To all but the exploitation deniers, the demise of industrial logger Gunns this week was a fait accompli about a case of insular management obstinately pursuing an unsustainable business model.
Gunns plans for industrial deforestation have deservedly been condemned to civilised obsolescence like the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Fur Trade before it.
The industrial culture of taming Nature as if Man needed to compete
.
Gunns employees, contractors, suppliers, investors and lenders have all been in denial – ‘market denial‘ – a story of “corporate arrogance, complacency, denial and hubris“.
And the Tasmanian and Australian parliaments have been equally negligent in delaying the implementation of their 2011 ^TasmanianForestsIntergovernmentalAgreement to transition Tasmanians out of this dying native timber industry, as well as shunning their broader social responsibilities to dependent communities.
Gunns Pulp Mill Site
Tamar Valley, Tasmania
(an ideal job for Planet Ark to make amends)
.
They have allowed the problem to fester and to escalate. So now the inevitable crash has been all the more severe for all involved. This is a classic failure of leadership and of a parochial culture locked in 20th Century exploitism and despondently lost trying to find sustainable profit in a more complex and very different 21st Century.
A puppet passing the buck
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings tactically softens the crash: “this does not mean that the pulp mill project itself is dead”
(famous last words in Tasmania’s Parliament, last Tuesday)
[Source: ‘Giddings: Gunns ‘not the end’ of pulp mill project’, 20120925,
^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-25/giddings-not-the-end-of-pulp-mill-project/4279564]
.
‘The story of Gunns is a parable of corporate hubris. You can, as they did, corrupt the polity, cow the media, poison public life and seek to persecute those who disagree with you. You can rape the land, exterminate protected species, exploit your workers and you can even poison your neighbours. But the naked pursuit of greed at all costs will in the end destroy your public legitimacy and thus ensure your doom. Gunns was a rogue corporation and its death was a chronicle long ago foretold. The sadness is in the legacy they leave to Tasmania—the immense damage to its people, its wildlands, and its economy.’
Ta Ann Tasmania now remains the major driver of logging operations that continue to destroy large areas of old growth and high conservation value forests in Tasmania. Ta Ann Holdings is a Malaysian-based multinational logging and timber products company.
The Ta Ann Group has a track record of rainforest destruction and human rights violations in the Malaysian state of Sarawak.
The Ta Ann Group’s operations began in 1985 when a subsidiary was granted a 257,604 acre concession to extract timber in the Kapit District, in the Malaysian state of Sarawak. In recent years the conglomerate has grown substantially to be among the top five timber groups in Sarawak. The Ta Ann Group includes many subsidiaries and is worth around $US1.6billion.
The principal activities of the Ta Ann Group are in oil palm, timber concession licenses, trading logs, and manufacturing as well as the sale of sawn timber and plywood products. Japan and Europe are the main markets for structural plywood and floor base boards produced by the company.
In January 2006, Ta Ann was welcomed to Australia’s island state of Tasmania with a golden political handshake and they have since established forestry operations to sell Tasmanian wood products to customers in Japan, China and Europe.
Ta Ann’s decision to commence operations in Tasmania was likely driven by two core objectives: they were offered hardwood by the state-owned forestry company, Forestry Tasmania, at lower rates than they could access in Malaysia or Indonesia and they needed Tasmania’s ‘clean, green’ brand to access an increasingly environmentally concerned and lucrative international market.
Ta Ann received timber from Old Growth Coupe HA045E
.
Ta Ann Tasmania has rejected timber from plantations, staked its future on continued access to timber from native forests and has actively lobbied to stall an industry-wide transition to plantation harvesting. Ta Ann has received timber from the destruction of Tasmania’s world class forests, including timber from old growth forests, forests with recognised World Heritage values, threatened species habitat and other forests that are of high conservation value.
Malaysian-owned Ta Ann does not process old growth but accepts wood from forest coupes where some old growth, or forest regarded by green groups as of high conservation value, may be harvested. This has led conservation groups to attack Ta Ann’s two Tasmanian mills as the main “driver” of the destruction of many of Tasmania’s oldest and most environmentally significant forests.
Huon Valley Environment Centre (HVEC) and Markets for Change have pursued their advocacy campaign for the protection of high conservation value forests and a rapid transition out of native forests in Tasmania. This has included actually travelling to Japan to Ta Ann’s Japanese markets. They have exposed Ta Ann’s false claims of using only plantation timber. They have exposed Ta Ann’s sourcing of timber from high conservation value forests, accused Ta Ann of lying to their Japanese markets about timber certification, and directly lobbied Ta Ann’s Japanese customers to tear up their contracts with Ta Ann and instead seek timber supply that meets high environmental standards, that which the current industry in Tasmania does not meet.
‘Ta Ann’s veneer of truth‘
[Source: Huon Valley Environment Centre]
.
So when it was discovered this week that The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) on 20th August 2012 had unilaterally written a letter to the Japanese customers to ask these customers to continue to purchase timber from Ta Ann Tasmania, naturally HVEC and Markets for Change were appalled. The letter by ACF’s Don Henry and TWS Inc.’s Lyndon Schneiders requests the Japanese customers to continue to purchase the contentious wood supply that Ta Ann Tasmania is supplying.
TWS and ACF are accused of selling out Tasmania’s native forests by secretly undermining the market campaigns of fellow conservationists in Japan and Australia. TWS and ACF are accused of “treachery” and “betrayal”.
.
Markets for Change and the Huon Valley Environment Centre yesterday expressed shock and dismay at the letter, accusing ACF and TWS of secretly undermining their campaigns, which had been blamed for some cancelled contracts.
“This is an act of treachery to the forests,” Markets for Change campaigner and former Tasmanian Greens leader Peg Putt told The Australian. “TWS and ACF never had the decency to inform us that they had done this.”
Huon Valley Environment Centre campaigner Jenny Weber said the letter, sent to Ta Ann customers on August 20, seriously undermined campaigning in Japan against the veneer maker.
“It’s unprecedented that TWS and ACF are prepared to support the forest industry and undermine not only our own campaign but that of Japanese campaigners,” Ms Weber said.
“We have felt that these organisations have worked against us in the Japanese markets, and worse still they have supported a forestry industry that is not yet sustainable, committed to a transition out of native forests, and continues to log world heritage value and high conservation value forests. A forestry industry where the biggest timber company is a Malaysian logging company with a record of displacing indigenous people and environmental desecration in their home state of Sarawak.
The letter states; “As a buyer of Tasmania forests products we continue to respectfully request that you not make any decisions that could adversely affect Tasmanian suppliers during the current negotiations that are now closer to achieving a sustainable future for the forest industries in Tasmania. Far from giving peace a chance, the letters have reduced pressure for the forestry industry to come to an agreement. There is still no final forest agreement in Tasmania and the outlook is bleak as forestry industry representatives have now suspended their participation in the talks,” Ms Weber continued.
“At best the ACF TWS letters are grossly misguided, at worst they are a capitulation to industry. In either case these peak bodies have shown they are willing to support the forestry industry and deliberately undermine our campaign in secret. They have endorsed the ongoing logging of high conservation value forests for Ta Ann and their Japanese customers by making this communication with the markets.”
“This is not a time for these environment groups to lose their way and become the green tick for an unsustainable native forest logging industry in Tasmania. This is one step too far for these groups who have been waylaid by a long drawn out process that has not delivered any conservation gains and these conservation groups are endorsing the very company that contributes to the devastation of the forests for which they are trying to secure protection,” Ms Weber concluded.
“This act is undermining the chances of achieving protection of magnificent forests in Tasmania, and also the campaigns of Tasmanian, Australian and Japanese groups who have been participating in a successful markets campaign for the past twelve months”, said Peg Putt of Markets for Change.
“We have consistently asked companies receiving Ta Ann product to call for an immediate stop to logging the conservation claim in Tasmania whilst negotiations over the future protection of these forests take place, and to refuse to take wood product coming from inside this area.
“The ACF and TWS letters are clearly designed to counteract this campaign and to appease the forest industry. They repeatedly express concern for “a sustainable future for the forest industries in Tasmania”, but not for the fate of the magnificent forests under the chainsaw. We do not believe that their members and supporters are aware of or would condone their actions” Ms Putt said.
“The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and The Wilderness Society Inc. (TWS Inc) have sent false confidence to the Japanese customers of Ta Ann. This miscommunication in the markets will increase uncertainty. The fact remains that Ta Ann is shipping high conservation value forests to Japan, and these environment groups have endorsed this controversial product in the international market,” said Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Centre.
No organisation is so big that it cannot fail. It is recent logging industry appeasement that since last month has seen Planet Ark lose its environmental credibility with many.
Planet Ark was formed in 1992 and is well known for having established ‘National Tree Day’ across Australia – ‘Australia’s largest community nature event’. Planet Ark claims to be “an environmental organisation committed to encouraging positive behaviour change… We guard our independence and reputation fiercely.” ~ Planet Ark.
Yet just last month (August 2012) Sydney-based environmental not-for-profit organisation, Planet Ark, has been found out allowing its Planet Ark logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA). It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry. The deal involves Planet Ark’s public endorsement in the ‘Make It Wood’ advertising campaign which promotes the increased use of certified, responsibly sourced wood as a building material, along with the organisation’s decision to join the timber industry’s certification system for wood products, called the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS).
Yet the AFS Scheme has been found to have allowed timber to be sourced from high conservation value native forests. A timber company ticked off by the AFS was last year fined for illegal logging. AFS board member, the Victorian Government’s industrial logger, VicForests, was fined more than $200,000 by the Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment for logging over allocation. ViCforests has also lost a Supreme Court case for planning to log threatened species habitat in East Gippsland and is being taken to court this year over alleged rainforest logging.
Australian environmental groups claim that the AFS Scheme is dodgy and approves “the most appalling logging practices like we see in Indonesia and Malaysia. AFS is endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which has also been condemned globally for endorsing the certification of forest operations that destroy biodiversity, revoke human and community rights, and fail to undertake adequate engagement with key stakeholders.”
Reflex (copy paper) lost its Forestry Standard Certification by using native forest timber supplied by VicForests, yet retains AFS certification. The Tasmanian Government’s industroial logger, Forestry Tasmania, had its AFS certification renewed in July 2012, despite its ongoing clearfelling of high conservation forests and scorched earth practices that permanently destroy forest ecology and replace it with plantation timber, which it then calls ‘sustainable timber’.
So Planet Ark is not in good company. Planet Ark’s endorsement of AFS would seem to be contrary to Planet Ark’s key objective – ‘to protect and enhance the natural environment‘. It would be interesting to learn how FWPA answered Pkanet Ark’s Prospective Partners Questionnaire question #6:
.
‘What is the environmental advantage and rationale/justification for this partnership?‘
.
Conservationists have accused Planet Ark of having gone over to the ‘darkside’.
Sarah Rees from My Environment has said, “What in effect Planet Ark is doing today is endorsing logging in the Styx Valley (South West Tasmania). This is a very confusing message for consumers, given Planet Ark has such an important role to play in advising people on best brands and good wood.”
Greens Leader Christine Milne agrees. “What Planet Ark has done is they have undermined the rest of the environment movement by effectively trying to give some green wash to the native forest logging industry,” she said. “The AFS has no credibility at all. It was only dreamt up in response to the FSC standard and Australia couldn’t meet that standard. Next thing we knew we had this dodgy standard which no-one has any respect for.”
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says Planet Ark’s deal with the timber industry is a conflict of interest. “There could be a perception that who pays the piper calls the tune. And when you’re getting $700,000 in donations from the industry and part of the review of the forest standard, then it raises some serious questions of a potential conflict of interest,” he said.
“The AFS scheme concerns many environmentalists. Clear felling, environmental destruction, death of native forests,” said environmentalist Jon Dee who helped found Planet Ark twenty years ago. “We believe this campaign, tied up with the forest industry, is one step too far.”
Joint founding member, Australia’s tennis great, Pat Cash, issued a statement to ABC TV’s 7.30 programme stated:
“The deal with the forest industry and the controversy around the Peter Maddison TV advert has eroded Planet Ark’s credibility as an environmental organisation. The Planet Ark board and management team should be held accountable for this decision to work with the forest industry…Planet Ark needs to return to the values that once made it such a great organisation and withdraw from their association with the AFS and the FWPA.”
The Director of environment group My Environment, Sarah Rees, says these are confronting issues for big NGOs who traditionally don’t come out against each other. “Discussions with Planet Ark with organisations including the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace over 14 months have failed to get Planet Ark to amend its attitude to the issues of clear-fell logging.
.
“Planet Ark has dug its heels in with its message that all wood is good wood and this is just not right. The role of the environmental organisations is to ethically educate the public on forestry issues but Planet Ark has muddied that message.”
The Australian Forestry Standard provides certification for logging in extensive areas of native forests across Australia, and for wood products arising from such logging.
Watch the new promotional video ‘The Facts’ right now to see what sort of assurance the standard provides to retail customers and the Australian consumer about the forest and wood products they are purchasing.
Tasmania’s Old Growth Forests– victims of obsessive compulsive logging by Forestry Tasmania
(Photo courtesy of HVEC and Code Green)
.
Logging is not about woodchips or timber or even land clearing for plantations. It is a compulsive addiction, like compulsive hoarding.
Compulsive Logging Self Test:
Are you a compulsive logger? Answer YES or NO to the following:
.
Do you find yourself logging forests that timber markets do not consider valuable?
Do you experience difficulty or find it impossible to stop logging say for more than a week?
Do you keep your chainsaw in your ute?
When you drive past a forest, or even a tree for that matter, do you get an urge to chainsaw it?
Do you need to be told to stop chainsawing at the end of a day’s shift, even after it has become dark?
Do you have recurring dreams about falling trees?
Do you hate Monty Python’s I’m a Lumberkjack song, and become agitated and violent when hearing it played?
.
If you answered YES to most of the above questions, you maybe a compulsive logger.
.
Forestry Tasmania a Compulsive Logger
.
Despite Tasmania’s Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) on 7th August 2011 assuring immediate logging moratorium of native forests in agreed reserves, Forestry Tasmania continues to eco-rape and pillage protected native forests in defiance of this agreement.
.
IGA Clause 25 states:
‘The State will immediately place the 430,000 hectares of native forest identified in Attachment A (other than any areas that are not State forest), from the 572,000 hectares nominated by ENGOs through the Statement of Principles process, into Informal Reserves. The boundaries of this 430,000 hectares were verified through an independent verification process.’
.
Yet the Tasmanian Government’s industrial logger Forestry Tasmania displays business as usual pre-IGA (7-Aug-2011) and pre-Conservation Agreement (13-Jan-2012).
Forestry Tasmania is delinquent, operating to its own parallel agenda, despite being taxpaper funded, despite annually losing millions of taxpayer funding. It is an indulgent selfish cult offering only hand to mouth welfare to its logging members. It is currently getting stuck into Coupe BA388D in the Liffey State Forest inside the IGA Immediate Protection Area of 430,000 hectares.
.
Forestry Tasmania is characterised by the following:
Feelings of excessive doubt and caution
Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization or schedule
Excessive conscientiousness, scrupulousness, and undue preoccupation with productivity to the exclusion of pleasure and interpersonal relationships
Excessive pedantry and adherence to social conventions
Rigidity and stubbornness
Unreasonable insistence that others submit exactly to its way of doing things, or unreasonable reluctance to allow others to do things
Intrusion of insistent and unwelcome thoughts or impulses.
Tasmanian Forests Minister Bryan Green dodges questions, covering for Forestry Tasmania
.
‘The Tasmanian Greens today accused the Minister for Forests Bryan Green MP of dodging questions on whether Forestry Tasmania has entered into any new wood supply contracts since the implementation of the moratorium on logging high conservation value forests.
Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that in Parliament today the Minister would only say that Forestry Tasmania had renewed contracts with sawmills, but did not clarify whether the duration and/or volume of those contracts had been changed.
“I have asked Minister Green on numerous occasions to provide details of any contracts Forestry Tasmania has signed for logging or roading in high conservation value forests placed under a moratorium by the Forest Principles process,” Mr Booth said.
“Judging by the Minister’s refusal to answer my clear and direct question it would appear he is trying to cover for Forestry Tasmania’s refusal to comply with the IGA.”
“The Minister must clarify whether Forestry Tasmania is deliberately undermining the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement and all the hard work that has gone into it.”
“Forestry Tasmania is stuck in the past and continues to want to wage war over the Tasmanian forests by targeting areas of High Conservation Value forests.”
“The Minister for Forests must once and for all clarify what he knows about any contracts that have been signed or renewed since the moratorium was put in place.”
“I will be writing to the Minister for a full and detailed response to the question that I asked in Parliament today and I would urge him to encourage Forestry Tasmania to keep up with the expectations of Tasmanians and play their part in the implementation of the IGA.”
He’s a logger and he’s okay, he borrows for gear ‘cos Gillard ‘ll pay.
.
FORESTRY TAS:
He’s a logger, and he’s okay.
He borrows for gear cos Gillard will pay.
.
LOGGER:
I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
I go to the lavatory.
On Fridays afters, I knock off
And call into the National for tea.
.
FORESTRY TAS:
He cuts down trees. He eats his lunch.
He goes to the lavatory.
On Fridays afters, I knock off
And call into the National for tea.
He’s a logger, and he’s okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
.
LOGGER:
I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women’s clothing
And hang around in bars.
.
FORESTRY TAS:
He cuts down trees. He skips and jumps.
He likes to press wild flowers.
He puts on women’s clothing
And hangs around in bars?!
He’s a lumberjack, and he’s okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
.
LOGGER:
I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra.
I wish I’d been a girlie,
Just like my dear Papa.
. FORESTRY TAS:
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra?!
?????
What’s this? Wants to be a girlie?! Oh, My!
…X%$*&#@)*#!^@!
He’s a lumberjack, and he’s okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
He’s a lumberjack, and he’s okaaaaay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
.
.
‘An audit of Forestry Tasmania’s logging plans by environment groups shows Forestry Tasmania has not only failed to cease logging within proposed new forest reserves, but since receiving a $12.5 million government payout, it has increased the number of logging operations within the new reserve areas — a move directly at odds with the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).’
~ 9th February 2012
.
[Source: ‘Forestry Tasmania’s ongoing logging in proposed new forest reserves‘, joint publication by The Wilderness Society, Environment Tasmania, and the Australian Conservation Foundation, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/pdf/ongoing-logging-report >Read Report (pdf) ]
Tasmania’s magnificent ‘Weld Forest’
~ one of Tasmania’s rare ancient forests constantly threatened
by Tasmanian Government recidivist logger ‘Forestry Tasmania’
.
Australia’s Gillard Labor Government yesterday (20120114) announced an ‘interim legal protection for 428,000 ha’ ahead of tomorrow’s scheduled return of recidivist logging.
This appears good news which obviously the Gillard media release intends. But the process is duplicitous and sly.
Tasmania’s 2011 Forests Agreement is a community agreement about public forest protection involving taxpayer funded Forestry Tasmania so what moral right does the Labor Party have to deny the process being public – i.e. transparent and open? Why is the forest map not publicly online showing the updates of the discussions? Which 1950ha get the chainsaw and why?
Professor Jonathan West, Chair of the Independent Verification Group has a lot to answer for. Why has he not voiced outrage publicly of Forestry Tasmania’s illegal logging of the 430.000 hectares of native forests protected in Interim Reserves under the Agreement?
Relative position of the local Tasmanian community protest tree sit The Observer Tree
For ongoing updates visit The ObserverTree.org.Tasmania’s Forest Defender – Miranda Gibson
stationed in a eco-Tree Sit 60 metres above the Styx Valley Forest floor
Visit: The ObserverTree.org
…waiting for Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard to honour her personal promise to Tasmanians to protect Tasmanian old growth forests for perpetuity.
.
572,000 hectares of Tasmania’s remaining old growth
…’as agreed‘ Julia!
.
‘Tassie forests deal like a Gunn to the head’
[Source: ‘Tassie forests deal like a Gunn to the head’, by political journalist Bruce Montgomery in Hobart, ^http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/06/tasmanian-forrests-deal-gillard-and-giddings/]above the Styx .
‘The $276 million agreement that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings flaunted only a month ago as the ultimate peace deal to end the 40-year war in Tasmania’s forests is dead in the water. It comes as no surprise to those who have sought to interpret the poorly drafted provisions of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) signed by Gillard and Giddings and those of the agreement that preceded it, the so-called Statement of Principles.
The Statement of Principles was the product of those purporting to represent the Tasmanian forest industry and the conservation movement to achieve a peace, most recently under the guidance of former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty.
Both documents appear to have been the work of plant operators rather than draftspeople. Grammar and proofing blunders aside, the giant flaw in both agreements has been the right of conservation groups to identify and nominate another half a million hectares of Crown land in Tasmania to be annexed into reserves, perhaps to the status of national parks or World Heritage, in order to neuter, by law, the timber industry in Tasmania and to pay alms to its victims.
Private foresters, who manage 26% of the total forest cover, were excluded from the negotiations on the pretext that the talks did not involve forests on private land, yet clause 31 of the IGA specifically drags 885,000 hectares of private forests into the equation.
Such a deal, whether concluded at NGO or government level, was never going to pass Tasmania’s Upper House, the Legislative Council. If it did come to pass, it would seal the fate of the Labor-Green governments in Canberra and Hobart as far as Tasmanian voters were concerned.
The premise for the Statement of Principles and the IGA was that the major industrial player, Gunns, was getting out of native forest logging in favour of plantations in order to swing public and banker support behind its $2.5 billion pulp mill proposal at Long Reach on the Tamar River.
In effect, Gunns was about to place all its eggs in one basket, a world-scale pulp mill using only plantation timber. Both agreements hinged on Gunns getting government compensation for its departure from public native forests, yet the mood in Tasmania has clearly been that Gunns should get nothing; its exit from native forests was being made on purely commercial grounds; it was immaterial that it had residual rights to use the public native forests.
If the Giddings government had been responsible for giving Gunns one red cent from the overall $276 million compensation package for the IGA, it would have faced political and electoral oblivion.
We don’t know what Gunns was offered in the end. It is thought to have been $23 million, but on the proviso that it pay its debts to Forestry Tasmania, a disputed $25 million.
Yesterday the Tasmanian government confirmed Gunns had rejected the offer, though Gunns, which has been in a trading halt on the stock exchange since August 8, said nothing.
Assuming that is right, it has the option to place those forest rights on the market. Since the IGA depends on those forests being protected, the keystone to the agreement is gone.’
.
‘Tasmanian forest deal riles green groups‘
[Source: ‘Tasmanian forest deal riles green groups’, by Lanai Vasek and Matthew Denholm, ‘The Australian’, 20120113, The Australian: ^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tasmanian-forest-deal-riles-green-groups/story-fn59niix-1226243780040]
.
The Gillard Labor Government has announced interim legal protection for 428,000 ha of Tasmania’s forests, but has been accused of reneging on a deal to deliver a larger logging ban.
Australia’s 27th Prime Minister, The Hon. Julia Gillard (June 2010 – ?)
In her vital and privileged position, she has the power, influence, connections and taxpayer resources
to protect Tasmania’s 572,000 hectares of old growth native forests consistent with the IGA.
As usual, it comes down to political will, courage and innovative thinking – which is what we expect of our leaders.
.
Environment Minister Tony Burke announced the move today after the Greens suspended normal relations with the government in protest at continues logging of areas deemed sensitive.
The new Conservation Agreement with the Tasmanian Government falls 1950ha short of the forest protection promised under last year’s intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Gillard and Giddings governments.
This provoked an angry reaction from environment groups, who said it had “shaken” their confidence in the two governments’ ability to deliver a broader agreement to protect up to 572,000ha.
And Greens leader Bob Brown said it was “a blueprint for the destruction of more than 20 square kilometres of high-conservation value forests”.
…The agreement provides legal protection to the area until an independent process decides how much of the larger area of 572,000ha deserves protection and can be locked up without harming existing timber contracts.
Mr Burke said the new interim deal was good for both forest conservation and jobs and would allow all parties to focus on supporting the longer-term independent verification process, expected to complete by June.
“With this agreement in place, all parties can now concentrate their efforts on assisting the important work of the Independent Verification Group, which is assessing the conservation values of the entire 572,000ha nominated by environmental non-governmental organisations, in addition to verifying long-term timber supply requirements,” Mr Burke said.
“This is a good result for Tasmania’s forestry industry, for local jobs and communities while protecting Tasmania’s iconic forests.”
However, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Environment Tasmania all condemned the two governments for allowing logging in the 1950 ha, saying this included iconic, ancient forests in the Styx Valley, Weld Valley and The Tarkine, including endangered species habitat.
Earlier this week Greens leader Bob Brown said he would not resume his regular meetings with Julia Gillard once parliament returns next month unless she committed to ending logging. This afternoon, Senator Brown said he remained open to ad-hoc talks with Ms Gillard, who will visit Tasmania on the weekend, but accused her of reneging on the promise to protect the full 430,000ha in the IGA announced in August last year.
.
How is Tasmania’s Premier Lara Giddings dealing with the colonial cultural right to log Tasmania’s remaining ancient forests?
Only when Tasmania’s condemned old growth forest is ultimately logged, will neanderthal loggers ugg…
.
‘Where’s me big trees gone’ ?
.
Bill Kelty’s drafting of the IGA was a contradictory hoodwink
.
While the public message is $276 million (no less) to exit native forests and a logging moratorium, what is Lara Giddings saying privately to Forestry that we see its business as usual pursuing old growth logging self-righteously on its perceived right to log?
Under the conservation agreement, the Tasmanian government agency Forestry Tasmania is restrained from logging swathes of disputed public forest while the deal is settled. However, evidence has been found of Forestry Tasmania continuing to penetrate its logging deep into these wilderness forests. Meanwhile the contradictory message by the Giddings Labor Government to the Tasmanian forest industry is that it has a ‘guaranteed wood supply‘.
Perhaps having the $276 million cake she says its ok to log the forest too!
In 2004 the Timber Workers for Forests (TWFF) defended their “statutory requirement that a minimum of 300,000 m3 of high quality Eucalypt veneer and sawlog be made available annually.” It’s ‘Logging Statutory Requirement‘ versus ‘Native Logging Moratorium‘ allowing a duplicitous and sly parallel government message process.
Bill Kelty’s drafting of the IGA was worse that a compromise. Its complex and contradictory legalese was a hookwink. Kelty’s wording allowed Forestry to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand it promises Conservation (lumped as “ENGO’s”) under Clauses 25, 26 and 27 …”The State will immediately place the 430,000 ha of native forest…into Informal Reserves.”
While at the same time it also guarantees Forestry wood supply for the remaining industry under Clause 17…”At least 155 000 thousand cubic metres per year of high quality sawlog, by regulation, 265 000 metres per year of peeler billets, a speciality timber supply, noting that the industry claim is 12,500 cubic metres per year, subject to verification.”
So Forestry has has a window of logging opportunity to go for it while Professor Jonathan West’s Independent Verification Group decides the exact boundaries of the 430,000 and 572,000 for either protection or the chainsaw (Clause 20). That decision was due 31st Dec 2011, two weeks ago.
.
“It is little wonder that many Tasmanians now worry that the woodchippers’ greed destroys not only their natural heritage, but distorts their parliament, deforms their polity and poisons their society. And perhaps it is for that reason that the battle for forests in Tasmania is as much about free speech and democracy – about a people’s right to exercise some control over their destiny, about their desire to have a better, freer society – as it is about wild lands.”
Logging invades Tasmania’s South-West wilderness in the Huon valley,
not far downstream of the above photo.
This logging is ruining the integrity of the adjacent Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area
whose boundaries have been drawn to protect the treeless mountaintops
and leave the forested valleys to the loggers.
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.
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)
“The moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.”
~ attributed to Goethe.
Miranda – Defender of Tasmania’s Forest Heritage
at the foot of ‘The Observer Tree‘
Mount Mueller Forest, Styx Valley, Tasmania .
One young Tasmanian woman, charged with a deep commitment to her natural island heritage, continues to be prepared to do more to protect Tasmanian old growth forests than most Tasmanians. Miranda Gibson of Still Wild Still Threatened is certainly prepared to do more than the current (read ‘temporary‘) Premier of Tasmania Lara Giddings, and more than the current (read ‘temporary‘) Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, who have quickly turned their backs on Tasmanians to more populist party-political issues of the day.
.
Tasmania’s Forest Wars
– what the Intergovernmental Agreement is supposed to resolve.
.
Gillard and Giddings in breach of Tasmania’s 2011 Forest Agreement
.
Tasmanians are condemning government delinquency on meeting the conservation goals contained in the Gillard Labor Government’s Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) signed and promised to all Tasmanians in Launceston on 7th August 2011.
Giddings and Gillard
– hollow Labor promises
.
IGA Clause 25 states:
.
‘The State will immediately place the 430,000 ha of native forest identified in Attachment A (other than any areas which are not State forest) from the 572,000 ha nominated by ENGOs through the Statement of Principles process, into Informal Reserves.’
.
IGA Clause 27 states:
.
‘In the event that Forestry Tasmania reports that it cannot meet contractual requirements from production resources outside the nominated 430,000 ha the Governments will undertake the following steps. First, an independent expert will be jointly appointed by the Governments to review scheduling and other relevant data and attempt to reschedule harvesting activities so as to meet the requirements of contracts and maintain the interim protection of 430,000 ha. In the event that the independent expert concludes it is impossible to achieve this, the Commonwealth will compensate the contract holder for the value of lost profits and unavoidable costs.’
.
Gillard’s fly-in to Launceston on 7th August 2011 to sign and celebrate the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement with Labor mate Giddings was not a mere plaque unveiling, it was a Tasmanian landmark agreement to provide certainty for Tasmania’s forestry industry, support local jobs and communities, and protect the state’s ancient forests. It deserves the respect of commitment and follow through on promise.
On the one hand it has funded Forestry and its associated families hundreds of millions and with a dignified exit from logging and transition to alternate trades. On the other hand Gillard’s Forest Agreement guarantees protection for Tasmania’s natural but threatened heritage – its most iconic ancient forests, immediately placing 430,000 hectares of iconic old growth native forest into informal reserve – the Styx, Upper Florentine, Huon, Picton and Weld Valleys and the Great Western Tiers, Tarkine and Wielangta.
.
Gillard’s promise made to the Australian people (Prime Minister Gillard’s official website):
.
‘These forests will not be accessed for harvest while verification takes place.‘.
Well, verification is still taking place. And Bill Kelty, who brokered the deal, seems to have run to the hills.
Such a landmark State-wide agreement that promises a ‘strong foundation‘ is hollow if the leadership waddles off to be distracted by other issue so the day, without the committed delegation of trusted lieutenants to see through on implementation. Predecessor PM Kevin Rudd failed classically on the implementation phase of his policy – insulation being his and Garrett’s multi-million dollar incompetent legacy.
“The Australian and Tasmanian governments are taking too long to implement the intergovernmental agreement. If they can get their act together to offer contractors exit packages then they can honour the conservation agreement as well.” Greens Senator Bob Brown has said. “Four months later not one hectare has been protected and Forestry Tasmania continues to fell these magnificent trees as fast as they can put the roads in. All up, more than 10km2 of our wild forests will be destroyed“, Greens Senator Brown said.
All political leaders, while dancing on mountains of power and influence, pragmatically realise that their time in office is temporary. Status quo is not a characteristic of modern democratic politics. What matters most in political careers is legacy. Australia’s current Prime Minister Julia Gillard is starting to stare that legacy in the face as she allows Premier Lara Giddings to breaking the $276 million promise by backing Forestry Tasmania’s current logging of the 430,000 hectares of old growth forest protected under the Gillard Government’s Agreement.
.
Tasmanian Betrayal
.
Gillard and Giddings have allowed Forestry Tasmania to log the protected 430,000 hectares, ignoring the prescribed compensation requirement. Gillard and Giddings have blatantly reneged on their core promise in the Agreement to cease logging and to protect these forests. Gillard and Giddings have betrayed the Tasmanian and Australian people. They have no mandate to stay in power. Their broken promises are to be their legacies.
.
“Those who cannot work with their hearts achieve but a hollow, half-hearted success that breeds bitterness all around”
~ Abdul Kalam, President of India (b.1931)
Styx Valley Giants being massacred by State logger ‘Forestry Tasmania’
.
Tasmania sells itself as ‘the natural state’. But there is a gap between rhetoric and reality as logging of old-growth forests continues – to international dismay.
“And they have these big logs, and you just know they are coming from old-growth forests…I don’t think I could take living there and seeing them every day knowing (the trees) are going mostly to woodchips.” ~ Larraine Herrick or Tumbarumba, Snowy Mountains, New South Wales.
But the Styx has been, and (is continuing) to be, logged by the timber industry in a state in which questions have been repeatedly raised about whether cronyism, corruption and deception underlie the management of forests. Only discovered in 2002, El Grande was a Eucalyptus regnans with a 19-metre circumference. Last autumn (2003), it was killed when a regeneration burn went wrong. Its demise helped fuel a midwinter protest that drew more than 2000 people to the Styx Valley. There, The Wilderness Society and Greenpeace began a tree-sit, 65 metres up a threatened giant eucalypt called Gandalf Staff.
Tasmanian forests activist organisation Still Wild Still Threatened have called on the Federal and State governments to honour a $276 million forest deal made on 7th August 2011.
“This deal has already seen $35 million delivered to Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd. without protecting a single tree” said Still Wild Still Threatened spokesperson Ali Alishah.
“It is clear that by backing Forestry Tasmania’s destructive practices within the identified 430,000 ha area of high conservation value native forest, the State and Federal Governments are in direct violation of Clauses 25 and 27 of their own Inter Governmental Agreement.” said Mr. Alishah.
.
.
.
The Observer Tree
Miranda Gibson on top of The Observer TreeTotally committed to Tasmanian Forests, unlike Gillard and Giddings hollow words.
.
Still Wild Still Threatened have this week launched a new tool in the fight to protect Tasmania’s forests today, unveiling the ‘ObserverTree‘, a 17-storey high tree sit and media centre equipped with the technology to record footage of logging operations and stream these images live to the world via the internet.
The Observer Tree is located in the Styx Forest below Mt Mueller, in Tasmania’s western wilderness, part of the 430,000 ha of forest that was supposed to receive immediate protection under the federal-state agreement on forests (the IGA). The Observer Tree is situated at the head of a section of Styx Forest currently targeted for logging by Forestry Tasmania.
Teacher, author and forest activist, Miranda Gibson, has vowed to occupy the tree-platform continuously, until real protection is secured for Tasmania’s forests. Ms Gibson will maintain a daily blog and upload video updates during her stay in the tree, documenting the struggle to protect Tasmania’s forests to concerned people all over the globe.
‘We have used the internet to connect this spectacular patch of threatened Tasmanian forest to the world. The Observer Tree will transmit images and information about the value of the thousands of hectares of forest that remain threatened if Julia Gillard does not keep her word. People across Australia and the globe will have the opportunity to view bear witness to the wasteful destruction of these forests and hear from the people fighting to protect them,’ said Ms Gibson.
For the first time their actual logging will be broadcast live internationally via the web.
Google Earth’s satellite image of the Observer Tree in dense old-growth, adjacent to Forestry Tasmania’s fresh logging road
(click photo to enlarge)
.
Close up image
(click photo to enlarge)
.
.
Monday: Forestry Tasmania attacks the Styx Forest
.
On Monday 12th December 2011, State forest ‘nazi logger’, Forestry Tasmania, under the command of District Officer(Gauführer) Steve Whitely, rolled in its contracted ‘ecodeath-squad’ into the western end of the magnificent Styx Valley. The targeted forest area is situated at the base of Tasmania’s prominent and wild Mt Mueller on the border of the World Heritage Area. It is situated about 25 km west of the infamous logging town of Maydena.
Directing the logging – Forestry Tasmania’s Steve Whiteley
[Source: Southern Cross Television, 20111214]
.
In true forest nazi style, Forestry Tasmania’s targeted forest area is branded as coupe ‘TN 044B‘.
Logging Nazi in and destroying the Styx Valley Forest
Monday 12th December 2011, in direct breach of Prime Minister Gillard’s Forest Agreement.
.
This ‘Madill’ feller buncher was getting well stuck into the Styx Valley last Monday morning just below the Observer Tree. The hydraulic arm clamps onto the trunk of the tree while a cutting mechanism severs the tree at the stump. The machine then lifts the tree, lowers the tree into a horizontal position, and drops the tree on a bunch of logs piled on the ground. The industrial machinery has all the efficiency of a Nazi death factory.
.
.
Foresty Tasmania is operating in direct contradiction of IGA Clauses 25 and 27. The coupes within the 430,000 ha of high conservation value forest are not to be logged under any condition. The IGA prescribes that relevant customers and contractors are to be granted compensation and million have been set aside for this purpose. Foresty Tasmania under Gauführer Steve Whitely is out of control. He is driving ecological apocalypse in Tasmania’s southern forests. He has become a Walter E. Kurtz.
Unprotected ancient native forests around Tasmania’s Recherche Bay
(Photo by Bob Brown)
.
Despite Tasmania’s Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) on 7th August 2011 assuring immediate logging moratorium of native forests in agreed reserves, Forestry Tasmania continues to eco-rape and pillage protected native forests in defiance of this agreement.
IGA Clause 25 states:
‘The State will immediately place the 430,000 hectares of native forest identified in Attachment A (other than any areas that are not State forest), from the 572,000 hectares nominated by ENGOs through the Statement of Principles process, into Informal Reserves. The boundaries of this 430,000 hectares were verified through an independent verification process.’
The southern forests around Recherche Bay were agreed to be included into the Informal Reserves through the Independent Verification Process.
So by embarking on new logging in these Informal Reserves, clearly Forestry Tasmania is in breach of the IGA and operating out of the control of the Tasmanian Government. Forestry Tasmania is logging Tasmania like there’s no tomorrow, because it knows there it has no tomorrow. The business is seriously loss-making. It’s continuing unfettered destruction of Tasmanian native forests is akin to the calculated genocide of Sri Lankan Tamils in May 2009 by the Sinhalese Sri Lankan dictator Mahinda Rajapaksa. Forestry Tasmania’s manic mindset has it logging and woodchipping native forests until they’re all decimated. And Lala’s Labor Government doesn’t have the gumption to enforce the moratorium on its own renegade department.
Not only is this organisation out of control, it has no market for its woodchip product. The logs are trucked to woodchipping mills only to be stockpiled with nowhere to go. With no income, it is a business heading for collapse. Unpaid wages will likely remain that way, when the doors are finally closed up. Meanwhile Tasmania’s remaining old growth forests are being logged and the ancient vital ecology decimated.
Loaded logging truck (New Norfolk, 20110929)
(Photo by editor, free in public domain)
.
Conservationists are this morning conducting a protest in a logging area in the far south of Tasmania, where world heritage value forests are being clearfelled.
.
Huon Valley Environment Centre’s Jenny Weber says:
‘Tasmania’s world heritage value forests continue to be logged despite yesterday’s controversial announcement that woodchips shipments have been postponed by Tasmania’s only export woodchipping company, Artec (Artec Pty Ltd, Lilydale).’
‘Ta Ann is driving logging in contentious forests, and woodchip logs are leaving these same forests regardless of a viable market for the timber. The Tasmanian taxpayers are subsidising a logging industry that is economically unviable and environmentally unsustainable.’
‘This morning at Catamaran, in threatened forest behind Recherche Bay, a conservationist is in a tree sit, and thirteen people are halting logging. Huon Valley Environment Centre is repeating it’s calls for the immediate end to logging in this forest that borders the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, (TWWHA).’
.
Logging in this area, identified by Forestry Tasmania as CM004C, commenced after the Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Premier Lara Giddings announced the Inter-governmental Agreement on 7th August 2011 would provide ‘immediate protection in informal reserves’ for forests such as these.
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard
signing the Tasmanian Forests Agreement, 7th August 2011
.
Forestry Tasmania Coupe ‘CM004C’ is located within the 572 000ha of identified forests for legislated protection. Last week conservationists participated in a protest in the coupe, and it was revealed that the area is being clearfelled for Ta Ann, export peeler logs and woodchip logs.
Forestry Tasmania’s cable logging of The Weld Forest, 2009
Tasmanian Southern Forests
(Huon Valley Environment Centre)
(click image to link to slide show)
IGA Clause 26 states:
.
‘The State will ensure that, until the further independent verification process required under Clause 20 is completed, wood supply required under Clause 17 will be sourced from outside the 572,000 hectares of ENGO-nominated High Conservation
Value forest area unless the remaining State Forest area is insufficient to meet the contractually specified quality and quantity of wood supply. Where this is the case, the Tasmanian Government will ensure that wood supplies are sourced outside the 430,000 hectares placed in Informal Reserves. The Tasmanian Government will ensure that the 430,000 hectares of State Forest identified in Attachment A is not accessed’
.
