Pulping the facts

The phoney “debate” about the Tamar pulp mill can be seen as a difference between the statements of those who would benefit from the allocation of Tasmania’s limited resources of forest, land, water and sea, and those of independent experts and communities who do not have any conflict of interest in the matter and who may also rely on access to those same resources.

Of course those who would benefit support the proposal: how could it be otherwise? But what about everyone else, the reported 55-65 per cent of Tasmanians (from a range of published polls, for example see Tasmanian Times) opposed to the proposal?

Many locals believe the saga is a manipulation by the pulpwood industry to have easy conditions under which to operate the mill, thereby cutting their costs.

Recent revelations from Chile suggest the pulpwood industry has a record of dishonesty (for example, totally forged reports), in order to mask their likely impacts on the surrounding population so as to help to gain approval for developments and/or avoid penalties.

The pulpwood industry has always rejected negative independent assessments of their work, constantly reverting to consultants, whom they have paid, to support their claims. In addition they have consistently attacked people who have criticised their proposal, apparently not understanding that their behaviours and statements are creating the very resistance they complain about.

The problems started at the beginning of the process, when a $1.6 billion pulp mill investment in Tasmania was declared. Savvy readers will know that the mill is to be purchased from Finnish supplier Jaakko Poyry, consequently the bulk of the investment will actually be in Finland, with only a tiny proportion spent to assemble the mill in Tasmania. Gunns will need to borrow the money and repay the debt with trees from public forests, or plantation trees that have been subsidised by taxpayers.

It’s the involvement of tax dollars and Tasmanian-owned public resources, like trees and land, to pay off a private sector debt that makes the proposal of concern to Tasmanians.

The economic case for the mill was carried out on a computer model that government economists showed was not able to calculate impacts on other industries such as tourism, fishing and agriculture (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations EEU minute (PDF 110KB) of June 22, 2007). The false conclusion reached by the state government was that therefore there were no adverse economic impacts.

This fallacy was followed up by the state government commissioning the ITS Global report, which was a study carried out ONLY on the social and economic benefits of a pulp mill. Its conclusion was, by definition, entirely positive. By once again missing out the adverse impacts, Tasmanians were left with a one-sided view that completely ignored their legitimate concerns. Without knowing or understanding the costs to the rest of Tasmanians, it simply isn’t possible to make a responsible evaluation of the project.

The public submissions (over 5,000 pages) made to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) have been largely ignored by a truncated “approval” process that only explored 5 per cent of the total impacts. Impacts on agriculture, fishing, tourism and rural communities have also been comprehensively ignored. The state government’s final process “outsourced” the approval decision to a pulp mill supplier who will gain further monies from the mill project. Just another decision made by a member of the pulpwood industry who stands to gain from the project. Conflicts of interest appear to rule the day in Paul Lennon’s Tasmania!

In his article in On Line Opinion about pulp “myths”, it is Alan Ashbarry’s (pulpwood industry) contention that objections to a Tamar pulp mill are based on “myths” that, if busted, would mean the mill would meet “clean, green standards”. Let’s have a look at his claims as seen from the community and impacted industry’s perspective.

The mill’s guidelines

Guidelines are just that … guides. The idea that “guidelines” are acceptable standards (think anti-terror guidelines, or drink driving guidelines) to control a potentially hazardous world-scale mill run by a corporation that has never done anything like it before, is absurdly far fetched. The final Kraft Mill guidelines use the word “should” some 84 times while “must” hardly rates at all.

One of the main problems with mills - the dreadful smells - is exempted from most of the guidelines: indeed the mill can emit smells for up to two years before the regulator can act, and then only to research the problem, not force any real corrective action.

Furthermore the guidelines were written for a remote area, not for a densely populated area like the Tamar valley (source Dr W Raverty who helped prepare the guidelines) but despite the RPDC requesting improved protections for that reason, the proponent is said to have refused for reasons of extra cost.

When the regulators of this proposal were quizzed recently in the Tasmanian parliament, it became apparent that they have no means of shutting the mill down, regardless of its impact on its surrounds.

Dioxins and mixing

Independent experts’ evaluations of dioxin levels show that Gunns’ consultants understated dioxin levels by more than 1,300 times (Dr A Wadsley PDF 920KB). The current proposal has the mill, on its own, putting out nearly as much dioxin as all 47 pulp mills around the Baltic Sea, which is now massively polluted. Furthermore pollutants dissolved in fresh water don’t just “mix” with sea water until they reach harmless levels. They tend to either precipitate out to the ocean floor, where our scallops, rock lobster and abalone feed, or coagulate and remain in high concentration while drifting over a large area (Dr S Godfrey PDF 3MB).

Sited in industrial zone

Just because there are already industries in an industrial zone, in no way suggests that other industries may not be harmful. Air pollutants in Launceston and Georgetown are already high, introducing new industries that add to the load will threaten the health of many people (RPDC submission #473 PDF 150KB), particularly sensitive people (for example, asthmatics and infants).

The nature of pulp mills is to pump masses of effluent out, in this case into the Bass Strait where our fishermen earn a living. It is revealing for a member of the pulpwood industry to declare that impacts of their operations on other industries, like fisheries, are not important. It’s not a question of myths being “busted”, it’s a question of due diligence and taking adequate precautions, including trusting independent experts over those with a conflict of interest.

Aerial pollution

The CSIRO reported to the RPDC (PDF 865KB) that the Launceston airshed could be at risk. Wood heaters are a problem, but since Gunns plans to burn thousands of tons of wood a year at its mill in order to produce power, it’s hard to see how we can disconnect that from the risks presented by the mill. Without independent advice and analysis, the population is rightly concerned they are at risk. No amount of protest or hollow promises from the pulp wood industry will allay those concerns.

The Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) - an agreement between governments

The RFA between governments is an agreement about logging - that’s why it’s called a “forest” agreement. RFAs do not control social, environmental and economic impacts in any way, because they are not charged to do so, and they contain no effective mechanism for that purpose. Neither do they consider the impact that the high consumption of water used by plantations has on rural communities: on average 2 megalitres per hectare per year over and above agricultural uses. The pulpwood industry doesn’t pay for that water … downstream users pay but not plantation operators.

Biased process

The proponent has already had the planning laws rewritten twice to suit their particular desires. They “withdrew” from the RPDC process and again received treatment from the state government totally unavailable to any other taxpayers and businesses. This bias sets a dreadful precedent for our future and also treats taxpayers with significantly less regard than the proponent.

Why the fuss

Alan Ashbarry doesn’t seem to understand why the community is so concerned about the pulp mill proposal, preferring to blame a Rainforest Action Network. Gunns and the state government have spent millions on their positive advertising campaigns yet more people are now opposed to the project than before these programs started.

There are many solid reasons for this and they include:

• disbelief that the project will only deliver benefits;
• anger that millions of taxpayer dollars were given to the proponent but the community was refused any funding or help whatsoever;
• anger that the project as originally described is nothing like the project currently approved by the state parliament;
• hostility towards Paul Lennon and his preference to subsidise the logging industry (by millions of dollars a year) while watching our health system collapse from lack of funds;
• anger that one company can be treated with such regard while everyone else is ignored or marginalised;
• anger about the massive conversion of farmland to tree plantations supported by taxpayer subsidies (rural dwellers see this every day);
• anger at the benefits expected (and received) by pulpwood interests that the public has to pay for and that they don’t enjoy themselves (see end of article);
• cash flow losses by rural communities as tree plantations replace active farms;
• job loss risks in fishing, farming and tourism that are ignored;
• suspicion after many revelations of false information and mistakes in the pulp mill Integrated Impact Statement (IIS);
• the inappropriate world scale of the mill on our small island; and
• anger about the refusal of labour and liberal politicians to act on legitimate community concerns.

There are nine major advantages provided to the logging industry by Australian governments. The industry:

1. obtains substantial cost reductions (for example, transport infrastructure paid by taxpayers, free water for trees, subsidised mill water) with input costs connected to declining world prices, so that the taxpayer provides a “cushion” in the event of an economic downturn;
2. gets substantial cash payments from governments (for example, 2005 CFA agreement for $280 million);
3. acquired ownership of thousands of square kilometres of prime farm land aided by tax subsidies given to Managed Investment Schemes (MIS);
4. has been guaranteed open access to Tasmania’s native forests for 20 years;
5. controls many rural water supplies with tree plantations having first access and water available for free;
6. is virtually untouchable, doing their own effluent monitoring and reporting, with the state government unable to shut them down or take other effective action if required;
7. is exempt from rules that apply to other industries (for example freedom of information and planning legislation) with further exemptions expected from any Environment Protection legislation;
8. has a growing influence with governments and political parties due to close financial relationships and the size of logging interests; and
9. will be the ONLY customer for Tasmanian plantation trees so will be able to control the price for timber.