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

Deforestation deceit reflects badly on environmental campaigners

By Mark Poynter - posted Wednesday, 18 November 2009


Reportedly an increasing proportion of Australians are not convinced that human activities are primarily responsible for global warming. While this is generally assumed to reflect the increased airing of contrary views by climate change sceptics, it may also reflect increasing community cynicism of over-blown scare-mongering by environmental activists campaigning on almost any front.

This was brought home recently when the Wilderness Society (TWS) launched its “Sicforests” campaign outside the Melbourne city office of Victorian government agency VicForests, which manages timber production within the 9 per cent of the state’s public forests where this is a permitted use.

The appalling exaggeration and desperate dishonesty which now typifies TWS forest campaigns was exemplified by their protestors assailing passers-by with claims that 13 “football fields” of East Gippsland old growth forest is being clearfelled every day - 365 days of the year. Incredibly, when asked where they got this information, the protestors pleaded ignorance and admitted they were only paid fundraisers!

Advertisement

Given that an average AFL oval covers about two hectares, TWS is effectively claiming that more than 9,000 hectares of Victorian old growth forest is being logged each year. This represents a 4,500 per cent exaggeration of the real figure which is about 200 hectares.

Arguably worse, is the group’s ongoing misrepresentation of Australian timber harvesting as “deforestation”. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) definition, deforestation is “forests being cleared by people and the land converted to other uses such as agriculture or infrastructure”. Although deforestation is a massive problem in some South American and Asian nations, Australian timber production is clearly not deforestation because harvested coupes are immediately regenerated to grow into new forests.

Nevertheless, promoting the misconception of Australian timber production as deforestation was central to the Wilderness Society’s display at this month’s Barcelona Climate Change Talks where large posters depicted environmental activists protesting in a Victorian logging coupe. Aside from its blatant inaccuracy, this is embarrassing for Australia and an unnecessary distraction for international conservation groups which are acutely aware that forestry issues in Australia are of negligible concern, and are trying to focus on the massive problems in developing countries.

Indeed, the position of Australia’s most prominent environmental groups in relation to forests and climate change betrays an attitude that is desperately out of touch with environmentalists elsewhere in the world. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged in 2007 that “In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre, or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit”.

Sadly, blatant exaggerations and misrepresentations of what happens in Australia’s forests are not new to the international stage. Our environmental movement’s seduction of the international media peaked prior to the 2004 Federal election. At that time, major articles about Tasmanian forestry written at the behest of local activists were published in London’s The Observer, The Independent, and The Guardian; in European newspapers Le Figaro and Suddeutsch Zeitung; as well as the New York Times. In addition, the BBC was coerced into producing a major documentary on Tasmania’s supposedly “disappearing forests” entitled Paper Tiger - for which they were subsequently found to have misled viewers after complaints were made to the UK Broadcasting Standards Commission.

The latest example of the disturbing determination of Australian activists to misrepresent environmental management in their own country can be seen in a short television report recently aired on the Middle-East-based Al Jazeera network entitled “Tasmania’s Shrinking Forests: Deforestation fight in Tasmania”.

Advertisement

On the Al Jazeera website, the text accompanying the video archive of the report exclaims that “Severe deforestation is taking place in Australia, as well as countries like Brazil and Indonesia”; and, “in Tasmania, forests have been shrinking steadily over the past 50 years due to the state’s billion-dollar timber industry”.

Other claims made in the report are that:

o Tasmania is embroiled in a “war against nature”;
o Tasmania’s forests are “disappearing at a rate of 15,000 hectares per year”;
o less than a third of Tasmania’s original forests remain, and that “most have been cut-down during the past 50 years”;
o the logging of Tasmania’s forests represents “a crime against humanity”.

While these are damning claims, it doesn’t take much research to refute them.

First, as sustainable timber production in Tasmanian forests is not “deforestation” because harvested areas are immediately regenerated, the Al Jazeera report’s claim that timber production is responsible for an annual loss of 15,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest is clearly nonsense.

The report’s claim that Tasmania has lost two-thirds of its original forest cover is also wrong. The Tasmanian government’s State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 report states that 64.5 per cent of the 4.8 million hectares of pre-European forest cover is still present. Of the forest that has been lost, almost all was cleared for agriculture, infrastructure, and urban development. A small proportion of native forest (about 3 per cent of the pre-European total) has been converted to timber plantations over a long period, but this practice has now virtually ceased.

The State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 report also notes that 47 per cent of the state’s forests are contained in national parks and various other conservation reserves where no timber production is permitted. In addition, further areas of forest are effectively reserved by dint of being either unsuited or inaccessible for wood production, or by being in private ownership where there is no intention to harvest.

Overall, within Tasmania’s publicly-owned forests - which forest activists continue to treat as a battleground - wood production is restricted to within just a 26 per cent portion. Clearly, the oft-aired notion that logging will destroy Tasmania’s forests is simply wrong.

Despite this, the Al Jazeera report included an interview with Greens Senator, Christine Milne, who described Tasmanian logging as a “crime against humanity in a world where we need to be addressing climate change”. Despite her claim, the use of a portion of Tasmania’s forests for sustainable timber production is one of the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it draws on a renewable resource which can be harvested, processed and manufactured using a fraction of the emissions that would otherwise be needed to produce alternative construction materials such as steel, aluminium, and concrete.

In addition, the continuing campaigns to close timber industries in Australia, where sustainable forest management is achievable, are simply enhancing the market conditions that help drive the real problem of tropical deforestation. In the keynote speech at the recent FAO World Forestry Congress, HRH Prince Charles, noted that unless tropical deforestation is controlled there is no chance of effectively addressing climate change. On this basis, it could be argued that it is Christine Milne and her cohorts who are committing the “crime against humanity”.

Sadly, the international misrepresentation of the state of Tasmania’s environment may be causing substantial damage given the socio-economic importance of the state’s reputation as a leading eco-tourism destination. Indeed, the fact that Tasmania ranks so highly in this area speaks volumes for the real state of its environment and puts the claims of anti-logging activists into perspective. Understandably then, there is considerable anger over these continuing efforts to trash the state’s reputation.

The media must also shoulder blame for blatant misrepresentations of Australian forestry. In this case, Al Jazeera’s reporter could have saved the cost on an airfare if he had taken the time to do some rudimentary background research rather than simply accepting without question the word of activists fanatically dedicated to closing Tasmania’s native timber industry. The influence of these activists is evident not only in the general tone of the resultant report and its outrageous claims, but also in its use of video footage previously used by The Wilderness Society in 2006.

That the media has fallen for this trap so often suggests that journalists either have insufficient time to properly research the issues, or are willingly acting as cheerleaders for environmental activism. Sadly, there is much to suggest that, at least when it comes to forestry, too many journalists fall into the latter category. This may be understandable given the natural distaste for the ugly business of cutting down trees, but is highly unprofessional for a vocation that is ethically bound to report fully, objectively and fairly.

In world afflicted with many environmental problems, the community needs far more from the media if it is to discern legitimate environmental threats from activities which may be ideologically-hated by some, but actually pose little or no threat, or are indeed environmentally beneficial.

The community also needs an environmental movement that can put aside its historical prejudices to focus on the issues that really matter. With regard to Australia’s public forests these critical issues are unnaturally severe fire, feral animals, and exotic weeds which are having an infinitely greater impact on biodiversity than timber production which (nationally) is restricted to just a net 6 per cent of their area.

Until the environmental movement refocuses and campaigns in a manner that honestly acknowledges the real state of Australia’s environment and its management, they will increasingly be regarded by thinking Australians as fanatics more intent on attaining ideological outcomes which in some cases, including the issue of forests, will actually be counter-productive to environmental improvement.

This is a concern, given that raising and maintaining environmental awareness is such a critically important role. However, by continuing to campaign on the basis of gross exaggeration, environmental activists will ultimately diminish trust, create cynicism, and undermine their own credibility.

  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.

16 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 16 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy