Tasmanian Times


$7.5 million … for a done (FSC) deal … ?



Forestry Tasmania was gifted some $7.5 million under the now scrapped Tasmanian Forest Agreement to obtain FSC accreditation.

I suggest that the powers that be have been provided with enough money to buy accreditation … yet they still have the Sword of Damocles hanging and sharpened over their collective heads.


The FSC International Standard version 4 as of 2002

This document was seemingly uncorrupted by the logging industry in the UK. I received my Copy from the owner of the first major Scottish Estate to be Granted FSC accreditation.
I extract the following:

The Principles were first approved in 1993 amended in 1996, 1999, and 2002.

These Principles include.

Principle 5, Benefits from the Forest.

5.1 Forest management should strive toward economic viability …

In Tasmania and Forestry Tasmania’s case we cut down our native forests at a loss of a million dollars a week paid for by the taxpayer


5.6 The rate of harvest of forest products shall not exceed levels which can be permanently sustained….

In Tasmania we paid Ta Ann nearly $30 million to cut back on their allocation of peeler billets as it was unsustainable. It still is unsustainable.


Principle 6: Environmental Impact.

Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes and by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and the integrity of the forest.

Most complete management plans have been destroyed and/or lost with only the cover sheet remaining and Forestry Tasmania neither monitors nor abides by the contents.

For example the clearfell above the Mole Creek water supply and the FPO Officer Wilkinson stated it was below … when it was above.

6.1 … Assessments shall include landscape level considerations …

There is – by considered political interference – no Landscape Legislation in Tasmania nor is their any Scenic Protection Legislation. This protects Forestry Tasmania from the consequences of its clearfell and burn policy.


6.2 Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Conservation zones and protection areas shall be established, appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management and the uniqueness of the affected resources.

The critically-endangered habitat of the Swift Parrot is under constant threat by the logging practices of Forestry Tasmania.

The same applies to the endangered Wedge Tailed Eagle.


6.6 Management systems shall promote the development and adoption of environmentally friendly non-chemical methods of pest management and strive to avoid the use of chemical pesticides. World Health Organisation Type 1A and 1B and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides; pesticides that are persistent, toxic or whose derivatives remain biologically active and accumulate in the food chain beyond their intended use; as well as any pesticides banned by international agreement, shall be prohibited.

These prohibited pesticides are still used by Forestry in Tasmania.

The extent and use, despite weasel words continues but is unknown.


6.10 Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses shall not occur, except in circumstances where conversion:
a) entails a very limited portion of the forest management unit; and
b) does not occur on high conservation value forest areas.

Conversion has always occurred in High Conservation Areas … hence the laughed-out-of-court extraordinary application by the Liberal Government to roll back World Heritage listing over the Western Tiers to allow further logging. Australia is the only country who has ever tried to get a World Heritage Listed Asset removed from the Register.


10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994 normally shall not qualify for certification. Certification may be allowed in circumstances where sufficient evidence is submitted to the certification body that the manager/owner is not responsible directly or indirectly of such conversion.

Forico has employed the Gunns Manager who oversaw the planting of the now bankrupt Gunns plantations on converted native forests. He is now CEO for the new owners Forico of these ex Gunns plantations that have been granted FSC accreditation using a loophole in the law over a transfer of ownership.

What happens if Forestry Tasmania sells its remaining plantations on land converted from Native Forests since 1994 using the same loophole of transfer of ownership to allow FSC accreditation?

Fail … for the system can seemingly be manipulated.

For those involved in the granting of FSC to a bankrupt Tasmanian GBE Forestry Tasmania surviving only by the courtesy of the public purse I suggest that the sums of money involved could corrupt the process by changing the FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship to suit Forestry Tasmania.

Nothing should ever surprise in this your corrupt Tasmania when the industry has $7.5 million to help fund FSC accreditation even after the Agreement that made those funds available has been torn up.

We are watching.

• Ted Mead in Comments: … FSC or no FSC the FT ship is sinking. The only thing that keeps it afloat is the Liberal $ taxpayer funded liferafts. Time for it to be scuttled!

Jenny Weber, Peg Putt: A long way to go for Forestry Tasmania’s FSC bid, environment groups warn

Andrea Dawkins: Harriss Deaf to Community Wishes on Lapoinya

SATURDAY December 5 …

ABC: End to clear-felling a sticking point to Forestry Tasmania ‘green stamp’

ABC: Foresty Tasmania prepares to sell Tahune Airwalk in latest move to offset losses

• Alison Bleaney in Comments: # 44 FSC breaches its own principles 5+ 6. FSC Int has just announced that the pesticides that it has just added to its list of highly hazardous pesticides can be used without timber companies applying for permission to use them (derogations) for another year. This in spite of telling the companies and ‘interested stakeholders’ that they did need to have derogations approved before use and that includes an up to date integrated pest management plan showing how the companies have acted to minimise pesticide (biocides) use. One of these pesticides has been banned in EU as it is a well known reproductive and developmental toxin. By the way the term ‘stakeholder engagement’ with FSC is an oxymoron. FSC talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

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


  1. spikey

    December 6, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    looks like the shills have found their ‘clever tricksy voices’ again

    save your breath boys and girls

    Deliberate deception
    Denial of truth
    Blatant frequent flagrant diatribes

    The voices of corruption

    shame shame shame

    I have enough material
    I need no more quotes from unscrupulous liars


  2. jack lumber

    December 6, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Actually we have a third FSC elder in the state ….. Sean Cadman . What is his view ??

    The white anting of FSC continues by a select few .

    re 41 . Do I read this correctly . The writer , really , that is you John, isn’t it .

    How long have you been lexicographer.?

    How long for and what did you do when you used to work for FT .

    Wow this is quite a disclosure but does explain so much .

    re 46 Karl , really ” Having sex” . Still I did smile and sometimes when something makes no sense its always good to have a laugh , so thank you too.

    still no evidence of corruption just opinions and that’s what TT is about I guess


  3. Factfinder

    December 6, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Deforestation – Environmental sustainability – Sustainable Business

    Sunday 6 December 2015

    African forestry scheme aims to build prosperity by restoring landscape

    World Bank joins forces with private sector in $1.6bn AFR100 initiative designed to restore 100m hectares of forest across Africa by 2030.

    … Participants point out that forests and trees contribute to African landscapes by reducing desertification and improving soil fertility, water resources and food security, as well as by increasing biodiversity and the capacity for climate change resilience and mitigation.

    They say the initiative will not only help to build on existing climate pledges made by African countries, but will also provide an engine for economic growth and development.

    “Restoring our landscapes brings prosperity, security and opportunity,” said Dr Vincent Biruta, Rwanda’s minister of natural resources.

    “With forest landscape restoration we’ve seen agricultural yields rise and farmers in our rural communities diversify their livelihoods and improve their wellbeing.”

    The new initiative is intended to capitalise on “a strong tradition” of successful forest landscape restoration in Africa: local communities in the Tigray region of Ethiopia have already restored more than 1m hectares, while in Niger, farmers have improved food security for 2.5 million people by increasing the number of on-farm trees across 5m hectares of agricultural land.

    Dr Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, the CEO of Nepad and former prime minister of Niger, said that countries such as Malawi, Ethiopia and Mali were already reaping the benefits of restoration, but added: “We need to scale up restoration across the whole continent – more than 700m hectares of land in Africa have potential for restoration.”

    Wanjira Mathai, chair of the Green Belt Movement and daughter of the Nobel peace prize laureate Wangari Maathai, said: “The scale of these new restoration commitments is unprecedented.

    “I have seen restoration in communities both large and small across Africa, but the promise of a continent-wide movement is truly inspiring. Restoring landscapes will empower and enrich rural communities while providing downstream benefits to those in cities. Everybody wins.” …

    Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/deforestation

  4. Karl Stevens

    December 6, 2015 at 10:16 am

    A major reason FT is failing in it’s bid for FSC certification is because it would mean Ta Ann gets FSC certification by default.
    Rewarding the Taib ‘timber mafia’ with FSC certification contradicts the very reason FSC was created – to save the world’s remaining rain forests.
    The fact is FSC can bend any rule to help a company if it wants to. Look at how they shepherded Gunns controlled wood certificate as Gunns traded while insolvent, ripped off thousands of investors and went bankrupt?
    Gunns controlled wood and FSC membership was guarded by FSC Australia so that foreign money could move in on Tasmanian land and trees in a seamless replacement for Gunns Ltd.
    Dr Bleaney is right, ‘stakeholder engagement’ is a spreadsheet exercise where negative criticism is filed away on page 6 of a spreadsheet.
    Ta Ann’s owner Hamed Sepawi has said a tropical rainforest converted to a palm oil plantation is a ‘forest’. Has FSC contradicted him? No they have not. They think it’s a ‘forest’ as well.
    In other words the desktop spreadsheet jockeys at FSC wouldn’t know a ‘forest’ if it was having sex with them.

  5. Alison Bleaney

    December 6, 2015 at 9:29 am

    # 44 FSC breaches its own principles 5+ 6
    FSC Int has just announced that the pesticides that it has just added to its list of highly hazardous pesticides can be used without timber companies applying for permission to use them (derogations) for another year. This in spite of telling the companies and ‘interested stakeholders’ that they did need to have derogations approved before use and that includes an up to date integrated pest management plan showing how the companies have acted to minimise pesticide (biocides) use.
    One of these pesticides has been banned in EU as it is a well known reproductive and developmental toxin.
    By the way the term ‘stakeholder engagement’ with FSC is an oxymoron.
    FSC talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

  6. Jack lumber

    December 6, 2015 at 1:09 am

    Re 40 could you please provide a reference to which part of the FSC standards has been breached . Yes I understand the 1994 rule and the change of ownership thingy really pisses you off . But where is the breach in FSC ….Your words , now back it up or once again is this an opinion .? There is a difference

    I again state ,we have a number of prominent Tasmanians who contributed to the establishment of FSC in Australia and have even worked with FSC internationally on principles and standards

    . Do they think there has been a breach as you have described . Please frank striie or Tim cadman can you clarify ?

    At least #39 concedes it is her opinion and like Voltaire ……


  7. Jack lumber

    December 6, 2015 at 12:59 am

    Re 38 dear Karl it is auto correct and I’m sorry for,the stress it has caused you That’s the reason some disjointed sentences and I note that you love my work , coming from you, I’m lost for words.

  8. Alison Bleaney

    December 5, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    Kevin O’Grady is the self appointed industry facIlitator for the FSC Aus national derogation applications -see#13.
    He also coauthored the FSC Int Integrated Pest Management policy…pity he does not follow his own policy recommendations but instead he is ‘facilitating’ the timber companies application to use the cheapest and most environmentally hazardous pesticide (biocides) options…and FSC Aus supports this while FSC Int stands idly by saying and doing very little…shame on you FSC Int for not sticking to your 10 principles… Why do you think you have the right to call yourself the most environmentally friendly forestry certification when it is tantamount to false advertising?
    The reality shows it is a farce ……a very corrupted process.

  9. John Hawkins

    December 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    #37 Lumber

    I think the following quote will amuse you and the readership of TT.

    Oxford Dictionaries Definitions words in English.

    Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

    Example of usage:
    Unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials.

    It is believed that the writer worked for Forestry Tasmania.

  10. PB

    December 5, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    FSC Australia has announced yet another round of public consultation in response to a group of 10 Australian forest companies, either FSC Certified or seeking certification, which are developing derogation applications to enable the continued use of pesticides listed as FSC Highly Hazardous. 

    This can only be construed as a duplicitous attempt to enable the use of deadly chemicals including 1080 and Alpha cypermethrin which are on FSC’s list of banned pesticides and whose use has been banned in other jurisdictions.

    Forico only recently had a separate application to use Alpha cypermethrin rejected by FSC International but is now one of the group of 10 using its combined weight to influence a decision in its favour.

    There is little doubt over the outcome given that FSC has just endorsed Forico as an FSC certified company, despite its huge plantation estate converted from native forest post 1994 in clear breach of FSC rules by the previous land owner Gunns Limited.

    FSC Australia’s verbose explanation of the consultation process makes a mockery of FSC’s credibility as an environmentally appropriate certification system and can be viewed here:


  11. Claire Gilmour

    December 5, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    I think it is “corrupt” when Bryan Green, (FT’s previous political wheeler dealer) says he and FT will deny the truth.

    I think it is corrupt when FT makes a personal promise to an individual (just to con them) and then does the opposite.

    I think it is corrupt when the Examiner has special meeting with government and who becomes the editor and side kick.

    I think it is corrupt when a local paper such as the Examiner shafts a jurno with the promise of another job only to shaft the jurno again.

    I think it is corrupt when the likes of big business (such as Gunns/Gay) gifts wine to on gift to some media club.

    I think it is corrupt that Gay is still be allowed to be a company director.

    I think it is corrupt that the government allows FT to still operate although being essentially bankrupt.

    I think it is corrupt when a government and their business enterprise such as FT continues to gift money and special deals to the likes of Ta Ann and ignores the community who are negatively used and abused!

    I think the road to FT’s/gov’s club heaven is paved in corruption …

    But all that is just my personal and experienced opinion!

  12. Karl Stevens

    December 5, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    Jack lumber 37. Do you jumble-up your sentences on purpose to make it hard for anyone to disagree with you?
    I really like your work lumber. Could you take-out a few more key words so nobody has a clue what you are saying?

  13. Jack lumber

    December 5, 2015 at 11:47 am

    Re 33 John I recall your articles and will not dispute ( tho I still rile with the continued uses of TT posts as some sort of independent reference ) that they have raised may worthwhile issues and some relationships are worthy of further discussion . You have also tabled same via Wilkie and even when protected by parliamentary privilege what happened . Nothing . I put it too you because there is a difference between being incompetent and being ” corrupt” . And that’s why it’s gone no further .

    So see John we do agree on somethings , but this attempt to white ant FSC as part of a strangely to try and discredit , if and when FT gains same , is just frankly as predictable as the known financial incompetence of FT.

    Now John will you accept FT and FSC is not “corrupt ”

    Re 34 hmmm so it was we based and any one could join IJust had to register and get a password . Is the world run by those who just turn up …..

  14. William Boeder

    December 5, 2015 at 11:22 am

    #35. jack lumber, you seem to hard of hearing or weak in your eyesight, I for one will not be deterred from outing the truth.
    How is it some people see trees as money if they are destroyed.
    These trees that are earmarked for destruction has become a life endangering act of those seeking to gain by the agency of destruction.
    Our forested trees are working flat out to provide us with oxygen to allow us to breathe the healthy air for all Tasmanians.
    Think about it jack.
    Yet there are those who are hot to trot to pursue Tasmania’s corrupted processes, sadly greed and ignorance are the bitter enemy of these lungs of Tasmania.

  15. Jack lumber

    December 5, 2015 at 2:50 am

    Re 32 not an entirely unexpected response but appreciate netherless that you took the time to check the link . I So touché some other contributors claim to have exhausted the www in looking for terms . So nice to see the www still works.

    Alan ….why the silence of Hawkins and co re ” corruption ” ?


  16. Geoffrey Swan

    December 4, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    Pesticide Derogation a Complete Farce

    I may be a bit late or out of step here, but I signed on for the recent well advertised Derogation process(at least it was to registered Stakeholders) Australia wide Webinar (November 23),seeking to allow pesticide use as part of FSC banner…certification.

    Being a part of this teleconference/Webinar I fully expected to be a part of a broad ranging and engaging discussion on the issues facing the Forest industry and why there are concerns in the Community about the proposed use of these highly toxic poisons.

    Unfortunately the first 20 minutes consisted of technical audio issues and then after another dial in number was provided we were underway.

    When the first “poisons” slide came up on my computer screen (Webinar) about “1080”… and no one in the teleconference had any comments to make (I did not speak up since 1080 is not on the list of poisons being requested for use in Tasmania by Forestry and since Gunns blitzed our Forests a number of years ago with 1080)… I began to wonder what is happening here …

    Then onto Alpha-cypermethrin and Fipronyl – both being proposed for use in Tasmania – and I spoke up.

    No one else had any comment to make – apart from Lachie Clark (ForestryTas) and Dan Ryan (Southern Forests Management), and then Kevin Pinnacle the Canberra consultant who won the tender for this Derogation.

    I then learned I was the ONLY participant of some five persons in total which included the Forestry guys and the moderators in this Australia wide stakeholder meeting

    It was rapidly apparent to me that the Forestry companies are just going through the motions to get the Derogation process approved whilst still maintaining or seeking FSC approval.

    I did write to FSC executive but not a peep out of anyone.

    The process involved showing the Powerpoint slides that are already available up on the web and then speaking to them – definately not a consultation process. The slides simply show what poisons Forestry wish to use, why – because of cost, or number of doses etc, and how they will be dispersed and delivered into the forests.

    When I questioned why was expense a concern and another about application – Kevin Pinnacle (consultant) provided me with well-considered answers that supported the reason these poisons have been selected. There was no suggestion of discussion that life can go on without using these poisons… I was simply being told this is what has to happen.

    I wrote to the Derogation, copied in FSC and others, and advised the process was severely flawed, and that a statistician would readily rule the attempt as inconsequential, null and void, a totally farcical.

  17. John Hawkins

    December 4, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    #27 Jack Lumber.

    I dispute most strongly your statement regarding a clean slate over corruption at Forestry Tasmania.

    I refer you to my Underbelly series as published here on Tasmanian Times.

    I refer you to my dissertation regarding Forestry in Tasmania as lodged in Parliament by Andrew Wilkie and now available as published in Hansard.

    I suggest you consider the remaining long term contracts between Ta Ann and Forestry Tasmania that cause Forestry Tasmania to make a loss on timber billets both now and into the future.

    These losses are now paid for by us all through a levy on our electricity accounts.

    I could go on.

  18. Alan Mason

    December 4, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    Jack, #27
    Don’t be so hard on yourself!

    As you said, you may be slow, but that doesnt necessarily mean you have dunning/Krueger.

    Even if you do, you are quite welcome to continue conversing with us educated souls here.

    Cheers Pal.

  19. Karl Stevens

    December 4, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    When FSC began to certify governments, they had tapped a very rich payload indeed.
    Of course the elderly and unwell will be thrown off welfare so that offshore ‘accreditation’ corporations can get their hands on Australian cash.

    So why couldn’t Forestry Tasmania manage the forests up to public expectation? Are they genetically incapable of doing so?

    FT actually have to pay somebody to tell them what honesty and accountability is because they don’t know. They don’t appear to know how to stop lying and stealing and trashing other people’s ecosystems. I think they are just opportunistic bozos impersonating the ‘crown’ and wanting to hide behind the FSC tick of approval.

  20. Harry Higgins

    December 4, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    The notion of Forestry going into administration as suggested by some may seem okay on the face of it, but dig a little deeper and you will soon learn that the administrators are laughing at us all. This largely unregulated ‘industry’,in collusion with the banks, are sending people into financial ruin right across Australia. In Port Hedland, for example, many people are losing their hard won wealth due to banks deciding they are a risk, despite never having defaulted on their loans. The decision based on a falling iron ore price!
    The administrators (vultures) move in, charging $600-$800 per HOUR to carve up your business, while the bankers gleefully rub their hands together! How many Gunns investors will see any money from their investment?
    If these characters get their mits on Forestry, guess who will fund the shortfall?

  21. Mike Bolan

    December 4, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    It’s worth remembering that FSC is an organisation that processes money to keep its various functionaries fed and clothed, and that builds its business to secure its own future. FSC has done well with its early focus on sustainability, and its core ideas fit well with forest viability. Nonetheless it is controlled by a range of people who define whether or not some applicant for accreditation fits its criteria.
    Consequently it is possible to distort FSC processes to suit ‘local conditions’. It may be that FSC will need considerable support in order to help help a wasteful amd inefficient organisation like FT to become a valued contributor to the wider community.

  22. John Hawkins

    December 4, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Having watched the clip on the ABC news it is most revealing that the totally useless and incompetent Minister for Tasmanian Forests one Harriss stated that Forestry Tasmania had turned itself around and made a profit. He was immediately contradicted and put back in his box by the Chairman of the Board Annells who noted the cash flow losses had been covered up by inflating the value of the assets to produce an accounting profit.

    Hot dog stands spring to mind.

    Harriss … the taxpayer is funding the bottomless well that is Forestry Tasmania to the tune of a million a week as the money flows out the door.

    Can you read a balance sheet.

    FT is bankrupt.

    What are you going to do about this?

  23. Jack lumber

    December 4, 2015 at 10:29 am

    Dear john , William et al
    I confess I am a little slow on the uptake but I finally get it
    Yes FT could not organise a raffle or mange money and their performance in many things has been at best entertaining and at worst confusing and confounding . And yet the same can be said for any organisation that is juggling a multitude of values and opinions .

    That said , they FT are honest and professional in what they do and not corrupt.

    The next penny to drop was you are “worried and scared ” as , yes there are only 3 matters to be resolved but they can and will be AND I guess FSC could then be issued . You can even see the change in tone in peg putt , no longer , ‘ no FSC , but get these 3 things changed or stopped. ( and what she is also saying and FSC will happen ) Note this is only my opinion and I have no information other than experience with the process here and overseas in countries that score favourably in the world bank transparency index . ( again look it up ) hint we do ok here in Australia

    So I wish you all the best in the continued ” dishing , disinformation and disillusionment ‘” as the timeline counts down and then you will be able to write to Bonn and wherever else complaining about nothing . But that is your right now and also under FSC and that’s they way it should be .

    What will happen to TT , with not being able to occupy 70% of space re forestry who knows …… This might be a useful link www. Fscwatch.org and one more for those who call troll and exhaustive use of the www


  24. Ted Mead

    December 4, 2015 at 10:10 am

    Forestry Tas are merely fantasing if they believe that the cessation of logging old-growth forests is the stamp towards gaining FSC.

    Whilst this policy is an acceptable initiative, they will need to convince the council that they are also intending to abandon the logging of high conservation areas.

    According to FT’s definition – an old growth eucalypt forest is of an age of 110 years. Trees older than that are not suitable for sawlog or peeler billets.

    FT’s only futuristic resource market seems to be supplying Ta Ann with peeler logs that are generally no larger than 700mm in diameter.

    There are plenty of younger forests (transitional forests) of an age that is less than 110 years, which are classified as high conservation forests. Those forest being in remote areas, or coupes that have botanical or habitat significance.

    Currently there is a notable amount of roading into such areas of the Tarkine, which is aimed at peeler or specialty timber extraction.

    You can rest assure that FT will pick the eyes of remote areas between now and July next year.

    They simply haven’t shown any changes in their intent regarding the logging of HCV forests and should be judged by that!

  25. Robin Charles Halton

    December 4, 2015 at 10:08 am

    Bad luck folks, we will have to wait till after 2026/27 to see any dramatic changes to forestry practices, the end of current sawlog and peeler contracts.

    Clearfelling will continue as it remains as the best silvicultural option available to maximimise regeneration.

    Re Swift Parrot habitat, I have no problems with maximising protection efforts.
    i would like to see some official figures from government sources and not being reliant on sensationalist emotion charged selfishness approach by green groups.

    If there happens to be a major problem then I could support a move to have some of the Bruny Island public forests exchanged for those in the Picton.

    The Tas Forest Agreement and the rush for WHA and Reserves status taking away of important Production Forests, the document is full of faults.

    Returning the majority of the Picton forests as future Production Forests in exchange for Blue Gum rich areas on Bruny Island may be a suitable approach by government to consider.

  26. Pete Godfrey

    December 4, 2015 at 9:35 am

    #20 Carol, I read Mr Annels statement to be saying that from now on all coupe boundaries will be adjusted to make sure that there is a stump somewhere in the coupe. The industry definition of Old growth is meaningless.
    Of course no clearfelling does not rule out, Aggravated Retention or any other clearfell operation under another name.
    As it is well known that all forest coupe boundaries were drawn up at the time of the Big Bang I don’t understand how FT can arbitrarily change them at will.

  27. William Boeder

    December 4, 2015 at 8:12 am

    #20. Carole Rea, it’s a given that whatever issues from within Forestry Tasmania, no matter the level or the spokesperson, be it a CEO or a director, worse still if a statement issues from Paul Harriss himself that there can be no credibility held in any at all written or spoken information.
    Do bear in mind that the timber industry argy-bargy that goes on is irrespective as to whether or not the State’s logged product sales actually generate a profit, (thus to assume the form of a profitable undertaking) however this profitability factor seldom enters into the deed of sale or contract (soon thereafter breached by the Ta Ann principals) for a long term logged timber supply.
    That this abnormal unaccountable state of affairs rules in this State is tone so in order to accommodate the plethora of special rates for special mates.

    I don’t say this lightly, I say this as it is irrevocably correct that this sort of falsity has been found to be the way of things going back to the time when I first arrived in Tasmania in 2002.

    A classic example is the sales and marketing of timber products from within this State, why, because there are forever covert under-the-counter wheeling’s and dealings incorporated into these mystery contractual undertakings.
    The current forests minister Paul Harriss, (then the former forests minister Bryan (the giggler) Green, each seemed to be well suited to their external obliged role) which consisted of whacking a Commercial in Confidence sticker upon most all of the ongoing deep and meaningful State government negotiations.

    This is the kind of enterprising that becomes the acceptable means that is quite soon thereafter defended by such a DPIPWE minister , for some obscure reason is looked upon as the only recognized spokesperson in parliament to speak of all such matters and to qualify each and every shortcoming inherent to the fly-by-night carpet-baggers.

    So we again see the said appointed DPIPWE minister is the person that stands up in parliament and defends the evil portending’s of this State’s Beagle-Boys, (they that are the back-bone of Tasmania Incorporated) then of their associated influential hoboes that seek to plunder their non-regulated resource-stripping of that which has become their target.
    Noticeably followed immediately after is the setting up of a slick scheme to quickly compile the retirement incomes of these carnivorous Stoats and Weasels.

    A huge flaw in this State’s government ministerial hocus-pocus governance is to allocate the DPIPWE port folio to a stone-like-faced evasive person, (that he is also possessed of the ducking and weaving skills of a prize-fighter) in order to avoid giving a direct answer to even the most basic of questions, also that this type of minister’s character generally displays a complete lack of regard to the needs or the wants of this State’s citizenry, note that this specific port folio incorporates forestry and or logging, then that it has the authority and or capacity to grant an approval toward each and every State Resource plundering excuse for a business operation.

    #21. With all the due respect for the endeavour of John Hawkins …
    … illustrates to the people of Tasmania that the strictest adherence to judicial and or parliamentary protocols that are generally sought in serious matters of this kind, yet such protocols are soon abandoned and set free to drift off into the realms of the Never-Never Land.

  28. Claire Gilmour

    December 3, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    I reckon no FSC accreditation is forth coming to FT is because … the corruption (which is being proven – albeit slowly) in Tassie will embarrass the FSC internationally.

  29. John Hawkins

    December 3, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Could the Editor put up Bob Annells thoughts as to why in three key areas FT have not as yet gained FSC accreditation as noted in comment #20

    Carol Rea namely:

    Swift Parrot.

    Clear felling of mapped old growth forests (and burning?).

    Methodology of determining High Conservation values.

    These three issues encompass the lie of Worlds Best Practice as applied to the dinosaur that is Forestry Tasmania.

    As Annells the Chairman of the Board of FT notes they are “the bleedingly obvious”.

    Annells they have been “bleedingly obvious” for the 12 years I have been in Tasmania.

    So stop being leaner and become a lifter and do something about it.

    Or is your highly paid job reliant solely on corrupt Lib/Lab political patronage that makes this state so Third World?

    We are watching.

  30. Carol Rea

    December 3, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Oh my this was said with a straight face!!
    “Mr Annells told the committee Forestry Tasmania was phasing out logging in old growth forests and would no longer need to log coupes with more than 25 per cent old growth trees from July next year.”

  31. Jack lumber

    December 2, 2015 at 7:09 pm

    Re 16


    My bad if I did misspell but it was from memory
    Apology accepted

  32. Jack lumber

    December 2, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    Re 16 hah …. The old trolling attack ….. Not so and you know it . A claim has been made and clarification is just being asked and the word exists . Pls look a little bit harder

    Re 17 dear William thank you . Not sure when you gained such discretion please use them wisely . It’s a pity you can’t assist with clarifying what is wrong with FSC ? There has been no twisting …. Why is FSC ” corrupt” . The claim has been made by others . Please explain


  33. William Boeder

    December 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Dear jack lumber, I feel it my duty to advise you that from hereon in your comments no longer have any credibility in regard to today’s logging contretemps, nor any and all issues dealing with the past history of this disreputable State government and its use of a State GBE to add to the ruin of this State, this GBE bearing the appellation of Forestry Tasmania.
    I find it disturbing that you choose to excuse the inexcusable in your advocating any and all practices and pursuits that are known to be either of the following:
    an intent to mislead, the ignoring of historical fact, engaging in a game of deluding prophecy, then of the twisting and twirling of honestly recorded fact, then that you frequently attempt to distort the bona fide opinions and valid claims of others that are well recognized and credible contributing persons to this particular forum……

    Posted by William Boeder on 03/12/15 at 10:55

  34. Peter Brenner

    December 2, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    Well then Mr Lumber, Nr 15, “ultracreptidarism” does not exist in the entire publicly accessible internet, nor in the English section of Wikipedia or in my expensive, regularly updated German/English online Langenscheidt dictionary. You succeeded in my loosing good time to an anonymous troll. Chapeau! Won’t happen again!

    Oh, and corruption comes in many forms, including provocation by trolling.

  35. jack lumber

    December 1, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    re 14 no temp and nervous system all fine and thank you for asking …. now back the questions asked .In summary
    1 how and why FSC is corrupt tin general? , in Tasmania ? ? I recall it has 3 chambers for a wide range of views . Its HO is based outside of Australia and has a process of stakeholder consultation in all its processes ?So where is this “corruption”

    2 Given the luck we have with 2 Tasmanians involved with FSC in early days of its development in Tasmania and … Messer Strie and Cadman … can we have their views on this alleged “corruption “. Furthermore MS Peg Putt has been an advocate for FSC as have many green parliamentarians and members of ENGO actively made FSC a key element of policies and preferred outcome . Have they too all been conned , misled. Are they ” corrupt”

    NB can we have a clear statement on what this term ” corrupt means ”

    I fear that you and others may be suffering from ultracreptidarism ( look it up John pls look it up )

    3 Re the $7.5 M , John what are your thoughts on a swap back …. the forest for $7,5M

    Methinks , like you, I have seen , been and returned from the real world outside but thanks for checking

    I look forward to some clear candid and concise conversations /contributions re ” corruption and FSC ”


  36. John Hawkins

    December 1, 2015 at 11:20 am

    #5 # 6 Jack Lumber

    Methinks I hit a raw nerve, a shiver down the spine moment from the real world outside Tasmania.

  37. Alison Bleaney

    December 1, 2015 at 12:47 am

    I think it important for all groups interested in ‘sustainable catchment activities’ to consider the findings contained in the Executive Summary of the Endocrine Society’s 2nd Scientific Statement on EDCs (EDC-2), just published this month. The full report will be released soon and includes a review of over 1300 articles, most from the peer-reviewed literature. The overall conclusion is that EDCs are a real and relevant health concern.

    In consideration of the derogations applied for by companies managing forestry in Australia for pesticides to FSC, it must be pointed out that the established EDCs are amitrole, alpha-cypermethrin (Forico and For Tas), fipronil (For Tas), copper, picloram, glufosinate with no full knowledge regarding 1080 and pindone (the full science is not yet in and so they cannot be considered ‘safe’ chemicals).

    The summary’s concluding remarks include the following statements:

    • There are other points that several of the authors of this statement would like to raise with respect to precaution. It simply is not reasonable to assume a chemical is safe until proven otherwise.
    • Educate the public, the media, politicians, and governmental agencies on ways to keep EDCs out of food, water, and air and to protect developing children in particular.

    FSC projects itself as a ‘green and sustainable certification’.
    It needs to be at the forefront of current knowledge on chemicals and practices which are known to damage environmental and human health – it needs to divest itself from such current activities.


    presents another set of reasons why EDCs, HHPs and many other pesticides should not be used in water catchments, in particular when various pesticides have been used in them historically – information not taken into consideration when forest management plans are drawn up and pesticide use decided upon.

    Derogations for HHPs are no longer environmentally and socially acceptable.

    Growing trees using no biocides allows for sustainable practices; ones that benefit the environment.

  38. john hayward

    November 30, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    Why did FT need $7.5m more when they has previously pocketed 77,809ha of State Forest crown land plantation gratis in what still looks exactly like a giant fraud – the “land swap”?:


    John Hayward

  39. Pete Godfrey

    November 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    #7 David Gower, yes agriculture is responsible for nutrient and pesticide runoff in to our streams.
    I have not seen any agricultural crops above the water supply weir that supplies the Mole Creek township though. You appear to have mistaken the whole of the creek catchment with the water supply which is from a weir at the top end of Blairs road.
    I would love to see a lot more organic agriculture in Tasmania.

  40. jack lumber

    November 30, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    hey we have a FSC Australia foundation father ( other than frank S ) c’mon Sean Cadman explain this “corrupt”( as inferred by PB #8 ) process called FSC

    re 8 how is fsc getting cash other than a standard fee ? what information do you have … pls disclose !! Conversion ?? NO Yes there are derogations , if not happy make your submission . I don’t understand . No process …. corruption etc etc A process you don’t like ….. greenwash and corruption . Can you just state you don’t like forestry .
    “No discussion or idea can be changed by logic , if in its genesis no logic was involved ” ( gee I wish I had said that first )

  41. Peter Brenner

    November 30, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    I was at a meeting with FSC Australia’s then CEO, Natalie Reynolds, at the freezing Rosevears Pub a couple of years ago. I specifically asked her whether FSC will take past history of accreditation applicants into account. She said unambiguously stated that FSC will NOT, repeat NOT check any past performance history of any applicant for FSC certification.

    FSC are ONLY basing their judgement on STATEMENTS OF INTENT by new applicants. No past history will be considered. Bleat as we like. Show proof of gross mismanagement, economic incompetence, lies and deception – it will not be considered, said Natalie at the time.

    All applicants, no matter who they are, start with a clean slate!

    It is only after certification that FSC observes the new member’s performance on an annual basis and waits for potential submissions with painstakingly detailed case by case proof of possible wrongdoings during the past year (the first year of operation in FT’s case). Such criticism will then be analysed internationally and action might then be delegated to be taken by a select body charged with this.

    FSC is proud of this procedure, which they describe as extremely fair and democratic.

    I am waiting for the consumers to wake up around the world. What started some 20 years ago as a noble consumer protection movement has degenerated into a cynical, probably corrupt farce. It will one day blow in their face when people realise what they are buying when they see the much promoted FSC Label on their paper products.

    So sad!

  42. PB

    November 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Forestry Tasmania’s basket-case bid for FSC certification could only be bought by wads of cash.

    However FSC itself is rapidly falling into the greenwash category due to its perverse rules allowing:

    • the derogation of highly hazardous chemicals;

    • the conversion of diverse native forests to single species “forests”;

    • and a giant loophole which it refuses to close enabling new organisations such as Forico to benefit from the post 1994 conversion of native forests to plantations by the previous land holder (i.e. Gunns Limited whose former senior Manager Bryan Hayes is now CEO of Forico).

  43. David Gower

    November 30, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    I have seen many a lush productive agriculture crop in the Mole Creek catchment. Herbicides / insecticides used here ??

    We all have a responsibility across the catchment for many natural values, water quality and quantity as but two examples. When you see cattle with unrestricted access to waterways, then perhaps instead of pointing the finger at plantation forest managers you consider other land use operators.

    For consideration Godfrey, Hawkins, Strie et al….

    Incidentally aren’t agricultural crops even more intensively managed monocultures Mr Strie ?

  44. jack lumber

    November 30, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    PS re lets hand it back ….. lets ask for $7.5 M to be returned and while we are at lets hand back some forest that was part of the same deal and make it production forest again .

    Gotta love cherry pickers

  45. jack lumber

    November 30, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    other great moments in web based articles … bears might in woods , pope is thought to a catholic ….Hawkins et al claims expertise in and FSC is being corrupted FT is responsible for swift parrot and WTE issues and probably Tasmanian Tiger AND UK is shining example of how to manage forests after a few millennium of braodscle clearing and industrial and agricultural development .. OH and also gave is terra nullas … so where does that fit with FSC …. The misuse of the word landscape to mean “scenic landscape “is laughable AND in fact there are VMS and SMZ which are used routinely ( look it up John if you dont know you might learn something )

  46. john hayward

    November 30, 2015 at 11:53 am

    On top of the Mole Creek irregularities noted by Godfrey at #1, The clearfelling and plantations were also on high-sensitivity karst of the sort where logging was prohibited by planning regulations.

    A legal challenge to the approval was made but defeated when our SC ruled that the approval could be made despite adverse expert evidence and the lack of any evidence that it conformed to the criteria.

    Residents of Mole Creek could rest assured that the Tas legal goal posts would reach the town even quicker than the herbicides in their water supply.

    And yes, the MV Council used the same lawyer as Gunns in the litigation.

    John Hayward

  47. Frank Strie

    November 30, 2015 at 11:06 am

    Great to know and see you continue to watch and act.
    The Western Rivers Preservation Trust and Timber Workers For Forests Inc. and TAP into a better Tasmania have invested years of good will into the establishment of a meaningful FSC process.
    Without real change in practices, without commercially, socially and environmentally responsible restoration management over the whole estate, be that forests or plantations in Tasmania there will be no change in the downhill direction.
    To simply bring in a new overseas sponsor, change the name, become friendlier in the exchange of words – pretend that things will change will not work.
    Simple as that really.
    We made our points clear and we will do it again.
    Reality bites and when the erosion increases with every rotation of the short lived start-stop monocultures especially on sloping terrain typical in Tasmania it will always be simple to capture the images.

    With advanced awareness and findings,
    – with more and ongoing investigations into climate issues,
    – with further hydrology related issues,
    – with increasing transfer / loss of nutrient flowing from land to sea,
    – with increase demand of reliable optimum water storage, continuous flow of best quality water needs down stream,
    without real changes in soil and landscape management, the local community members and eventually the overseas investors, retirement funds or individuals alike, will suffer the consequences.

    Time will tell what diversity, different tree species and mixes of vegetation will make up the future of new forest plantations compare to the past and present.

  48. Ted Mead

    November 30, 2015 at 11:05 am

    FT’s quest for FSC is shaping up to be ‘as dodgy as’ given that there is plenty of $ to manipulate the process.

    Even in the worst-case scenario that FT is granted FSC for their current practices, they are very unlikely to establish any new markets beyond subsidised wood chipping. And even then they will struggle with that despite the huge subsidies.

    No wood export terminal in the south verses Forico’s more efficient plantation based industry means FT are snookered and simply can’t compete under any circumstances. But that won’t restrict the Libs from trying to convince themselves, and concurrently hoodwinking the public that native forest logging is a futuristic profitable entity.

    The Ta Ann plundering of the state’s future saw logs will continue regardless, as they have already convinced their Asian markets that their products are fully certified.

    To my knowledge, since the demise of Gunns, there has only been 2 shiploads of native forest chips leave the Burnie port. Simply nobody wants these cursed chips anymore.

    So that leaves FT in the invidious position of intending to export hardwood sawlogs or speciality timbers for furniture to places like Asia.

    According to the Auditors General report on FT, these log exports so far has been as a financial loss. So essentially we are paying to export our forests in any form.

    FT has no where to go accept voluntary liquidation, though it will probably attempt to stall that by trying to sell off the last of their hardwood plantations to keep the gravy train going for a little while.

    Forico has already expressed no interest in those plantations.
    Meanwhile FT has revaluated their forest assets to creatively make it look like they are still financially in the black.

    FSC or no FSC the FT ship is sinking .
    The only thing that keeps it afloat is the Liberal $ taxpayer funded life rafts.

    Time for it to be scuttled!!!!!!!!!

  49. Pete Godfrey

    November 30, 2015 at 9:28 am

    It seems like a shut case really John.
    In the case of the Mole Creek plantation, Bob Loone tried on numerous occasions to show the FPA that the plantation was in fact above the Mole Creek town water supply. He even showed them a contour map.It appeared that they would have been in need of a rescue helicopter if they left the office as they did not understand contour lines.
    The Forest Practice Plan for that coupe was a farce also. Apart from trying to suggest that chemicals would not get into the water supply, the FPP had numerous other mistakes.
    The Geology was wrongly cited.
    The Soil type was wrong
    The Majority slope was wrong
    The Forest Type was wrong.
    The plan omitted numerous swamps

    About the only thing right was that fact that they wanted to clearfell the forest and put in a plantation.
    Of course it doesn’t matter really because “We’ve got worlds best practice”

To Top