Climate change, carbon sequestration and Tasmania

While the basic components of liberal democracy need to be preserved - constitutionalism; the rule of law; free, fair and regular elections; parliamentary debate; an independent judiciary; and a core set of individual rights and freedoms; - they are no longer sufficient to deliver sustainable development.

As noted by Stoker (2006), liberal democratic institutions must be supplemented with a range of intermediate institutions that promote more balanced, deliberative, consensus-based policy development. In particular, policy networks must be opened up to the full participation of the three core affected constituencies - those representing economic, social and environmental interests.

Components of a new forest politics

If we are to move from where we are to where we need to be, we need to think through some of our taken-for-granted assumptions. Reforms are required in at least the following three areas.

Deliberative governance institutions

A discussion is currently underway about the dysfunctional nature of Tasmania’s parliament. With only 25 members in the House of Assembly, it is being argued, correctly in my view, that the Lower House is too small to deliver good government.

The reason is that the government of the day is unlikely to have more than 15 members. This can result in either all members of government being in the cabinet or, as we have increasingly seen, ministers being responsible for several portfolios at the same time. Neither is desirable.

It should not be assumed, however, that expanding the House of Assembly to 35 members will resolve Tasmania’s governance problems in an era of climate change. This is only one of several reforms that are required to create the conditions for policy to reflect not only the will of the people but also the requirements of sustainable development.

In particular, serious attention must be given to developing governance arrangements that are balanced in terms of the core constituencies of sustainable development. If one interest dominates all others, seriously sub-optimal policies masquerading as the public interest will continue to result.

Ecosystem-based forest management (ESBM)

ESBM is a scientific approach to forest management that derives from the discipline of conservation biology. Unlike the discipline of forestry, ESBM seeks to give equal weight to all forest values, not merely their timber values. ESBM does not rule out the logging of natural forests per se. It does, however, require that natural forest management occur within social and ecological limits.

With respect to ecological requirements, ESBM employs the concept of “range of natural variability” (RONV) and “pre-industrial condition” (PIC). These concepts refer to the long-term structure and function of forests prior to human intervention. Forest management occurs within the limits prescribed by nature.

With respect to social requirements, ESBM embraces the rights of Aboriginal peoples, communities and workers to have a say in how forests are managed. It encourages an opening up of the forest policy network to ensure greater deliberation and participation in the decision-making process with respect to any forest management decision.