Peace in Tasmania’s forests?

While no one is suggesting that Tasmanian forestry is perfect, its reality is far removed from the outrageous claims made against it. But, while it is quick and easy to make such claims, it is far harder to correct them, particularly in the very short time and space afforded by today’s media which, in any case, is less inclined to give equal emphasis to what are seen as “industry views”.

Most disturbingly, the fervour with which these beliefs are held by those who are effectively spreading them, is feeding an irrational mantra that forestry is the root cause of almost all that ails Tasmanian society and so, must be “fixed” in the name of progress.

This fits with an apparent strategy by Tasmania’s environmentalists to build the conflict to an extent that creates opportunities for its resolution on their terms. An important element of this is the “Our Common Ground” campaign created by a compendium of environmental groups led by Environment Tasmania. Its aim is to end most native timber production by shifting the industry to plantations. This is problematic given that native forests are comprised of older trees which yield a range of hardwood products, while Tasmania’s hardwood plantations are young, with the majority being grown for just 10 to 15 years to produce only woodchips.

While some of those involved in “Our Common Ground” may be well-intentioned, the initiative has been orchestrated by people who have campaigned relentlessly against Tasmanian timber production under a less conciliatory guise. Their view of what constitutes “common ground” clearly differs to that of most in the forestry sector, given the experience of Britton Timbers.

Britton Timbers was established in 1907 at Smithton in Tasmania’s northwest. It provides high quality sawn eucalypt and blackwood into the furniture, joinery and flooring markets. These timbers are sourced from local native forests that have been harvested and regenerated for over a century.

While “Our Common Ground” has claimed that it is not opposed to some sustainable production of high value native timbers, its leader, Phillip Pullinger of Environment Tasmania, nevertheless recently suggested that Britton Timbers should be bought out by the Federal Government for $20 million.

Glenn Britton was horrified as, although he and his family would be well recompensed and his 100 full-time employees would get redundancy payments, they would ultimately be out of a job. This would decimate the town of Smithton which is already reeling from the closure of the McCains vegetable plant. When this was pointed out to Pullinger he had no reasonable response.

Any presumption that anti-forestry sentiment will largely subside if the timber industry substantially shifts to plantations, is also problematic. An ABC television program in February which purported to show that tens of thousands of hectares of Tasmanian eucalypt plantations are toxic to human health, has created outrage which is yet to subside despite the allegations remaining unproven. This has included calls for these plantations to be immediately bulldozed - indeed, one Tasmanian Times correspondent has already calculated that it will cost $30 million to “fix” the plantations! It has also meant that the limited use of pesticides in plantation forestry is routinely vilified while their far greater use on agricultural lands is largely ignored.

Furthermore, the financial struggles of Tasmania’s plantation industry have largely been welcomed by the state’s “green” demographic. In particular, the move of Forest Enterprises Australia into receivership with the loss of many local jobs was loudly cheered on the Tasmanian Times. Yet FEA was the only plantation company to have developed the technology to produce sawn timber products from very young eucalypt plantations initially established for the export woodchip market. This is an alternative that has long been advocated by those opposing native forest harvesting, so, for its demise to be applauded emphasises the hatred that many now harbour for plantations and gives little confidence that moving to a reliance on them would end the conflict.

The campaign against the state’s approved pulp mill also highlights this contradictory fervour. The mill was originally opposed due to its alleged impact on old growth forests - which are still used as imagery on anti-mill campaign material - despite the proponent only ever proposing that it be fed by a mix of regrowth and plantation wood. More recently, in December 2009, the pulp mill proponent announced that the mill would be 100 per cent fed by plantation wood. Despite this, plantations advocate, “Our Common Ground”, continues to oppose the pulp mill even though Australia’s Chief Scientist has assessed the project as having a neutral environmental impact.

The five-year campaign against the pulp mill has seen its Tasmanian proponent announce a new joint venture subsidiary to finalise the mill. This new company’s assets will include plantation estate, its northern Tasmanian woodchip mills, and the pulp mill. Analysts now believe it will be half-owned by overseas companies. This is a perverse outcome for the Greens who oppose foreign ownership and for Australian financial institutions seeking to support domestic value adding and downstream processing.

While recent election results suggest that most Tasmanians still support current forest management, the rising political power of a very vocal minority has pushed elements of Tasmania’s timber industry to seek a “social licence” which, in layman’s parlance, equates to community acceptance of its existence. This has also been precipitated by a range of factors including financial struggles associated with the global financial crisis and sabotage of the Japanese woodchip market by transnational activists; as well as the influence of mainland-based industry investors more concerned with negative perceptions than the truth of what underpins them.
In view of this, Tasmania’s new Labor-Greens government is planning to facilitate a “forestry roundtable” conference to secure the future of an industry that annually generates up to $1.6 billion and is the state’s second largest contributor to GDP. This proposal ironically mirrors the forestry discussions which arose from the “Salamanca Agreement” which was brokered by the state’s first Labor-Green Government in September 1989. Those discussions were funded by a $10 million Commonwealth grant, but ultimately broke-down after a year of talks when the combined environmental groups walked-out. While they publicly cited betrayal, their actions also stemmed from a determination to avoid compromising their ideals while maintaining the freedom to continue campaigning against the timber industry.