what I do believe is that you all share a common thread of honesty and what is right and wrong. What has happened to the specialty timber sector is just wrong, dishonest, sneaky, uncaring and selfish and I would implore you to go one more round for the sector to see if we can’t get this right.

I would implore you to undertake an immediate committee investigation into the facts surrounding special timbers including why areas were chosen and on what basis, who chose the areas, why these areas were allowed to be chosen when it was known that the areas could not meet the required demand and most importantly how will the clause 4 special timbers supply targets be met this year, next year and into the future.

See the link to his full submission to the members of the Legislative Council, here:

Andrew Denman is the President of the Special Timbers Alliance, a professional wooden boat builder and employer of Tasmanians in the Specialty Timber Sector.

• John Maddock, in Comments: Welcome (again) to the real world, Andrew. Those of us who were in TWFF 10 years ago were saying similar things. The Special Timber Management Units (STMU) which were set aside last decade for special species timbers were notable for their location: jammed between the logging coupes & the WHA boundary, predominantly. When we asked (on more than one occasion) for audits of remaining stands of special species, we were fobbed off by FT management, including, at one notable meeting, the present boss. The point is, Andrew, you are dealing with a culture which has changed little. It did, and still does, care little for special species timbers. The only way to bring sense and as a consequence some security of supply, is to have accurate audits of special species volumes made public, so that all can see and understand the limits. Simply claiming you need 12,600t is a nonsense figure and a nonsense approach. I hesitate to use the much debased word “sustainable” but I cannot find an alternative when a call for a system which would ensure a supply of special species for ever is necessary.

• Gordon Bradbury, in Comments: For the past 40 years since the start of the woodchip era, the special timbers industry has been a waste/residue driven industry, picking up the scraps and waste that the woodchip industry didn’t want as it ploughed its way through Tasmania’s native forests. It has never been commercially driven, profitable nor sustainable despite all the rhetoric. So here we are in post-woodchip era 2013 fighting over the last remnants of the resource. All this has been so predictable for many years. And every time we have another forestry review/agreement we have exactly the same debates and arguments, and every time the situation continues to deteriorate as usual. Why is this so? Can anybody see what the problem is here? It’s not difficult! What’s that saying by Albert Einstein about the definition of insanity? Something about repeating the same activity while expecting a different outcome. I would say that description fits the special timbers industry in its current format pretty well. In the case of STI the situation has got worse not better just by doing the same thing repeatedly. Andrew, George and Robin, I admire your commitment to your cause, but the treadmill is broken. You can stop running now!