Lapoinya: It just makes no sense …

*Pic: Lapoinya forest manfern …

DR CON RHEE …

The Lapoinya 68-hectare coupe is one of the last pieces of undisturbed wet sclerophyll/rainforest left in the NW of Tasmania. It is a superb piece of native forest. Forestry Tasmania (FT) plans to clearfell this coupe. Such a proposed action makes no sense at all for at least 3 cogent & irrefutable reasons.

First, it makes no sense economically. It is well known that clear felling native forest is a $ loss-making activity overall. Published independent financial figures on this coupe show that taking infrastructure development into account, the overall LOSS per tonne of logs extracted is $28. Excluding the saw & peeler logs, & concentrating solely on chip wood – estimated at 60% of the total recoverable logs from this coupe – the LOSS is even bigger – $37/tonne.

Hello Forestry Tasmania, and State Government. This is a nonsense proposal. We, the people of Tasmania, pay for this loss. No more. Time to call a halt to FT clearfelling operations.

Second, Tasmanians need to know about the existence of the Federal. Government fund called the “Emissions Reduction Fund”. This fund is worth $2.55 billion – a central pillar of the Abbott government’s climate change policy. This coupe is a prime example of potential inclusion into that fund. What would that mean to us? Tasmania gets money from the Federal Government to leave that coupe undisturbed, unfelled. This option makes eminent sense.

If the coupe is clearfelled by FT, the estimated total dollar loss to Tasmania is $215,000. That’s a loss the State government has to cover. That’s your money. That money will NOT go to – say – running hospitals. Is that what you want? The answer is a no-brainer.

Third, and most importantly, you need to be aware of the fact of Ecosystem Services. Many people will not have heard of this term. Not withstanding that, you and your family before you, have benefited from these services. What’s it all about?

In a nutshell, it’s all the stuff you take for granted – clean air & water, healthy soil & oceans, food, resources, energy, climate. These are examples of services delivered by ecosystems. What’s an ecosystem? Simply, it’s what we live in. With industrialisation of Tasmania, significant degradation of the Tasmanian ecosystem has occurred. That in turn has translated into loss of optimal ecosystem services. Optimal services are provided in abundance by undisturbed native forests.

Hello folks – this is your water quality, etc going downhill. Dumbly aided by FT and policy of the Tasmanian government. The environment is the bed you sleep in. It’s the life as you take for granted. You need to nurture it. You need to take care of it.

Enough is enough, people of Tasmania. Speak with your local polly. Write to your newspaper. Say NO to clear felling at Lapoinya. Say NO to clear felling in Tasmania. It just doesn’t add up. No matter which way you look at it.

FRANK NICKLASON …

• Forestry Tasmania: The depressing lack of progress

Helen Kempton’s story about Forestry Tasmania’s plans to clearfell a 68- hectare bio-diverse native forest at Lapoinya ( the name means ‘tree fern’ in the local Tasmanian aboriginal language ) in the State’s North West demonstrates the depressing lack of progress that has been made in the reform of the Tasmanian forest industry ( Mercury 29/1; Mercury: Town fights bid to harvest much-loved trees ).

The Lapoinya forest is classified as regrowth after selective harvesting 60 years ago. It contains many old trees which are important animal habitat as well as containing rare orchids and other threatened flora.

The forest has crucial habitat for a healthy Tasmanian devil population. Its streams are the homes of the giant freshwater crayfish and the platypus.

Assessment of aboriginal heritage values has been non-existent.

The Lapoinya forest is treasured as a recreational site for locals and tourists alike.

Reports meticulously prepared by local citizens suggest that the forest practice plan for the imminent clearfell operation has been inadequately scrutinised by the industry regulator.

A rigorous financial assessment indicates the economic folly of clearfelling this forest. It is estimated that Forestry Tasmania will lose $30 per tonne for the harvest. This estimate, of course, cannot account for all the longer-term losses associated with this stupidity.

About 8 per cent of the logs will be sawn, a third will be peeler logs for Ta Ann, the remainder will be chipped.

Forestry Tasmania is aiming for certification of its practices by the Forest Stewardship Council. How on earth can they expect to achieve this certification given this example alone?

How has Ta Ann been able to gain supply of peeler logs harvested from a publicly-owned asset at a loss?

Frank Nicklason,
North Hobart

• Watch YouTube: Saving Lapoinya here

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

• John Lawrence: A breach of competition policy … FLAG

• John Biggs, in Comments: This attempt by FT is crazy. It will damage FSC certification, it will cost $600,000 to clearfell, the sale of timber will realise $400,000 Result: cost of $200,00 to the Tasmanian people and the loss of this wonderful asset, its wildlife, its beauty. How crazy and deliberately confontational can you get? Everyone: please sign the petition at https://www.communityrun.org/petition…

• Karl Stevens, in Comments: FT should not be logging this forest at a loss. Why aren’t somebody’s relatives benefiting? Why were the roading tenders even advertised? Surely somebody is getting a kickback out of this? I can highly recommend Forestry Tasmania bringing in the governor of Sarawak as a consultant. The FT board should all be living in marble palaces and have a personal Learjet. FT hasn’t got a clue how the logging industry works.

• Frank Nicklason, in Comments: The posts of Frank Strie and Dr Con Rhee indicate an opportunity exists for the Lapoinya forest to be a demonstration of what is possible if a little goodwill and positive thinking can be brought into play. What is obvious is that there is strong local and wider spread feeling about the values of this forest. It’s integrity must not be destroyed by clearfelling. Frank Strie’s contribution regards Pro Silva (literally ‘For the Forest’), ‘close to nature’ forestry (a form of community forestry could be a circuit breaker.Please read his contribution and the links provided carefully. Could the Lapoinya forest be purchased using the Federal Government’s Emission Reduction Fund and a plan to manage it using Pro Silva principles developed? I have spent just 2 hours in the Lapoinya forest. I was mightily impressed. I am, however, concerned that the current Tasmanian paradigm which is to either clearfell and burn, or reserve, needs to be refined. It is this system that has led to intensification of harvest pressure on unreserved areas. This is the reason that remnants of native forests outside formal reserves are being hammered, just like the proposal for Lapoinya. Rather than just suggesting that we shift the destruction to another coupe, as TGC seems to be proposing, why not push for a reform of forestry practices as Frank Strie suggests?

• Karl Stevens, in Comments: Stu 71, Says ‘What a pity that there is not more reasonable discussion.’ Maybe you are in the wrong forum Stu? Even so, if there was a bunch of logging industry blokes only in the discussion you would not be able to get the PR work done would you? Maybe you should be pondering deeper questions Stu? If shipping-out trees has been so successful for Tasmania then why is half the state living on Centrelink? If pulping chips has been so successful for Japan then why has that country been economically stifled for decades? Obviously forestry on the ground is just a tiny part of a much bigger picture of exploitation and destruction. I recon the Tasmanian Aboriginals were the ultimate foresters. Without them you would have no FT and no ‘resource’ to fight over. If FT was responsible for Tasmania’s forests for 40,000 years, I guarantee they would have concreted over the entire island and just had a Centrelink office, a Maccas and a pub.