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

Koalas in timber plantations: a testing issue for FSC certification

By Mark Poynter - posted Thursday, 21 November 2013


Last month, in a widely publicised move, Australian Bluegum Plantations – the nation’s biggest export woodchip company – had its Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification suspended because koalas were being killed or injured during harvesting operations in south western Victoria.

Concerns about the impact of plantation harvesting on koalas were first aired on the ABC’s 7:30 Report last July at the behest of local wildlife carers. The reaction of the plantation industry to this program largely involved attempting to put the issue into some perspective by emphasising that although ‘unfortunate’, the harm being done to koalas was somewhat less than the supposed carnage that was being implied. 

Providing context and perspective is highly appropriate in the face of throwaway claims made by the ABC, such as that Australian Bluegum Plantations operates in “vast koala habitats across south-eastern Australia”. In fact, the company’s western Victorian plantations had been established only since 2000 on cleared farmland where no koalas resided. These plantations had been subsequently invaded by koalas previously resticted to small patches of remnant native bushland. In some cases, these koalas had travelled overland for up to 15 km to take-up residence in the company’s plantations. However overall, the establishment of the plantations specifically to produce wood has benefitted koalas by inadvertently creating favourable habitat that has allowed the regional population to substantially expand – arguably this far outweighs harm done to individual koalas during harvesting operations.

Advertisement

Unfortunately these days, responding pragmatically to environmental claims is typically dismissed as lacking in compassion, and for critics, simply confirms perceptions of a heartless corporate sector. In this case, this perception was enhanced because the ABC report failed to disclose that the regional plantation industry had been endeavouring to manage the koala issue and often worked closely with local wildlife carers to assist in relocating animals displaced by plantation harvesting.

According to the ABC, complaints against Australian Bluegum Plantations ‘flooded in following our report’, and ‘international environmental auditors, the Rainforest Alliance launched an investigation into Australian Bluegum Plantations and 7:30’s claims.’ 

In fact, the Rainforest Alliance was already very familiar with the policies and management practices of Australian Bluegum Plantations because they routinely audit FSC-certified companies to ensure that they continue to meet FSC standards. Indeed, the Rainforest Alliance’s audit of Australian Bluegum Plantations in 2012 was sufficiently favourable for the company to be named as the FSC’s ‘Australian Forest Manager of the Year.’

In April this year, the Rainforest Alliance had again conducted their routine annual audit of Australian Bluegum Plantations and found no significant problems with its policies and practices. Yet just months later, their spot investigation of the company launched in responseto the ABC’s July 7:30 Report, unearthed ‘six areas of major non-conformances’ related to how they manage wildlife.

As the Rainforest Alliance’s report of this later investigation has not been publicly released, this finding raises questions about what had changed in the intervening period between the two audits, and whether this change related to the performance of the auditors, the company, or both.

Nevertheless, the Rainforest Alliance’s investigation finding led the FSC to suspend the company’s forest management certification. This prompted the ABC’s 7:30 Report to cover the issue again in late October.

Advertisement

This time, under hostile interrogation, Australian Bluegum Plantation’s Managing Director, Tony Price, made a heartfelt apology for “the fact that koalas have been harmed on our property” while pledging that “going forward, we do everything we possibly can as a business to avoid harming koalas”. However, the ABC again misled its audience by failing to disclose that the plantation sector had already developed a new koala management policy since the issue was first publicised in July, and was developing operational guidelines aimed at attaining a zero-harm result.

Some observers have lauded how this issue has played out and believe it verifies the success of FSC certification in improving environmental outcomes. While there may be some truth to this, it is clear that a greater test of the FSC certification concept lies in whether the scheme will allow Australian Bluegum Plantations to have its certification reinstated after its koala management practices have sufficiently improved, or whether it will become conditional on the company being forced to meet inappropriate or unrealistic standards demanded by the FSC’s environmental stakeholders.

Understandably for a certification scheme developed by the international environmental movement, FSC is particularly sensitive to the demands of its environmental stakeholders. Unfortunately, this leaves the scheme open to manipulation by ideologically-driven ENGOs such as the Wilderness Society.

This is acutely evident in regard to Australia’s native forest sector which, until now, has been largely unable to gain FSC certification despite having forest management policies, plans, and operational practices that are equivalent to world’s best practice, and arguably higher than FSC standards. This is because FSC’s environmental stakeholders have pursued a strategy of actively creating a market demand for FSC-certified wood products while at the same time withholding their imprimatur which is needed for companies or forest management agencies to be FSC certified. This active prevention of FSC certification has been intended to wedge the industry out of its markets in order to weaken and ultimately destroy it.

Some may say that this misuse of the FSC concept has been left behind given that environmental stakeholders are currently assisting Forestry Tasmania (FT) through the process of attaining FSC-certification. However, these stakeholders are helping only on the condition that an agreed 500,000 hectares of new Tasmanian national parks will be declared if FT becomes FSC-certified, thereby reducing both the state’s surviving timber native hardwood industry and FT itself to mere shadows of their former selves.   

On the other hand, Australia’s plantation sector has not had to deal with such hostile ideological opposition and has been widely FSC-certified. Until now, there has been no substantive natural values to pique the opposition of environmental stakeholders who’ve for decades regarded plantations as ‘biological deserts’. This could now change given the new-found propensity for such an iconic native animal as the koala to take-up residence in eucalypt plantations.

In reality, there is probably no way to guarantee that no koalas will be harmed in future plantation harvesting operations, except by not harvesting. Despite the plantation industry’s best intentions of a zero-harm management strategy, it is highly unlikely that this could ever totally prevent the occassional koala death or injury. In addition, it is likely that getting down to a very low level of incidental harm could cost plantation company’s plenty in pre-harvest surveying, operational observing, periodic disruption to harvesting, and assisting with koala capture and relocation to areas that may need to be hundreds of kilometres distant. 

If FSC’s environmental stakeholders decide to play hardball with Australian Bluegum Plantations over their management of koalas, they may well require both this increased plantation management effort and the reservation of significant areas of plantation to be maintained as permanent regional koala habitat. Together, this has potential to significantly undermine the economic bottom-line of the industry.

If unreasonable environmental demands ultimately prevent the company from getting back its FSC-certification, its international markets are likely to suffer given the words of Rainforest Alliance spokeswoman, Anita Neville, who said on the 7:30 Report in late October: “Really, FSC certification is almost becoming an essential in the forestry industry in order to do business”.  

Clearly, responding to the koala problem has some potential to undermine the industry’s profitability to a point where it becomes unviable. If this was to occur, the land where these plantations currently grow could progressively revert back to non-treed agricultural uses and the regional koala population would ultimately shrink back to its former small size restricted to remnant bush patches. Despite boasts that FSC-certification improves environmental outcomes, this issue provides an example of its perverse potential to worsen outcomes. 

There are no easy answers to the problem of koalas invading timber plantations, but a good start would be to acknowledge that the plantations sector has had it foisted upon them through natural factors beyond their control; and for FSC’s environmental stakeholders to concede that, although plantation companies must be responsible for how koalas are treated within their plantations, they shouldn’t be forced to shoulder the extra responsibility and considerable costs required to safeguard the welfare of the regional koala population.

Indeed, making the reinstatement of Australian Bluegum Plantations’ FSC certification conditional upon unrealistic or inappropriate environmental demands, risks both the viability of future plantation investment and the koalas that now depend on it. If such an outcome was to be foisted on a company operating responsibly in their own resource specifically established for wood production, it may well prompt the serious rethink about the veracity of the FSC concept that should have been sparked several years ago when it became apparent that FSC certification was being misappropriated to help cripple Australia’s native hardwood sector.

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

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 Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy