Gunns capitulates to misinformation and bullying

In June 2009, our supporters contacted Swedish company Södra stating our concerns about their possible support for the mill. This was a great success and an example of the kind of campaigning at which the Wilderness Society excels...We will continue to make sure that any potential financiers of a Tamar Valley pulp mill understand the devastating effects it will have on our native forests, oceans and our fragile climate.

In the USA, the practice of targeting stakeholders to undermine and discredit companies is termed "brand-mailing". It could be argued that brand-mailing is justifiable where Western corporations are complicit in serious environmental degradation or human rights transgressions in developing countries - but is it appropriate for already very highly regulated activities occurring in developed country? Perhaps - if it accurately reflects real problems rather than just expressing ideological opposition.

However, those engaged in brand-mailing Gunns are largely ideologically opposed to Tasmanian forestry and typically portray it as something very different to what it actually is. Take the Rainforest Action Network's March 2006 Tasmanian forests campaign, conducted at the behest of Australian activists. It orchestrated protests at various Australian embassies, including in Japan and the UK. During the campaign, RAN spokesman, David Lee, ranted that "everything about the situation on the ground in Tasmania defies belief for anyone who respects democracy and the rule of law" and that "Gunns is trashing a global treasure and ... turning paradise into a toxic Hell on Earth in the process"

Clearly, this is an outrageous misrepresentation, particularly given that around 75% of Tasmania's publicly-owned forests are contained either in conservation reserves where timber production is not permitted, or are unsuited to logging. This includes 80 - 90% of the state's old growth forests.

Nevertheless, several speakers at the Forestworks conference asserted that there is now little point in Australia's forestry sector looking back at how it has reached this point - it must simply accept what it has been dealt and move on. Greg L'Estrange also articulated the importance of moving forward: "The opportunity is there to work with ENGOs to establish a sustainable framework that will move us from CONFLICT to RESOLUTION and PROMOTION. Through this inclusive approach, we will find joint solutions to age-old conflicts and move beyond to a real sustainable forest industry."

These may be grand and worthy words, but they ignore history and reflect naivety about the ENGOs. Unfortunately, failing to respect the lessons of history can damn you to repeat past mistakes.

In the 30-year history of Australia's so-called "forest wars" there has never been a successful negotiated resolution of native forest logging, that is, unless ending the conflict simply by closing the industry is considered as a joint solution. In her book, The Forest Wars, anti-logging academic, Judith Ajani, pointed to SE Queensland as the only example of a successful Australian forest policy essentially because the State government was able to engineer a phased closure of the native timber industry that was acceptable to the ENGOs.

Real attempts at negotiated resolutions based on a lasting compromise between the ENGO's demand to end native timber production and the community's ongoing demand for hardwood, have always failed because the ENGOs simply re-set their sights and start campaigning again. Accordingly, ENGO campaigns against the WA jarrah industry continue despite the government cutting the allowable sawlog harvest by 60% in 2003; against the NSW cypress pine industry despite an 80% industry cut-back in 2005; and against the Victorian native hardwood industry despite a 30% cut-back in 2002 and a further substantial loss of future timber volume since then by the creation of around 200,000 hectares of new national parks and reserves.       

In reality, the ENGOs are addicted to forest conflict and it is not too hard to understand why. Firstly, the formal policies of the major ENGOs - in particular, the Wilderness Society, and the Australian Conservation Foundation - call for the total or very near total closure of the native timber industry. Secondly, 30-years of conflict have created an ENGO support base that is arguably even more fanatical than the career activists who represent them, who at least get some exposure to the complexities of the forests conflict. Any hint of compromise on their part threatens to split their radical supporter base, as is currently the case in Tasmania where behind-the-scenes negotiations are being held into the future of the state's forestry sector.

Thirdly, the ENGOs need conflict to attract donations and maintain membership. The forests conflict provides arguably the easiest and most cost-effective platform for generating the public angst and emotion necessary to generate financial support.

Lastly, the ENGOs have no tangible stake in the forests debate. Whereas the timber industry is beholden to State government resource allocations and has an infrastructure investment which affects considerations of compromise, the ENGOs have no need to compromise on their ultimate aim. It is a tremendous leap of faith to expect them to forever support a negotiated resolution which allows an on-going timber industry, except perhaps one of a tiny cottage scale which harvests just a handful of trees each year for craftsmen and artisans.

Unlike the average native timber sawmiller, Gunns are a huge corporation with diverse forestry interests principally in hardwood pulp and woodchip plantations, but also including a softwood plantation and processing sector. While it is possible for them to end their own forests conflict by transferring their focus to being a plantations-based producer, this is simply not an option for most of the rest of the industry. Few hardwood plantations are being grown for or are old enough for sawn timber production, and even if there was, they would be incapable of supplying the same quality of timber obtainable from native forests.