Forest Reserve Map – ‘Interim Reserve Boundaries’ (IGA)
Tasmanian Forest Agreement Verification: Advice to Prime Minister and Premier of Tasmania
(Click map to enlarge, then click map again to enlarge again)
.
Tasmanian Forests Agreement – some key documents
(newest to oldest – with format ‘document title YYYYMMDD‘)
Spate of wildlife diseases across human-contaminated Tasmania
.
Dr David Obendorf, Wildlife Veterinary Pathologist in Tasmania, says that the recent outbreak of disease killing off Tasmanian Devils is symptomatic of similar recent diseases affecting other wildlife the same areas of Tasmania, which is impacting on their survival.
Coming out of nowhere for Tasmania is ‘Mucor amphibiorum‘, a fungal disease in platypus and frogs which doesn’t occur on the mainland and yet we know that, that organism occurs on the mainland. Tasmania now has a cat borne infection ‘Toxoplasmosis‘ which is spread by feral cats which kills wallabies, wombats, bandicoots. Tasmania has a new staphylococcal infection that infests the pads of echidnas so they get this sort of raw pustular wound that impregnates their pads they, they just can’t dig. Tasmanian wombats have developed Sarcoptic mange, you know, a little mite that burrows into skin causing intensely painful skin lesion where they develop all this weeping skin and they become like armour plated animals just losing their skin. They walk around like sort of robots because they just can’t stretch out, there’s no flexibility left in their skin. These animals die an incredibly painful death as a result of having this disease.
The Tasmanian Government after great reluctance, says Dr David Obendorf, has published a report listing about twenty two significant wildlife diseases (just in the past 30 years) that are impacting Tasmanian wildlife. In frogs, in wombats, in bandicoots, in wallabies, in devils, in seals, in birds. We’re trying to maintain threatened species in the face of viral infections, parasitic infections, fungal infections. You’ve got to ask yourself the question, why, why all of a sudden do we have all this pathogen stress on wildlife?
Dr David Obendorf contributes the spate of Tasmania’s wildlife diseases to human abuse of the environment – pesticide and herbicide spraying, biocide contamination of streams, the continuation of habitat fragmentation and habitat destruction, allowing these diseases to be transmitted more easily and compounding pathogen stresses on wildlife.
You’d be a fool not to try and see if there’s one health underpinning for a scenario such as what appeared to have been occurring in the north east region of Tasmania. That region had undergone massive land transformation and the introduction of silvi-cultural plantations over vast catchments and the beginnings of usages of chemicals that were being aerial sprayed over large acreages.
The north east corner of Tasmania has undergone massive transformation since the Regional Forest Agreement was signed in 1996. You have a mosaic of landscapes now created with silvi cultural plantations, hardwood plantations of nitens, (Ed: genetically manipulated) Eucalyptus nitens trees. You have some fragmented pockets of natural environment. You have dairy farms. You have small villages and you have the large settlement of St Helen’s which is at the end of the catchment of the George River. So in that sort of context chemical usage has really come into being a dominant player in the sort of risk management of that whole environment. Because you’re dealing with herbicides and pesticides, insecticides, the use of 1080 for a long time as well. So all these things are playing into that landscape and affecting how the water may pick up those residues and the impact it might have on oysters. But also on the bio-accumulation risk that it would represent to the species, the native species that are living in natural ecosystems.
The big issue is when are these sorts of relationships between ecology, wildlife, humans…is there a relationship here between an event, a sudden event, mass mortality, and something that may well have affected that ecology or that environment to contaminate it?’
.
The demise of the Tasmanian Devil is symptomatic of the harm 21st Century human activities are causing to Australia’s wildlife habitat and wildlife in general.
‘Australia has one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world, with 22 mammals becoming extinct over the past 200 years, including the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata), now listed as endangered. Broadscale bushfire (wildfire or hazard reduction), altered fire regimes including frequent fire, compounded with feral cat predation and introduced herbivores have caused major population decline in many small native mammals such as the Greater Bilby (Macrotis lagotis), the Brush-tailed Tree Rat (Conilurus penicillatus) native to northern Australia.
‘While rigorous efforts have been made to save endangered groups, scientists now fear Australia is on the cusp of another wave of extinctions with a reduction in abundance of some species and alarmingly their range. Some mammal species have already disappeared from more than 90% of their past range in Northern Australia. Such is the seriousness of the situation, that Professor Iain Gordon from CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems is chairing a meeting at the International Ecology Symposium in Brisbane on Australia’s mammal extinction crisis.’
‘Some species have already disappeared from more than 90% of their past range across the North. Many formerly abundant animals such as the Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), Golden Bandicoot (Isoodon auratus) , and Greater Bilby(Macrotis lagotis) are declining, and doing so very rapidly. The declines are being reported from pastoral lands, indigenous lands, and national parks alike.’
Baby Northern Quoll
.
‘Northern Australia is the largest remaining tropical savanna on Earth. However, changes in land management have meant that many mammals in these savannas are now struggling to find enough food and shelter to survive. A range of factors, such as feral cats, unmanaged (Ed: read ‘neglected’) fire and over‐grazing are implicated in causing these declines.’
‘The meeting unanimously agreed that decisive and immediate action across all land tenures is needed if we are to save species. This includes developing and implementing land management work plans as well as research plans to fill in priority knowledge gaps.’
‘In part we need to better understand the detail of what each native mammal needs to survive. However, we do know enough now to immediately assist and support landholders across Northern Australia to do the on‐ground management work needed ‐ work such as feral animal control and managing fire ‐ which we know will immediately assist these threatened species.’
‘This is undoubtedly one of the major biodiversity conservation issues affecting Australia, which already has the worst rate of mammal extinctions in the world.
‘It would be heartbreaking and internationally embarrassing if we were to stand aside and witness another wave of extinctions without making any effort to intervene. The only way to reduce the chance of extinctions in our iconic northern Australian mammals over the next decade is to take urgent action now’.
~ Dr. Sarah Legge of Australian Wildlife Conservancy (Ed: that was in May 2010. It is now January 2012, 18 months later!)
‘Of the 85 species of native mammals (excluding bats) known to have once occupied Australia’s northern arid zone (including the Pilbara region of Western Australia), 11 are now extinct, six are extinct on the mainland and are found only on off-shore islands and 16 are now severely restricted in their range.’
[Source: ‘Extinction crisis for North Australia’s mammals’ , Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia – Bilby Projects, 20100514, ^http://wpsa.org.au/pro_bilby.html]
Mala
Only 200 in the world, centred around Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (September 2011)
.
‘Critically Endangered’ (only a handful left)
.
Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus)
Golden-backed Tree-rat (Mesembriomys macrurus)
Carpentarian Rockrat (Zyzomys palatalis)
.
Severely restricted distribution of the Carpentarian Rock-rat
.
‘Endangered’
.
Golden Bandicoot (Isoodon auratus)
Fawn Hopping-mouse (Notomys cervinus)
Dusky Hopping-mouse (Notomys fuscus)
Carpentarian Antechinus (Pseudantechinus mimulus)
Plains Rat (Pseudomys australis)
Common Brushtail Possum (Central Australian subspecies) (Trichosurus vulpecula vulpecula)
Central Rock-rat (Zyzomys pedunculatus)
.
Plus other mammal species classified as ‘Vulnerable‘, as well as many native birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and plants that are also extinct or approaching extinction.
“It’s really this sense of apathy and the belief that somehow wildlife is a nuisance and if they die, well, you know, well, what do you expect us to do about it?…wildlife (is) really just a small hobby sideline area of investigation.”
~ Dr David Obendorf
.
Governments have an entrusted responsibility, delegated to them and financed by the communities they represent, to be competent and active custodial managers of a State’s natural values. Government agencies charged with custodial responsibility for natural ecosystems and native flora and fauna have a moral obligation to be honest and conscientious in properly maintain the integrity (the wholeness and intactness) of a State’s natural heritage.
International Environmental Law has adopted a number of important guiding principles which need to form the policy bases and plans of management for managing our natural heritage – including the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, the principle of sustainable development, and intra-generational and inter-generational equity.
‘Any judgment made today that has an adverse impact on natural populations, particularly if it involves the extinction of a species or communities, is likely to be irrevocable (Beattie and Ehrlich, 2001).
Custodial responsibility, sometimes called the principle of inter-generational equity, underpins both the intrinsic value and the utilitarian cases for conservation. The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992, para 3.5.1) defined the precautionary principal as:
‘Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.’
Back in 1863, the great biogeographer and evolutionary biologist, Alfred Wallace, made a clear statement about custodial responsibility:
“…future ages will certainly look back on us as people so immersed in the pursuit of wealth as to be blind to higher considerations. They will charge us with having culpability allowed the destruction of some…[species]…which we had it in our power to preserve; and while professing to regard every living thing,…with a strange inconsistency, seeing many of them perish irrecoverably from the face of the Earth, uncared for and unknown (p.234).”
.
[Source: ‘Practical conservation biology‘, text by David Lindenmayer, Mark A. Burgman, 2005, CSIRO Publishing, Australia, ISBN 0 643 09089 4]
.
‘Human beings are part of the natural world, and all forms of life on Earth deserve our respect.’ (Australian Greens Principle #1).
May we learn from our forefathers’ wanton and misguided persecution of the now ‘fabled’ Tasmanian Tiger. May we learn from our current fathers’ misguided exploitation of wildlife habitat as a ‘natural resource‘. May we in 2012 take all efforts and funding to prevent the Tasmanian Devil becoming another fabled tragedy of our making. May 2012 be a break-though year for those, especially young people, trying to convince governments the virtue of mature respect for our fragile natural world.
Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) – a species now dying out
What area of old growth native forest has been saved from business-as-usual deforestation as a result of the United Nation’s declaration of 2011 as the International Year of Forests?
Well, at the time of writing, the public relations material on the official UN website conveys a general message that the ‘Forests 2011‘ programme is intended “to strengthen global efforts to improve the state of forests” and draws upon its dedicated subsidiary United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), adopting four Global Objectives:
Reverse Forest Loss – reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through sustainable forest management, including protection,restoration, afforestation and reforestation, and increase efforts to prevent forest degradation.
Enhance Forest-based Benefits – economic, social and environmental benefits, including by improving the livelihoods of forest-dependent people.
Increase Sustainably Managed Forests – including protected forests, and increase the proportion of forest products derived from sustainably managed forests.
Mobilize Financial Resources – reverse the decline in official development assistance for sustainable forest management and mobilise significantly-increased new and additional financial resources from all sources for the implementation of sustainable forest management.
Sounds encouraging, but where are the stated deliverables?, key result areas?, key performance indicators?, programme targets?, UN budget to achieve these global objectives? Where is the implementation plan and the delegated implementation task force?
The website is thick on its public relations message, but thin on substance. In the absence of any mention of the means to achieve these four objectives, my initial reaction is that it is more motherhood and perhaps just about ‘raising awareness‘. But don’t we already know that deforestation is a critical global problem?
.
The aim of the UN International Year of Forests 2011 seems to have merely been “to raise awareness and strengthen the sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests for the benefit of current and future generations“.
.
It just sounds like more Forestry spin!
.
And ‘sustainable forest management‘ is a familiar phrase and one bandied about not by environmentalists, but by forestry industry – i.e. industrial loggers. Type ‘sustainable forest management’ in Google at look at the websites results:
Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (i.e. derives revenue from logging)
Australian Forest Education Alliance (AFEA) – includes members from Australian Forest Products Association, Forests NSW, Forest Education Foundation Tasmania, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Forestry Sustainable Forestry Program (Southern Cross University), NSW Forest Products Commission WA, VicForests (i.e. all derive revenue directly from logging, or subsidised by industrial loggers)
Forestry Tasmania (i.e. derives revenue from logging)
Forests NSW (i.e. derives revenue from logging)
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (encouraged forest be used for wood production)
The Institute of Foresters of Australia
Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria) (encouraged logging and burning of native forests)
etc.
.
UN International Year of Forests 2011 – ‘Global Achievements‘?
.
The only other information that may be gleaned from the official UN site covers topics such as promotional events, films, photos, collaborative global partner organisations plus some forest statistics, a few online publications but that’s about it. So today on 30th December 2011 as the International Year for Forests draws to a close, what has the UN programme actually achieved?
What area of the world’s native forests has been protected from otherwise business-as-usual deforestation? What has stopped Forestry Tasmania and its band of loggers from their business-as-usual holocaust treatment of Tasmania’s endangered ancient native forest ecosystems?
Answer: More PR funding for the UN’s next programme?
.
Australian Government’s endorsement of International Year of Forests 2011
.
Rather than convey an assessment here, I shall just quote from the Australian Government’s website dedicated to supporting this programme (before it vanishes):
‘Australia has some of the most beautiful and productive forest areas in the whole world. These fantastic and magical places mean a lot of different things to different people. Some of us work with the wood from the forests. Some work with the creatures that live in the forests. Some of us live in the forests and some of us play in the forest (camping, hiking, exploring) and some of us just love looking and being in a forest!
‘Without a doubt what ever your use, be it a little or a lot, Australian’s should be proud of Australia’s forests!
‘The United Nations announced 2011 as the International Year of Forests. Australians can unite and celebrate our sustainably managed forests and the diversity that our forests bring to our lives. Our forests give us wood that we use every single day and these very same forests give us the best playground that our kids could ever hope for. Australia’s forests are used by everyone and are the best in the world!
.
Ministers Address
.
‘Australia has about 4 per cent of the world’s forests on 5 per cent of the world’s land area, and has one of the best managed forestry sectors in the world.
‘The nation’s forests, and the products they produce, provide significant employment, environmental and recreational benefits to communities across Australia. Australia’s forestry and wood manufacturing sector employs nearly 76,000 people, many in regional areas, and generates around $7 billion worth of wood and paper products annually.
‘Across the nation the forests in conservation reserves cover over 23 million hectares. These reserves provide recreational benefits for communities and contribute to the 12 billion tonnes of carbon stored by Australian forests. Industry and government have been working hard to make sure our forests remain sustainable and viable for the long-term.
‘The Australian Government recognise the importance of World Forestry Day and the International Year of Forests and has actively supported both initiatives. This year the Gillard Government intends to release legislation to ban the importation of timber products that have not been legally harvested. This law will contribute to global efforts to stop illegal logging, provide for sustainable forest products made in Australia and reduce unfair competition. The Gillard Government remains committed to promoting sustainable forestry initiatives and encourages people to celebrate the International Year of the Forest.’
Senator Joe Ludwig,
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
.
And guess who’s embraced the 2011 International Year of Forests with public relations relish?
.
Forestry Tasmania
“Congratulations to Forestry Tasmania (FT) who held a successful Tasmanian launch of International Year of Forests. Held in Hobart on 25 January the ‘forest in the city’ event proved to be a popular summer holiday diversion with a steady stream of families, shoppers and naturalist flowing in to the Melville Street Dome throughout the afternoon.” .
‘Forestry Tasmania (FT) kicked off its celebrations for the United Nations International Year of Forests 2011 with an open day at the ‘forest in the city’ in its Hobart headquarters on 25 January. The event proved to be a popular summer holiday diversion, with a steady stream of families, shoppers and naturalists flowing into the Melville Street Dome throughout the afternoon. Their curiosity was rewarded by science and fire fighting displays, indoor abseiling, and even the opportunity for the young (and young at heart) to have their photo taken with ‘Krusty’, FT’s very own giant freshwater crayfish.
Forestry Tasmania’s promotional campaign for the International Year of Forests 2011
…to educate children early on that Forestry is good for native forests.
Tasmania’s endangered Giant Freshwater Crayfish just loves loggers destroying its habitat.
Get ’em while they’re young Bob!
.
Forestry Tasmania’s General Manager Corporate Relations and Tourism, Ken Jeffreys, said the open day was just a taste of things to come, with a 12-month calendar of events planned to celebrate the International Year of Forests.
“We have a number of exciting projects scheduled over the next year, such as the opening of new accommodation at Tahune, to be called the AirWalk Lodge.
“This development will, for the first time, see family accommodation available at one of Tasmania’s most highly visited tourism attractions. It will allow our guests to spend a full day experiencing all of the activities on offer at the AirWalk, as well as the many other attractions on offer in the Huon Valley.
“The year will also see a number of high-profile sporting events on state forest, including mountain biking and the multi-sport Ben Lomond Descent.
“And one of our bursary recipients, Shannon Banks, is going to attempt to visit all 52 of our recreation and tourism attractions around the State over the year. She’ll be writing a blog about her adventures, which we hope will inspire Tasmanians to experience the wonders of the forests in their own backyard.”
.
Mr Jeffreys said FT’s staff were excited by the opportunities presented by the International Year of Forests 2011.
“This year, we want to show the community that we are proud of the work we do to ensure the full range of forest values are maintained in perpetuity. Our staff worked hard to create displays for the launch that were fun and informative. The public’s reception showed us that there is a great deal of interest, and open-mindedness, about the way our forests are managed.”
.
Speech notes Simon Grove (Conservation Biologist with Forestry Tasmania – Division of Forest Research & Development):
.
‘Before I hand over to Rebecca White MHA to officially launch the International Year of Forests, I’ve been asked to say a few words about what our forests mean to the people that work here in Forestry Tasmania. Since our values come from our personal life-experiences, all I can do is tell you my own story, while recognising that every one of us here has their own story too.
I work as a researcher, a conservation biologist, with Forestry Tasmania. In some ways I deal with the meat in the sandwich that is forestry today – what does nature have to say about how we manage – or should manage – the forests in our care? But I want to start at the beginning. Life is all about discovery, learning and figuring things out, and I was lucky to discover early in life that nature, and forests, can be an excellent source of inspiration and experimentation. So here are a few of my naturalists’ memories, going back to toddlerdom.
I remember:
Figuring out that earthworms have bristles that work like legs – if you fill an empty milk-bottle with worms and then leave the milk-bottle in the kitchen, the worms climb out and slither all over the kitchen floor.
Learning that if I sat very still in the woods, I could watch the native mice going about their lives – and I could even catch them in my hands – but that they would bite my little sister’s hands if she tried the same thing.
Learning that bumblebees loved the nectar of honeysuckle flowers as much as I did – and that they wouldn’t sting if I picked them up to enjoy the sensation of having them buzzing around in my cupped hands – but that they would sting my little sister’s hands if she tried the same thing.
Discovering that it wasn’t only nasty wasps that filled the summer air with their droning, but beautiful flower-loving hoverflies – but little sisters aren’t always good at telling them apart.
Realising that hungry ground-beetles eat lizards if you keep them in the same cage and don’t feed them.
Learning that baby starlings abandoned by their parents get too hot if you try and incubate them on the boiler.
Discovering that tadpoles kept in a glass jar don’t turn into frogs unless you give them some land to climb out onto.
Realising that flower-presses were designed for delicate plants such as dandelions, and not for cacti.
Learning that seashells brought back from the beach get very smelly if they still have their animals in them.
Discovering that puffball fungi give off clouds of spores if you wee on them.
Discovering that blackbirds’ eggs taste as good as chooks’ eggs if you fry them up on a camping stove in the garden.
Figuring out that foxes eat cherries – you can find the stones in their poos.
Figuring out that I could make wonderfully whiffy stink-bomb mixture by adding all sorts of sordid ingredients – dog-poo, apple-cores, ink – to the liquid accumulating in the bottom of a tree-hollow; but that if I then added real chemical stink-bomb ingredients to this then I ended up with dead-maggot stew instead.
.
We all have stories like this. (Ed: perhaps only at FT) In retrospect, we can see that they make us who we are today. Our challenge is to ensure that the next generation is encouraged to explore and experiment too.
I didn’t grow up in Tasmania, but the other side of the world in England. But I don’t think it would have made much difference to my outlook as a child. Nature’s all around us, and children the world over are tuned into it. If it’s nurtured, as it was in me, the empathy for nature can grow. Otherwise it may die away. The presence here today of so many families and children is testament to the amount of nurturing going on around us – which is wonderful to see. And what better place to do so than in our forests.
Some of us are lucky in that as adults we still get to liberate our inner child from time to time – every day if we’re very lucky. That’s how I’ve managed to live my life since leaving school – right through the years of university study; of working with nature conservation organisations in the UK; of working in Uganda as a conservation trainer in the forest department and in Indonesia as a training adviser on an international sustainable forest management project. It’s how I lived my life when I was researching rainforest insects in North Queensland for my PhD. And it’s how I have done so for the past decade as a conservation biologist here at Forestry Tasmania.
And despite what you might expect from media coverage of forestry issues, I don’t feel alone. Many people working in forestry here in Tasmania are naturalists at heart, and many more who wouldn’t call themselves naturalists nevertheless have a deep appreciation for the bush and an understanding of what makes it tick. Not so much sawdust in our veins, as bushdust – an empathy with the forests, and a recognition that we humans are not so much their lords and masters as their stewards.
My brother and I used to call chainsaws ‘long bottoms’, because to my ear they sounded like someone doing a very long fart. Later in my youth I came to see them as the conservationist’s friend, as we went about clearing wildling pines invading the heathland where rare birds nested. Today I know that chainsaws also have more prosaic functions – people use them to harvest trees so that they can be turned into products that we all use, such as timber and paper. This would be a tragic end for the forest if harvest were indeed the end-point. But it’s not, because experience shows that the elements of nature displaced by the harvest begin to move straight back in almost as soon as the chainsaws fall silent, and the forest begins to regrow and to fill with life again.
A background in natural history is good for making connections – among species and among natural processes. We learn that eagles feed on pademelons that graze on grasses and browse on young saplings; eagles nest in the old trees that grew up after the last wildfire and that escaped the browsing of pademelons; fungi and beetles recycle the trees – and even the eagles and pademelons – once they die. Eagles, trees, fungi, pademelons and beetles are all connected. Those of us steeped in natural history and ecology also make connections between humans and the rest of nature. We’re the original environmentalists. We recognise that the world faces not only a GFC but also a GEC – a global environmental crisis. I should emphasise that this crisis is not the outcome of sustainable forestry. But it is the cumulative outcome of all of our growing material demands outstripping the planet’s ability to supply. We all – especially our children – have to deal with the consequences.
In this context, we still expect the world’s remaining forests to be reservoirs of nature and yet to continue to supply our material and spiritual needs. It’s a big ask, but it can be done – certainly so in a place like Tasmania, with all the expertise in forestry and conservation at our disposal.
If I’ve discovered one big theme about the natural world during my life, it is that nature, for all its fragility, is remarkably resilient – think how forests recover after a bushfire. And the main take-home message from the forestry Masters course that I took at Oxford all those years ago, reinforced by daily experience since then, is that forestry is as much about people as it is about trees. Connecting the two concepts I come to a heartening conclusion. Through the increasing value that all of us place on our forests, they look set to become landscapes not of conflict but of reconciliation. Let’s see if we can use this International Year of Forests to further that end.
I’d now like to formally hand over to Rebecca White MHA, so that she can officially launch this International Year of Forests as Forestry Tasmania’s Ambassador.’
.
(Tasmanian) State Labor Member for Lyons and International Year of Forests Ambassador, Rebecca White MP, was on hand to officially launch Forestry Tasmania’s celebrations for 2011. She said the UN’s theme for the year, ‘celebrating forests for people’, had struck a deep chord with her.
“This theme resonated deeply with me, as it conveys the need to manage forests for many values, including conservation and sustainable development. It means that these values, which are often portrayed as being in conflict, are in fact intertwined. It also recognises that people are central to the effective management of forests.
“With careful, scientifically driven management, such as we have in Tasmania, there need not be a contradiction between conserving biodiversity and providing wood products and other non-commercial values from forests.Forestry Holocaust of the Tarkine, October 2009
.
“While not all values may be delivered in any one area of forest, they are delivered across the entire landscape. While there are of course a number of challenges confronting the forest industry at present, it’s nonetheless important to remember that our state forests provide skilled employment for thousands of Tasmanians, and indirect employment for many more in our rural and regional communities.
“And of course, our state forests also provide clean drinking water to our towns and cities, they store the equivalent of 24% of Tasmania’s carbon emissions each year, and they provide a host of recreation activities and tourism attractions that appeal to locals and visitors alike.”
Upper Florentine old growth forest clearfelled by Forestry Tasmania in 2009, situated behind Forest Defenders’ Camp Flozza
(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click to enlarge)
.
World Deforestation Clock
.
Each year about 13 million hectares of the world’s forests are lost due to deforestation, but the rate of net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests.
From 1990 to 2000, the net forest loss was 8.9 million hectares per year.
From 2000 to 2005, the net forest loss was 7.3 million hectares per year – an area the size of Sierra Leone or Panama and equivalent to 200 km2 per day.
Primary forests are lost or modified at a rate of 6 million hectares per year through deforestation or selective logging.
Plantation forests are established at a rate of 2.8 million hectares per year.
These are Forestry Scabs:
Forestry Scabs of clearfelled Tasmanian endangered old-growth forests
Google Earth reveals the clearfell truth behind the Forestry propaganda
(Click satellite image to enlarge – note environmental protestors’ ObserverTree)
To download Google Earth software (93MB), go to: ^http://www.google.com/earth/index.html
.
This is an aerial close up of Forestry Scabs:
Forestry Scabs pocking the endangered Upper Florentine Forest, 2011
.
This is the ‘Forestry Plunder’
Old Growth which in the case of the Styx Valley, Forestry Tasmania labelled ‘Coupe SX015‘
.
Recall 2006: ‘Forests protected: another tall story‘
Two days after the election the police moved into the Styx Valley to apprehend a small band of protesters. An arrest was made and a 70-metre-tall tree holding a protest platform was blown up! Cable logging was set to resume in the Styx Valley of the Giants.
Yet last year both the state and federal Governments claimed that they had saved the giant trees of the Styx. Indeed, they claimed to have resolved the entire forests debate.
This week’s developments have given the lie to those claims. Not only is logging making a comeback in the Styx; it is also about to start in parts of the Weld and Upper Florentine that have never before seen a chainsaw. Other key areas are likely to follow, from the Tarkine in the far north-west, where there are still 400 square kilometres of threatened oldgrowth forest, to South Sister on the East Coast, Bruny Island in the south and the beleagured north-east highlands.
The Styx case is a classic example of how the governments deal with forest issues. One of the new reserves they have promised to create is the 336-hectare Styx Tall Trees Forest Reserve. This reserve occurs on either side of Skeleton Road, the road up which 4000 people marched on a cold, drizzly day in July 2003 to protest at logging.
The Reserve’s southern boundary occurs very close to the huge stump on which speakers at the rally delivered their speeches. The reserve contains several well-known giants, including the Chapel Tree — an 85-metre-tall giant which is the second most massive known living thing in Tasmania. It also contains the Mount Tree and Icarus Dream, which, at 96 and 97 metres respectively, are the tallest known trees in the Southern Hemisphere. The Two Towers, Gothmog, the Perfect Tree and the Andromeda Twins are other registered giants within the reserve.
Declaration of this reserve will be very welcome. However, cold hard scrutiny reveals that very little loggable forest has been conceded by the industry here. About 20 hectares were already in the informal Andromeda Reserve, which contains some of the tall trees mentioned above. In addition, Forestry Tasmania’s Giant Trees policy and protocols, adopted in the wake of the El Grande debacle, require the establishment of buffers of at least 100 metres radius around each registered giant. The abundance of giant trees in this patch of forest means that logging had already been severely curtailed.
In essence, the creation of the Styx Tall Trees Reserve is a minimalist recognition that little logging could have proceeded amongst these statuesque giants anyway.
.
Protected the bare minimum area
.
A look at the mapped boundaries of the reserve shows them to be very convoluted. That’s because the reserve has been designed to accommodate areas planned for logging.
Last year, Forestry Tasmania scheduled 26-hectare coupe SX18F. This created a cable-logged cut on the steep slopes immediately south-east of the Reserve. The imminent destruction of the tall oldgrowth forests in coupe SX15A will mark the southern edge of the reserve. Immediately west of the reserve is the already-logged SX13D and the scheduled SX13K. Later in the logging schedule come SX18E and SX13J.
Forestry Tasmania logging the Styx Valley of its ancient old growth
.
The conclusions to be drawn from this are simple.
Forestry Tasmania protected the absolute bare minimum area of tall-eucalypt forest in the Styx Tall Trees Forest Reserve.
.
“Forestry Tasmana is now embarking on a program of ringing the reserve with new coupes. This appears to be an obvious bid to pre-empt any future expansion of the reserve. This strategy will have the effect of isolating the giants from adjacent protective forest. The reserve will become increasingly prone to the ‘edge effects’ of fire, wind and disease. This situation is not assisted by the messy design of the reserve.”
.
Forestry Tasmania will claim that it has protected these giants and met all of its legislated obligations. In fact, Forestry Tasmania has still failed to meet the targets set in the RFA for the protection of oldgrowth Eucalyptus regnans — the tallest flowering plant on Earth.
The Howard Government has been a party to this sham, providing millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds to the logging industry and state government as ‘compensation’.
.
‘Forests Onslaught to Follow Election’
.
by Geoff Law, Tasmanian Campaign Coordinator, The Wilderness Society, 20060318, comment to an article in the Tasmanian Times of a speech made by Richard Flanagan, Parliament House Rally, Hobart, 16 March 2006, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/we-will-not-give-up/]
.
‘An onslaught of burning, logging and clearing in Tasmania’s forests will follow Saturday’s election, according to the Wilderness Society.
“New logging operations in the Styx, South Sister, Weld and Jackeys Marsh, huge new areas of tree-clearing, and another 30,000 hectares of burning are set to follow the election,” said the Society’s Tasmanian Campaign Coordinator, Geoff Law.
The burning program is set out in a brochure about forestry burn-offs distributed by Forestry Tasmania and FIAT in the Derwent Valley Gazette on Wednesday. It says: This autumn, the forest industry plans to prepare about 30,000 hectares of land for planting or sowing in patches scattered across Tasmania.
Logging is also poised to move into contentious forests in the Upper Florentine, at South Sister and unprotected parts of the Tarkine.
Mr Law said that his warning was based on:
Forestry Tasmania’s attempt to log coupe SX15A in the Styx Valley, which was put on hold two weeks ago after the efforts of a handful of protesters. The logging machinery is poised and ready to go as soon as the election is out of the way.
Forestry Tasmania’s interim draft Three Year Plan which has scheduled almost 16,000 hectares of tree-clearing for this calendar year as well as logging at South Sister, Jackeys Marsh, in the Weld and Upper Florentine Valleys and unprotected parts of the Tarkine
The brochure on burning, which presents ‘Facts about the forest industry’s planned burning program during Autumn’ and which foreshadows 30,000 hectares of burning this autumn.’
A Styx Legacy
A Eucalyptus regnans giant stump is all that remains of one of the huge trees
felled to make way for the logging road in coupe SX 15A in the Styx Valley.
^http://www.lexicon.net/peterc/Tasmania/Tas01.htm
.
‘Forestry Tasmania’s Sustainability Charter for Threatened species, communities and habitats‘
.
“Aim: Maintain viable populations of all existing animal and plant species and communities found in State forests. This will involve:
Increasing understanding of ecology and habitats of threatened species and communities and implementing appropriate management
Active participation in the management of threatened species, communities and habitats
Implementing specific strategies to protect threatened species and their habitats.”
.
A rare giant Eucalyptus regnans of the nearby Upper Florentine
(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)
.
2012 Year of the Forestry Scab?
.
In late 2011 and now going into 2012, Forestry Tasmania are at it again, trying to clearfell the Styx Valley of its old growth.
Get the lastest from the forest protest at The ObserverTree below Mount Mueller in the Styx Valley.
The white form of the Grey Goshawk is the only pure white raptor in the world. In Tasmania, Grey Goshawks, are listed as endangered species, with their nesting habitat affected by logging. It favours tall closed forests including rainforests and particularly those of the large wild tracts of tall forest across the Tarkine.
Grey Goshawks form permanent pairs that defend a home territory year round. Both sexes construct a stick nest lined with leaves high in a tree fork, and often re-use the same nest. While the female does most of the incubation, the male relieves her when she needs to feed, and catches most of the food for the young, which the female tears up for them to eat.
Bordered by the Arthur River in the north, the Pieman River in the south, the Murchison Highway in the east, and the ocean to the west, Tasmania’s wild Tarkine is a magnificent wilderness sanctuary but threatened by ongoing industrial interests from mining and logging, as well as from road making, off-road vehicles, poaching, cattle and exploitative tourism.
Scott Jordan from the Tarkine National Coalition says:
“We see it as an area containing great wilderness values, a lot of natural – as well as cultural – values. We see it as an area that really needs to be protected and enjoyed.”
Volunteer Tasmanian Environmentalist, Scott Jordan
The Tarkine National Coalition wants to see it made a national park, and protected under a World Heritage listing, before it is ruined and goes the same way as Mount Lyell.
With Tasmania’s alternating Labor and Liberal governments still hell bent on carving up Tasmania’s remaining wilderness, they have divvied up more than 50 mining exploration licences in the Tarkine.
There are some ten proposed mines set to dig up the Tarkine!
.
Whereas Alan Daley from industrial miner Tasmania Magnesite has plans to develop an open cut mine. He is reticent about identifying the Tarkine…“I’m not sure what the Tarkine is. To my knowledge there isn’t a boundary yet defined as the Tarkine.” I understand the marketing value.”
Tasmania Magnesite (Beacon Hill Resources) wants to establish an open cut magnesite mine within the Keith River area, Shree Minerals wants an open cut iron ore mine at Nelson Bay River, and Venture Minerals are planning open cut mining for tin and tungsten in the rainforest at Mount Lindsay.
Savage River MineThis is on the northern boundary of the Tarkine
.
Editor:
It has become apparent to this observer, that many of those with a broad commitment to protecting Nature are comparatively young. Whereas those ‘baby-boomer‘ industrial executives and old school Labor/Liberal politicians seem narrower in outlook, committed to pursuing 20th Century exploitation as if such business-as-usual plundering of Nature is limitless. May be I’m generalising.
. Tim Flannery:
“One of the greatest tragedies of Tasmania is that its European inhabitants have always wanted their island home to be something it is not – a little England perhaps, or the world’s largest sheep paddock or even, in later years, the Ruhr of the South (which was to be powered by Tasmania’s out-of-control hydro schemes). All such dreams have failed, but nevertheless their pursuit has cost the present generation dearly.” (Tarkine, 2010, p.4-5).
.
Tasmania’s Queenstown Left behind by 19th and 20th Century industrial minersThis is south of the Tarkine
The ObserverTree in Tasmania’s magnificent Styx Valley below Mount Mueller
(Photo source: Alan Lesheim, Dec 2011, click photo to enlarge)
Click to visit: ^The ObserverTree
.
Ta Ann, industrial logger of Tasmania’s native old growth forests, has been exposed misrepresenting its timber products as environmentally sustainable. It reflects the underhand falsehoods behind the logging propaganda of Tasmanian Sustainable Forest Management.
Forestry Tasmania, which trashes and flogs old growth timber to Ta Ann, spends lots of money concocting glossy brochures claiming forestry (euphemism for ‘logging’) engages in ecologically sustainable forest management. But it is all simply logger language belying old growth clearfell! And the clearfell continues still, this year, this month!
The following video near ‘The ObserverTree‘ shows industrial logging underway in the magnificent Styx Valley on 16th December 2011.
.
.
.
Plywood supplier to London 2012 Olympics stops buying from Ta Ann
.
Recently Jenny Weber from the Huon Valley Environment Centre went to Japan with former Greens leader Peg Putt to meet with the Japanese companies purchasing from Ta Ann. The company representatives showed concern about the environmental destruction taking place to produce the products they are purchasing.
This week, a major British importer of plywood, International Plywood, which is helping to build facilities for the London 2012 Olympics, has publicly stated that it will not be purchasing any more timber from Ta Ann, due to Ta Ann being exposed for sustainable timber misrepresentation and using vital Tasmanian old growth in its plywood veneer timber flooring. Ta Ann has been falsely selling its plywood veneer timber products claiming that the timber is certified as sustainable under the international PEFC scheme and is sourced from plantations and sustainable regrowth forests. Doesn’t say much for the ‘PEFC’ scheme! The Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) has been widely criticised by international environment groups as it is not an indicator of acceptable environmental standards and does not safeguard high conservation value from ongoing logging. No wonder Ta Ann relies on it. Forest Stewardship Council is the superior forest certification.
Environmental campaigners from Markets for Change and the Huon Valley Environment Centre travelled to England recently to meet with UK companies implicated in forest destruction. They launch a detailed report that traced Ta Ann veneer timber from Tasmania’s high conservation value forests through Malaysia to a London sports hall which will be used in training by Team USA during the 2012 London Olympics.
Tim Birch from Markets for Change was among the delegation – “We went to London to visit a number of companies to inform them of exactly what was happening“.
Ian Attwood, managing director of International Plywood, says his company is now boycotting Ta Ann’s products. Even a recent letter from the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Brian Green to International Plywood UK urging them to continue buying from Ta Ann Tasmania did not persuade the company to continue purchasing veneer plywood from Ta Ann Tasmania.
Attwood said: “We’re not there to you know, to savage the forests. You know we’re here to try and buy product in a responsible manner.”
And the response spin from Forestry Tasmania (logger of Tasmania old growth and vested interest supplier to Ta Ann) – General Manager Forestry Tasmania’s Corporate Relations and Tourism Ken Jeffreys said:
.
(Logger Logic #1): “Tasmanian timber products represent a sustainable and renewable resource with stringent forest practice standards and certifications.”
(Ed: see video above)
.
(Logger Logic #2): “If you were concerned about the planet, you would buy timber product from Tasmania, because we have the highest level of forest reservation anywhere in the world“
(Ed: have old growth, so we log it)
.
(Logger Logic #3): “If you were going to buy plywood you would buy it from Ta Ann, because Ta Ann is using a raw material that would otherwise be exported as woodchips.”
(Ed: buy old growth for veneer otherwise it’ll end up as woodchips anyway – we’ve gotta find some use for it).
London 2012 Olympics setting sustainability standards
One key reason why International Plywood is rejecting Ta Ann’s old growth plywood is that as building materials supplier to the London 2012 Olympics, International Plywood is obligated to prove its supplies are environmentally sustainable to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). The Olympic Delivery Authority’s Sustainable Development Strategy has the strict objective to identify, source, and use environmentally and socially responsible materials. . ‘Key to delivery of a sustainable development is its design, and the methods used in its construction. Also pivotal is what materials are used to construct the facilities. The materials used in the construction of the Olympic Park and venues are a key aspect of the ODA’s commitment to delivering a sustainable development. The ODA is working closely with industry bodies to allow suppliers to respond positively to the ODA’s requirements. Through this engagement, the ODA hopes to leave a lasting legacy of a more socially and environmentally responsible approach to materials use within development.
Four principles apply when sourcing materials.
Responsible sourcing
Use of secondary materials where possible
Minimising embodied impacts
Healthy materials.
.
Responsible sourcing
.
‘Suppliers will be asked to demonstrate, as appropriate, responsible sourcing of materials by providing evidence of the existence of legal sourcing, environmental management systems, or through the use of chain of custody schemes.’
‘A Timber Supplier Panel has been established for the Olympic Park to support the commitment to source 100 per cent of timber from legal and sustainable sources as defined by CPET (Central Point of Expertise on Timber Procurement) and in line with Government policy. [CPET website: ^http://www.cpet.org.uk/]
To date, all timber used in the construction of the Olympic Park meets this commitment.
The ODA received the ‘Achievement in Sustainability Award’ at the 2009 Timber Trade Journal Awards for the set up and management of the Timber Supplier Panel.
LOCOG’s Sustainable Sourcing Code states that the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification scheme is approved for the purposes of both ‘Legal Timber’ and ‘Sustainable Timber’. Where it can be robustly demonstrated that it is not possible to supply items from FSC-certified sources, then timber and timber products that can be verified with appropriate documentation in respect to their origin and legality are acceptable.’
‘Wood from forests which provide homes to some of the planet’s most endangered species is being used to construct athletes’ training facilities for next year’s London Olympics, it has been alleged. Eucalyptus trees, from forests which date back more than 1,000 years, are being logged, despite the UN World Heritage Committee’s repeated calls for that region of Tasmania to be protected.
The forests provide habitats to Tasmanian Devils, the Tasmanian Giant Freshwater Lobster and the Swift Parrot, all of which are listed as endangered species and scientists believe that the wooded area captures and stores the most carbon of any on earth per square mile.
Now though, an Australian environmental group has claimed that products made from trees felled there are being used to make a basketball court for Team USA to train on during the Games. Although the building is not being run by the London 2012 organisers Locog, in 2018 they pledged to only use sustainable timber in the construction of the Games’ venues and infrastructure, as part of a drive to make them a “truly green Games“.
And, while Athens was criticised for making “no requirements for any form of sustainable wood products” in 2004, the organisers of Beijing 2008 banned wood “obtained directly from virgin forest” and, in the run-up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, organisers pledged to only use wood which was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.
Wood in the London SportDock facility, construction of which is being lead by the University of East London (UEL), conforms to the rival Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) standard, which environmental groups attack for not going far enough to promote ethical logging. The facility will be rented by Team USA for the duration of the Games.
Though it does not contravene any law, the logging is opposed by environmental groups. Tim Birch, Chief executive of Markets for Change, which led a six-month investigation into the trade, tracing the wood from Tasmania to the London 2012 site, said:
“Tasmania’s ancient forests, which offer crucial habitat to endangered species like the Tasmanian Devil and the Tasmanian Wedge-Tailed Eagle, are being trashed so that plywood can be sold on to the international markets. It’s a tragedy that this time the trail of destruction has led to London’s Olympic Games so America’s international sports stars could be forced to play on forest destruction.”
He added that it was “essential” that companies review their procurement policies to ensure that they “end the UK’s part in wrecking some of the world’s last remaining old growth forests”.
Campaigners point to Tasmanian Government documents, which show that the Malaysian manufacturer Ta Ann received timber from logging operations undertaken within old growth areas of the forest. “Whether or not Ta Ann eventually use the old growth trees which are cut down is irrelevant, the habitats have been destroyed all the same,” said Will Mooney of the Huon Valley Environment Centre.
He added: “Even if they do not use the old growth timber to make their products, it is the demand for timber from the Tasmanian forest which means that old growth trees are nevertheless being cut down then discarded.”
But Ta Ann says that no old growth trees are used in their products, pointing out that machinery recently installed by the company is only capable of processing regrowth trees. A spokesman for Ta Ann Tasmania said that its products are produced “from regrowth timber billets harvested strictly in accordance with Australia’s forest policies and laws including the forest practices code”.
.
Greenpeace’s executive director John Sauven said:
“As a proud Londoner, I’m shocked that ancient forests crucial for conserving the world’s tallest flowering plants, the largest hardwood trees in the world, and many endangered animals are being used for flooring in London’s Olympics.
.
“British companies like International Plywood could end the destruction by ensuring they no longer do business” with companies who handle even new growth Tasmanian timber.
Both UEL and Dynamik Sport Surfaces, which installed the wooden flooring, said they were initially unaware that parts of the wood used in the flooring installed in the building was from the Tasmanian forest. UEL said that, had it been aware of the concerns over the source of the material, “it would have been considered. But hindsight is a great thing.”
A spokesman said: “We are totally committed to making sure the £21million Sports Dock facility is an environmentally friendly development and that this new facility has the best mix of sustainable materials and features.
“The International Basketball Federation has very clear specifications about what type of materials should be used when constructing a court, which will be used by professional basketball players. Following this guidance and consultation with the relevant consultant for this development, the material was sourced.”
According to Markets for Change, the wood products destined for the UEL site passed from the Malaysian logging company Ta Ann, entering Europe in the hands of International Plywood. It eventually ended up in the hands of Dynamik, which laid it as flooring.
Anil Batra, Dynamik’s Financial and Marketing Director said he was “interested in the issue, now it has been brought to our attention” but pointed out that no laws had been broken and that the wood was certified by the international PEFC.
A Ta Ann spokesman initially called said: “what a great result for Tasmania, our timber being used in the London Olympics. He claimed that the Tasmanian subsidiary uses regrowth billets of wood and operates strictly in accordance with Australian laws and sustainability requirements. He acknowledged that the Tasmanian forest is “a mosaic of regrowth and some old
growth” and said that the company can only use billets from regrowth”. He later said that the company had not carried out any production of veneer products bound for the UK and cast doubt on whether the wood used at UEL could be proven to be from his company.
Markets for Change produced images it said showed Ta Ann-branded crates at the UEL site which they said also had licence numbers identifying them as containing Ta-Ann-manufactured products.
A spokesman for International Plywood said the company did not have any current contracts with Ta Ann and would review its trading relationship with the firm, if it could be shown it was “acting in a way that would not comply with our purchasing policy standards“. However, the spokesman said it had no reason to believe that were the case and “if Ta Ann were able to supply PEFC certified plywood as they have done previously they would meet our current purchasing policy“.
A spokesman for Team USA refused to comment.’
.
Forest Defender Miranda Gibson
of Tasmanian activist group Still Wild Still Threatened, in ObserverTree
Mount Mueller Forest, Styx Valley South West Tasmania, Australia.
“To resolve the conflict over forests in Tasmania, protect native forests, and develop a strong sustainable timber industry.”
.
.
The Parties to these Principles:
.
Timber Communities Australia Ltd (TCA)
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)
The National Association of Forestry (NAFI)
The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT)
The Australian Forest Contractor’s Association (AFCA)
The Tasmanian Forest Contractors Association (TFCA)
Environment Tasmania Inc. (ET)
The Wilderness Society (TWS)
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)
Tasmanian Country Sawmiller’s Foundation (TCSF)
.
Note: Ratio of 7 to 3
.
.
‘Objectives‘ of the Parties
.
‘The parties to the Principles seek from State (Tasmanian) and Federal governments:
.
Support for an delivery of all principles in full
Interim support for the development of a plan to deliver the Principles, including:
Verification (1) of Resource Constraints
High Conservation Value Boundaries
Implementation of the Principles through an agreed, fully-funded package and timeline that maximises benefits and reduces negative impacts
Immediate interim assistance for Tasmanian harvest, haulage and silvicultural contractors
To determine with industry, a guaranteed sustainable quantity and quality of wood supply within 3 months that is outside of the identified high conservation value forests, for the period of negotiations, in order to provide certainty for the industry, workers and communities.
A progressive implementation of a moratorium on the logging of high conservation value forests commencing within 30 days – ensuring that priority, (i.e. those in the most advanced stages of planning for harvesting) HCV coupes identified by ENGO’s (2) are the first to be addressed. The full moratorium is to be completed within 3 months. Any necessity for any proposed variation to this due to unavoidable planning constraints has to be independently verified.
To provide exit assistance for industry where required; and
Not to accept new entrants into the Tasmanian industry, nor enter into new contractual relationships with the state while the negotiations are underway unless by the mutual agreement of all parties (3).
Accept that delivery of these Principles will require joint agreement of the parties to timelines and funding.
To develop an agreed stakeholder-led implementation process with a finalised full agreement within 12 months.
.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Notes:
.
(1) Draft verification process document under construction.
(2) ENGO’s in this document means those environmental non-government organisations who are parties to this document (i.e. ONLY Environment Tasmania, The Wilderness Society, and the Australian Conservation Foundation)
(3)No party shall be required to accept a Principle which would otherwise apply to it where to do so would cause a breach of an existing contract or statutory obligation.
.
.
The Principles
.
The parties agree to the following:
.
General Wood Supply
Provide a sustainable resource supply profile to industry based on an agreed minimum quantity and quality requirement for industry. This will be underpinned by legislation.
.
Native Forest Wood Supply
Subject to the provisions of the transition, as legislated Native Forest entitlements are handed back, ensure these entitlements will not be allocated nor licensed to new players.
.
HCV Forests
Immediately protect, maintain and enhance High Conservation Value Forests identified by ENGO’s on public land.
.
Transition
Transition the commodity (non specialty) forest industry out of public native forests into suitable plantations through a negotiated plan and timeline.
.
Industry
Create a strong sustainable timber industry including the development of a range of plantation based timber processing facilities including a pulp mill. There will need to be stakeholder consultation and engagement with the proponent, ENGO’s and the community.
.
Specialty Timbers
Provide for ongoing speciality timber supply including Eucalypt for our Tasmanian high value furniture and craft industries through a negotiated plan and timeline.
.
Plantations
Support sustainable and socially acceptable plantations including agreed reforms and new agro-forestry outcomes, including pursuing certification.
.
Private Forests
Encourage and support, but not mandate, private forest owners to: seek assistance for certification; and protect, maintain and enhance high conservation value forests on their properties.
.
Communities Impacted
Support impacted rural and regional communities, workers, contractors and businesses, through a range of economic development, financial assistance, compensation and retraining measures.
.
Community Engagement
Engage and involve the broad Tasmanian community in the development and implementation of a durable solution to the Tasmanian forest conflict.
.
Tourism
Develop Tasmania’s nature based tourism industry in line with these Principles.
.
Planning
Develop a fully funded, independent, scientifically led landscape conservation, restoration and integrated catchment management program, and associated governance and regulatory improvements.
.
Government
Reform and support government agencies, policies and legislation as necessary for the implementation of an agreement associated with these Principles.
.
Climate Change
Seek funding for improving carbon outcomes as a result of delivering these Principles.
.
Biomass
In Tasmania, only permit plantation forest processing and plantation harvesting residues to be used as biomass for Renewable Energy Certificates.
.
Certification
Encourage Forestry Tasmania to firstly obtain Controlled Wood accreditation on delivery of the moratorium, secondly, obtain full FSC certification on resolution of an FSC National Standard and once an agreement based on these Principles has been finalised.
.
Durability
Undertake to ensure all elements of this agreement are fulfilled on a durable basis.
.
Legislation
Require State and Federal legislation to implement agreed outcomes arising from these Principles including appropriate review mechanisms, milestones and sanctions.
.
.
Editor’s Comment:
.
The above Statement of Principles was reproduced manually due to restricted access of the official PDF document as provided on the Tasmanian Premier’s official website. The security lock down denied printing and copying.
But then as Tasmanian Labor Premier Lara Giddings studied Law, perhaps there was a legal reason for her deliberate restriction of the details to the Tasmanian public.
.
This is the Tasmanian Premier’s restricted document:
Forestry clearfell of old-growth in Tasmania’s Styx Valley
(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)
.
More than two months (on 7th August 2011) after the landmark deal that promised to bring peace to Tasmania’s forests the protests – and the logging – continue unabated.
Funding for the struggling timber industry under the landmark $276 million Gillard-Giddings deal is starting to trickle out, but as yet not one tree has been saved!
Conservationists concede they may end up with nothing to show for 18 months of torturous negotiations, while many in the industry are sceptical that the promised peace will ever be achieved. The key decisions – on how many and which forests will be saved – are bogged down in difficult detail and alleged recalcitrance. Tasmania’s upper house, meanwhile, is lining up to sink the legislation needed to create the new national parks and reserves.
Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger (right) with The Wilderness Society’s Vica Bayley
.
A key conservationist and negotiator, Environment Tasmania director Phill Pullinger, concedes to Inquirer that events could conspire to see money flow to industry without one tree ever being saved.
“To be honest, it is a possibility,” says Pullinger, a Hobart doctor and former young Tasmanian of the year. “It has always been the case that the forest protection couldn’t be permanently delivered until the legislation goes through both houses of the Tasmanian parliament.”
.
That vote is a long way off, probably well into next year. The most immediate hurdle to overcome is a row over whether the state-owned Forestry Tasmania should be allowed to continue logging in 41 coupes (forest areas). All are within 430,000ha of forests set aside for “immediate” interim protection in the Gillard-Giddings deal of August 7, known as the Forests Intergovernmental Agreement or IGA.
Forestry Tasmania insists it needs to log in these coupes, a fraction of the total area, to maintain existing contracts to timber mills. Conservationists argue Forestry Tasmania could and should reschedule logging to less ecologically significant forests. The dispute was being sorted out by an independent rescheduling team appointed by state and federal governments. Inquirer has learned this process has gone badly for conservationists, with only seven of the 41 coupes able to be protected and five already logged. Forestry Tasmania and industry claim there simply is not time to do the rescheduling work – new roads, development of forest practices plans – necessary to shift to new areas quickly enough to meet existing timber contracts.
.
‘It is a fundamental problem that has weakened the (peace) process: you’ve got a government agency that is essentially working against the agreement. And the governments haven’t shown the stomach to pull the agency into line.’’
~ Phill Pullinger, Environment Tasmania, October 2011
Conservationists claim this should have been done months ago, given that Forestry Tasmania was asked by the state government – its owner – to place a moratorium on logging in these forests in March.
“They (FT) have basically for 12 months now deliberately spun the wheels on that; there could easily have been a moratorium delivered six or nine months ago,” Pullinger says. “It is a fundamental problem that has weakened the (peace) process: you’ve got a government agency that is essentially working against the agreement. And the governments haven’t shown the stomach to pull the agency into line.”
Crew-cutting pristine Tasmanian wilderness
.
This is rare intemperate talk from Pullinger, normally diplomatic and restrained as he tries to keep his constituency in the peace tent and the process on track.
It’s a sign things are not going well. Forestry Tasmania, a government business enterprise that reports to a board and is not necessary bound by ministerial direction, denies it has been dragging the chain. While it is the party with the most to lose – up to 572,000ha of native forest it manages for timber production – corporate relations manager Ken Jeffreys insists it is acting in good faith.
“Some people out there seem to think that FT has some maniacal glint in their eye and go out and harvest forests when it has no market because it has nothing better to do,” Jeffreys complains to Inquirer. “That is so far from common sense it’s hard to respond to.“
He insists Forestry Tasmania is happy to abide by the independent reschedulers’ verdict and points out that it has already rescheduled logging out of some contentious coupes. This fight over a handful of coupes has been holding up plans under the IGA for an overall immediate interim conservation agreement between the state, Forestry Tasmania and Canberra to protect the 430,000ha. Under the IGA, this interim agreement would protect those forests while an independent verification team determines the final size and location of the new permanent reserves.
Ancient Myrtle Beech (Nothofagus cunninghamii) chainsawed in the Upper Florentine Valley, Tasmania
(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)
.
IGA Independent Verification Team
.
The independent team, overseen by academic Jonathan West, will decide how much forest, of a larger 572,000ha nominated by green groups, is worthy of protection. West’s team will also test industry claims about how much timber it requires to meet existing contracts. Then it must decide how much forest can be protected while providing this resource. The job, which unrealistically is due to be completed by December 31, is the “forest wars” equivalent of deciding where exactly the boundaries of a Palestinian state should be drawn.
Conservation groups believe that most – if not all – of the 572,000ha can be protected, once a developing plantation resource is factored in.
.
Forestry Tasmania’s position
Forestry Tasmania chief, Bob Gordon
– what IGA? It’s logging business as usual to fill ‘orders’.
.
Forestry Tasmania stands by its modelling suggesting that no more than 300,000ha can be protected if it is to deliver on current timber contracts. Some in the industry believe only 250,000ha can be saved from the chainsaws. Neither of the industry figures is unlikely to be enough for conservationists, but may well be too much for Tasmania’s independent-dominated upper house. Several recent votes in the Legislative Council suggest it is opposed to the IGA and to more forest “lock-ups”. Its refusal to pass the reserves would leave conservationists relying on a federal-state conservation agreement to protect those forests.
While such an agreement would ban logging, it is legally uncertain if Forestry Tasmania could ignore this on the basis that it conflicts with its legislative or contractual obligations.
Jeffreys insists Forestry Tasmania would abide by any final agreement, subject to being able to meet those commitments – a big out if Forestry Tasmania decided to dig in for a battle.
.
Tony Burke’s position:
.
Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke
in Tasmania’s Wielangta forest, March 2011
(Photo by Matthew Newton, Source: The Australian ) .
Despite the difficulties, federal Environment Minister Tony Burke remains confident he can pull off the kind of final “win-win” forest peace deal that has eluded so many of his predecessors. He tells Inquirer the alternative is a kind of mutually assured destruction, whereby the forests continue to fall as fast as the jobs.
The number of jobs in Tasmanian forestry has halved since 2008 from 6960 to 3460, due mainly to Japanese paper-makers boycotting woodchips sourced from native forests, Gunns exiting the industry in favour of a plantation-based pulp mill and as a result of the high Australian dollar.
“If you let the markets sort this one out without a co-ordinated strategy from state and federal government … then you end up with a terrible outcome for the Tassie economy … diabolical,” Burke says.
Initially as Forests minister and more recently as Environment Minister, Burke has been involved in the process from the beginning. The first in federal cabinet to twig to the potential to assist industry while securing a historic conservation outcome, he has repeatedly slipped quietly into Tasmania to do his own field work.
The former staffer to Graham Richardson has camped with greenies amid the giant eucalypts of the Styx Valley and toured sawmills and production forests. When the process has looked as if it were imploding, he has intervened with all sides to keep it on track. Inspired to join the ALP by landmark conservation battles such as the Daintree and Kakadu, Burke constantly stresses his desire to also secure a good outcome for jobs and industry.
He believes the (Tasmanian) Legislative Council will take a different view to new reserves when details are developed for a $120m federal regional development fund promised under the IGA. That money, to revitalise timber communities and diversify the Tasmanian economy, is contingent upon state parliament passing the new reserves legislation. No reserves; no $120m.
Burke, himself a former state upper house MP (in NSW), believes this cash for regions will ultimately win over the key 12 independent MLCs.
“Those MPs will have to look in the eyes of a whole lot of their constituents who are out of work and justify their actions,” he says. “I just don’t believe when it comes to it they’ll vote this down. This is the first time we have tried to deal with this issue with an independent process rather than a political fix. The irony this time is: can we stop politics from wrecking it, not from fixing it?”
He warns both sides will need to accept the outcome of the independent verification process. “They are honour-bound to accept the process – they created it,” he says.
This suggests Canberra will not be afraid to impose the verdict of the independent verification team if the two sides cannot embrace it – or at least an agreed variation of it. Such action may well see either side – timber or conservation – walk away.
Certainly, Pullinger won’t promise to accept the outcome if it is not embraced by both sides.
“If the independent verification group comes down and says … we are going to protect just a fraction of these forests … then – expert group or not – I don’t think anyone believes that is going to be able to deliver a lasting agreement.”
.
Editor:
The IGA deal is a deal is a promise. Why are Gillard and Giddings allowing Forestry Tasmania to renege on the deal by continuing to log these now protected native forests in Tasmania’s Styx Valley and southern forests. Why are Gillard and Giddings breaking their promise to Tasmanians?
IGA interim reserves are IGA interim reserves? The IGA offers millions in contractual compensation. So take the compensation Bob Gordon! You can’t have your compensation and interim reserves too!
Leave the bloody old growth alone!
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, 2011
– do I really have to honour that forest deal?
(Photo: The Examiner)
.
Evidence of new logging despite Tasmanian Forests Agreement
Environment Tasmania, the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation have released a report assessing the status of logging in important native forests and photographs that show new logging activity in forest reserves prescribed by the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
“The settlement and retirement of Gunns’ native forest timber quotas has halved the demand for native forest timber from Forestry Tasmania, so there is no need or justification for logging within the forest reserve areas,” said Dr Phill Pullinger of Environment Tasmania.
“Wood supply for remaining sawmills can be provided from outside of the important native forests identified for protection,” Dr Pullinger said.
“Aerial photographs taken in late August and last week show Forestry Tasmania continues to log inside the 430,000 hectares of unique and important forests identified for immediate protection in the IGA,” said Vica Bayley of the Wilderness Society.
“In fact, our report and the new photos show Forestry Tasmania has not rescheduled logging outside this area and has even commenced logging new coupes since the IGA was signed.
“While we are encouraged to see progress on key components of the intergovernmental agreement — including the retirement of Gunns’ wood quota, funding for timber workers and contractors and the independent verification group — we have seen no progress on halting logging inside the nominated forest reserve areas,” Mr Bayley said.
“Environment groups again call on the state government to honour the agreement it has signed by directing Forestry Tasmania to declare the nominated forests as informal reserves and immediately appointing an independent expert to undertake the rescheduling,” said Denise Boyd of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
The report released today is part of environment group signatories’ ongoing commitment to implementing the IGA and will provide governments with verified, accurate information to help achieve the forest protection outcomes of the IGA. The state government must now ensure delivery of the critical plank of the IGA – forest protection.
“We have seen no progress on halting logging inside the nominated forest reserve areas.”
~ Vica Bayley, The Wilderness Society
.
Forest protest continues in Mount Mueller Forest, Styx Valley (Tree Sit, Day 7)
Forest Reserve Map – ‘Interim Reserve Boundaries’ (IGA) 
