Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Tasmania: When 'Green' philanthropy becomes a wrecking ball

By Mark Poynter - posted Thursday, 21 July 2011


Cameron first came to prominence in relation to Tasmanian forestry in June 2010 when she and fellow philanthropist, Robert Purves, cobbled together around $23.3 million to purchase 27,300 hectares of private native forest from Gunns. While most of this forest was in good condition after a long history of well managed timber production, its purchase was typically misreported in the mainland media as 'saving' ancient, largely untouched forests from logging.

While these forests have since been given over to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy, Cameron was instrumental in forming a company called REDD Forests to generate income by selling their standing carbon. That this company (of which Cameron is now a 20% share-holder) would subsequently make an offer to the Tasmanian Government to lease the state's publicly-owned wood production forests for carbon, betrays its intention of engineering the closure of the state's native timber industry.

In the aftermath of last week's sale of the Triabunna woodchip mill, supporters of the Cameron and Wood purchase have been at pains to portray it as simply a tourism opportunity. However, Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings, hit the nail firmly on the head in a subsequent ABC Radio interview when she proffered the question "..... why do vegetarians want to buy an abattoir, and the reality here is we've got two people, in Jan Cameron and Graeme Wood, who do not support a native forest industry, buying a key piece of infrastructure that is vital for the survival of the native forest industry in the south of the state".

Advertisement

Opponents of Tasmanian forestry have continually promoted tourism as an alternative that could soak-up jobs lost by down-sizing or ending native forest timber production. However, this notion was firmly rejected by Luke Martin, CEO of the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania in evidence tendered to a hearing of the recent Legislative Council Committee's Inquiry into 'The Impact of the Proposed Transition out of Native Forest Management and Harvesting in Tasmania'. Mr Martin declared that there was no evidence that locking-up hundreds of thousands of hectares of more forest in national parks would create extra jobs. Furthermore, he noted that ENGO support for tourism typically transforms into opposition once development proposals to realise the tourism potential of new parks are put on the table.

Graeme Wood is previously on record as saying that he ".... could add 100,000 inbound tourists to Tasmania and that would grow jobs by anywhere between three and four thousand" Yet it seems fanciful that the planned replacement of the Triabunna mill with a tourism and wine-growing venture could replace more than a small fraction of the jobs lost by closing southern Tasmania's native forest industry. There are already many wineries in Tasmania, and an existing tourism business already takes visitors to the nearby Maria Island NP. The other mooted use of the port facility to attract international cruise ships seems ludicrous given that they are hardly likely to stop docking in Hobart where there are a myriad of tourist attractions, in preference for the tiny township of Triabunna.

Furthermore, tourism in regional Australia is likely to struggle after the introduction of the mooted carbon tax according to a May 2011 report by the Tourism & Transport Forum (TTF Australia). This is particularly the case in Tasmania which can only be reached by air or sea trips which embody large fossil fuel emissions. TTF Australia found that the effect on Tasmanian tourism may need to be off-set by exempting it from the carbon tax and waving GST to keep travel costs down to competitive levels. Under these circumstances, the notion of tourism being an adequate and more environmentally-friendly alternative than timber production is highly questionable.

The reality is that tourism and forestry have successfully co-existed for decades and Tasmania needs both if it is to improve its economic base. Replacing one with the other will do nothing positive, and sacrificing forestry is likely to have a substantially negative impact on Tasmania's bottom line.

A large dose of responsibility for the likelihood of this now occurring must be borne by the Australian and Tasmanian Governments which encouraged a 'roundtable' process to resolve the state's forest industry issues without requiring any formal representation from their own bureaucrats and practitioners responsible for forest policy and management. Allowing only self-interested representatives from industry and the ENGOs to thrash out a resolution in an absence of government input was always likely to create opportunities for the sort of perverse outcome which has now eventuated.

In her ABC Radio interview last week, Tasmanian Premier Giddings referred to this as the "Statement of Principles process that was never about shutting down those industries. It was about reorganising the forestry sector as a consequence of the major player, in Gunns, pulling out" This exemplifies considerable naivety given the several decades of uncompromising determination to end native forest logging amongst ENGOs who have formally participated in the 'roundtable' process, not to mention the views of her Government's power-sharing Greens partners.

Advertisement

If the Government had elected to determine its own way forward by considering all relevant aspects and stakeholders, it would have continued to support native forest timber production. This was the key finding of its own Legislative Council Inquiry which wound-up recently after a two-month process which included the evaluation of 23 written submissions and five-days of public hearings at which 49 witnesses representing 31 entities, agencies, companies, or groups were heard representing the full gamut of stakeholders both for and against an industry transition out of native forests.

Instead of such a well considered approach, the 'roundtable' process – if it forces a 'deal' – gives ENGO activists carte blanche to put the remaining state-owned forests into new national parks without any considered scientific evaluation of their values and management implications. If history is a guide, the eviction of economic resource use to create national parks is accompanied by a loss of management resources, expertise and intensity, which ultimately damages the capability to manage fire – a real problem in landscapes where environmental values are adapted to and reliant on fire.

Looking at the wider context, failing to produce our own high quality hardwood timber, which is not currently obtainable from plantations, will increase imports from overseas forests with sub-standard environmental records and foster greater use of non-wood materials which are nowhere as environmentally-friendly as wood. Spending $tens of millions to achieve such outcomes is hardly a case of being 'green'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

43 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Poynter is a professional forester with 40 years experience. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and his book Going Green: Forests, fire, and a flawed conservation culture, was published by Connor Court in July 2018.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Poynter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mark Poynter
Article Tools
Comment 43 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy