Gunns, forestry, and the flawed notion of 'social licence'

Having moved so far to address community concerns without seemingly coming even remotely close to gaining a 'social licence' raises concerns about the value of this nebulous concept in the face of entrenched and intractible opposition. Arguably in this case, the 'social licence' concept has been strategically used by Gunns' opponents who, by creating an expectation of it as essential when clearly they had no intention of giving it their support, have thereby undermined the project.

An important question is why 'social licence' is even necessary for a project with statewide implications under a democratic system where voting patterns already give a solid indication of community support. At the last Tasmanian election, around 80% of voters supported either the Labor or Liberal Parties which both have policies endorsing the pulp mill. It could be argued that this result was sufficient to confer a 'social licence' to the project.

Since the announcement of Gunns' downfall, reports have surfaced of circling foreign interests who could potentially purchase the company and its pulp mill permits at a bargain basement price. Some pulp mill opponents are already lamenting that such interests would build the mill without regard to 'social licence'. This may well be more of a lament at the likely loss of a weapon from the opposition armory than a genuine concern about lack of community support.

Not withstanding that there are already tremendous social and environmental responsibilities incorporated into the Government's regulatory approval for the pulp mill, few apart from its entrenched opponents could realistically blame another potential proponent if they opted not to vainly pursue the nebulous concept of 'social licence' given the experience of Gunns. Indeed, there is much to suggest that resisting attempts to gain a 'social licence' from its entrenched opponents may be the only way the mill could be ever built.