Frank Nicklason
George Harris wrongly suggests that I “don’t like native forest harvesting”. I have no idea at all where he got this idea from. I have consistently stated publically that I strongly support a genuinely ecologically sustainable native forest based timber industry. Such an industry would be obliged to sit well with other important Tasmanian industries such as agriculture, aquaculture, leatherwood honey production, high value adding craft industries requiring small amounts of specialty timbers such as fine furniture making and wooden boat building,viticulture and tourism.
Dear Editor
Thanks to ‘Just a Bloke’, George Harris and to ‘View from the Hill’ for their interest in my letter ( http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/weblog/comments/frank/ )responding to an article in the Australian Financial Review (11/12/06) concerning the impact of the widespread drought conditions on the plantation managed investment schemes.
I have visited many plantations in Tasmania and seen evidence of poor performance of plantation trees, in terms of growth, at first hand and there are many others who can provide anecdotal evidence of the same but it is true that there needs to be scientific rigour when addressing this subject.
Stock and Land (May 18, 2006 ) revealed the poor report card of Blue gum managed investment schemes (MIS) based on the findings of Melbourne University School of Agriculture researchers Associate Professor (Farm Business Management) Bill Malcolm and Mr Patrick Mackarness (a land valuer and rural economist).
Mr Mackarness argues that the Managed Investments Act (1998) allows for a situation whereby investment managers are not required to give annual financial accounts to investors or report on annual productivity of investments eg. the annual growth rates of plantation timber. To allay fears Mr Mackarness believes that the MIS Act should provide for the publication of an independent audit of the actual growth in each plantation each year.
Further to this concern is the overpriced cost of establishing a timberlot (see John Lawrence’s letter in Tasmanian Country 26 May) and the lack of accountability to investors on this point. Mr Mackarness says this should be countered by detailed costings for plantation establishment activities,independently benchmarked by a forester, to show that the investor is receiving fair value.
As a result of this research there has been a call to abandon the 2020 Plantation Vision.
The Weekly Times (24 May) had a story based on a CSIRO report that found that if the plantation estate trebled by year 2020 (as is the aim of the 2020 Vision) 1400 gigalitres of water could be sucked out of the Murray Darling Basin within 20 years virtually entirely offsetting the amount governments are seeking to return to it.
The response of the plantation industry to these reports was dismissive and illogical.
Tree Plantations Australia chief executive Allan Hansard tried to deflect attention by stating that plantations will be less significant than climate change in reducing water in the Basin.
I presume that Just a Bloke’s contribution is satirical, if not I’m sorry, but not nearly as sorry as the residents of those Eastern Tasmanian towns he mentions.
George Harris wrongly suggests that I “don’t like native forest harvesting”. I have no idea at all where he got this idea from. I have consistently stated publically that I strongly support a genuinely ecologically sustainable native forest based timber industry. Such an industry would be obliged to sit well with other important Tasmanian industries such as agriculture, aquaculture, leatherwood honey production, high value adding craft industries requiring small amounts of specialty timbers such as fine furniture making and wooden boat building,viticulture and tourism.
The current Tasmanian forest industry, heavily focussed as it is on the conversion of mixed wet native forests to dry plantations, wastes enormous amounts of valuable timber to woodchipping and burning. (One only has to read the Timberworkers for Forests report of the (public forest) coupe Esperance 74 which estimated that 60,000 tonnes of specialty timber had been burnt on the site after harvesting was ‘completed’).
The Tasmanian forest industry I would support would also have to be involved in an equitable sharing of natural resources such as water and not pose an avoidable and unacceptable fire threat.
Part of my dislike for broadacre monoculture plantation forestry is that the industry is highly dependent on chemicals dangerous to human health.
I agree with the analysis of ‘View from the Hill’. Of course broadacre plantation conversion forestry is a tax-payer funded corporate land grab, I was merely responding to a much narrower issue raised in the AFR.
(Dr) Frank Nicklason
West Hobart
