Kev Rothery claims to be someone who wants the public to be properly informed – with this as his stated aim his recent article “Undermining Due process” ( TT here ) falls lamentably short of that lofty goal.
Mr Rothery would have us believe that for Forestry Tasmania to achieve FSC Certification under the terms of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement or its enacting legislation there must first be developed an Australian FSC Standard. This is not the case and there is absolutely no evidence upon which any such conclusion could have been founded. In essence this is pure supposition that appears to have been used as a (spurious) basis upon which to embark upon a story founded entirely upon a myth.
Clause 47 of the TFA simply states: –
“The Signatories will actively support Forest Stewardship Council certification for the Permanent Timber Production Zone Land managed as intended under this agreement, as a matter of priority”
There is no conceivable way this can in any way be said to be founded on any requirement for this to occur under an Australian developed FSC Standard. There are many FSC certificate holders in Australia and given the absence of an Australian FSC standard surely it must be asked how anyone could credibly determine that the existence of an Australian FSC standard is a precursor to Forestry Tasmania achieving certification.
The reality is that there are number of “Interim Standards” approved for use within Australia and it is entirely open for Forestry Tasmania or indeed any other forestry Company to apply for certification under one of those standards, just as all existing FSC certified forestry companies in Australia have already done.
Equally Mr Rothery’s assertion that FSC Australia have been or will be “blackmailed” by the Tasmanian Legislative Council to accept a lower standard of environmental protection due to the provisions of the TFA Act are just as fanciful.
The standards under which any applicant for FSC Certification can apply for certification are already in existence and have been for some time and are based on the International FSC Principles and Criteria to which all FSC approved schemes must adhere – any applicant will need to be independently audited against one those standards to be granted certification just as other Australian companies have been. FSC Australia does not play any role in this process and thus there can be no blackmail. This is even truer when it is noted that the vast majority of FSC accredited auditors are resident outside Australia and are therefore highly unlikely to be influenced by any enactment of the Tasmanian Parliament.
Mr Rothery then embarks on a highly salacious expose of the mythical potential of FSC members to engage on a perverse game of Chamber stacking to ensure certification is achieved and at lower environmental standards. As indicated above FSC Australia have no role to play in any application for FSC certification by Forestry Tasmania it is an entirely arms length approach. That said the “stacking” argument he presents could of course apply equally to members of the Environment Chamber who could infiltrate either the Social or Industry Chambers to ensure the environmental outcomes take precedence over the social or industry costs.
Imagine for example if passionate FSC advocate Frank Strie was to be a member of FSC Australia assigned to the social or industry chamber could not the events described by Mr Rothery apply equally with Frank advocating the desires and aspirations of the industry or affected community groups.
The criteria for Chamber membership are clearly presented on the FSC Australia website and nomination to one of these Chambers is required by any applicant for membership of FSC Australia.
A reality check is required here and a little less hysterical paranoia. If Mr Rothery is genuinely concerned with ensuring the public is properly informed he will acknowledge the facts herein.
* Terry Edwards is the Chief Executive of the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania and was an industry negotiator and Signatory to the TFA.