Analysis:
There are copious hundreds of hectares of Tasmanian forest area available outside the 572, 000 hectares of ENGO-nominated High Conservation Value forest area.
The Lala Labor Government by not ensuring wood supply is sourced outside the 430,000 ha in Informal Reserves is not accessed, and thus in prima facie breach of the IGA. Lala Labor is deliberately and mischievously exercising selective deafness by not listening to ENGO accusations of the breach of the IGA terms. Labor as head wolf of the chicken pen, turning a blind eye to its fellow wolves while they help themselves to the plunder.
The Gillard Labor Government is in breach of IGA Clause 27, by failing to act on this trigger ‘to appoint independent expert specifically to review scheduling and other relevant data and attempt to reschedule harvesting activities so as to meet the requirements of contracts and maintain the interim protection of the 430,000 hectares’. The option of log anyway is not an option. The prescribed option under IGA Clause 27, is that the Commonwealth will instead compensate the contract holder for the value of lost profits and unavoidable costs.
Both Governments, by sitting on their hands as forests in the Informal Reserves are logged, are in breach of the spirit of the Agreement.
.
.
2009: ‘Woodchip stockpile in Tasmania a ‘health risk’
The woodchip stockpile in Burnie could pose a “significant health risk”, according to an expert opinion being assessed by health authorities. Tasmanian Director of Public Health Roscoe Taylor said the advice that the stockpile would at times contain Legionella bacteria is being examined.
“I have actually asked someone to have a look at it — we’ll be taking a look at it,” Dr Taylor said.The advice from Legionella expert Trevor Steele concludes the bottom layer of the stockpile on Burnie’s wharf would “undoubtedly” contain Legionella at times. Dr Steele warned the bacteria’s dispersal via dust could pose a significant health risk to townsfolk near the wharf and to workers at the port.
“It (the bottom layer) will at times undoubtedly contain Legionella and these could multiply there given the right conditions,” he said.
“This layer would also act as a source to contaminate newly arrived woodchips, setting the stage for a new cycle of Legionella growth.
“Dispersal of dust … containing these organisms could pose a significant health risk to susceptible persons working in, or residing in, adjacent residential or business districts, as well as to susceptible workers on the Gunns site and in the port area.”
Dr Steele was commissioned to provide the advice by Royal Hobart Hospital physician Frank Nicklason. Last week, Dr Nicklason apologised to timber company Gunns for his 2004 statement that the woodchip pile “almost certainly” had Legionella present that could blow across Burnie. However, he said his concerns about the potential for public health risks from the pile — initially sparked by several Legionella cases in Burnie — remained.
Dr Nicklason said he accepted that Gunns’ sampling in 2002 had not found Legionella in the pile. However, he said Dr Steele’s findings, from July this year, contributed to his concern and warranted further investigation.
Gunns’ own advice, conducted independently in 2002 and released under Freedom of Information, found that the available evidence “suggests strongly” that the bottom layer is “not a reservoir for Legionella”.
However, Dr Steele, formerly director of clinical microbiology at the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide, disagreed.
“To claim that the sacrificial layer did not contain Legionella on the basis of two tests of small samples is misleading,” he says.
He agreed the bottom layer, because it was relatively undisturbed, was unlikely to pose much risk to the community, but that this did not mean there was no risk, since Legionella there could contaminate new woodchips.
When asked whether Gunns stood by its own findings, a spokesman said: “We don’t have to: Dr Nicklason has stood by it.
“At the time Dr Nicklason gave this apology he was in possession of the Steele report. His attempt to retract his apology by reference to this report is hypocritical, disingenuous and beggars belief.”
Dr Nicklason said his “carefully worded” apology — made as part of settlement of defamation proceedings — merely acknowledged that Legionella had not been found in samples taken by Gunns, and that its report had concluded there was “no available data” to implicate woodchips as a microbial health risk.
There are few detailed studies of Legionella in woodchip piles, although Dr Steele has found the bacteria present in all forms of composting and degrading wood products, including woodchips.
On the basis of his work, Dr Steele believes that conditions in woodchip stockpiles are ideal for Legionella and other micro-organisms that require moisture and warmth.
Legionella is thought to spread by people inhaling the bacteria contained in tiny water droplets, known as aerosols, or in dust.
Over the years, there have been complaints about dust and debris blowing from the stockpile to the Burnie CBD, adjacent to the port.
These have been focused on days of easterly winds, which occur about 20per cent of the time, and when woodchips were being loaded on to ships.
The 2002 Gunns report, conducted by Adelaide environmental health expert Richard Bentham, pointed out that survival of Legionella in aerosols was “highly dependent upon ambient weather conditions”.
For this reason, Dr Bentham concluded the health risks from the Burnie pile were “most probably confined to employees or contractors working on the site” and that transmission beyond the port area was “unlikely”.
However, Dr Steele says Legionella “could survive well in dust travelling long distances, even in adverse climatic conditions”. He cites instances of up to 20km.
.
.
.
Recherche Bay – a brief background
.French explorer D’Entrecasteaux led his ships to grateful shelter in Recherche Bay, southwest of Hobart, in 1792 and 1793, recording “ancient forests, in which the sound of an axe had never been heard”. Barely 200 years later, the forest of Recherche Bay is being threatened by the sound, not merely of axes, but of bulldozers and chainsaws.In spite of public protest and National Heritage listing, the green light to log the area has been given.
24/1/06 Entrepreneur/adventurer Dick Smith offers $100,000 towards the purchase of Recherche Bay plus a $1.9 million no-interest loan to be paid back within 12 months.
5/11/05 Over 5000 people rally in Hobart for the protection of Recherche Bay. Bob Brown launches a bid to purchase the peninsula, asking people to pledge units of $1,000 to raise the money. Bob pledges $5,000.
6/10/05 Senator Ian Campbell announces Recherche Bay will be placed on the National Heritage list but says logging will still go ahead.
19/8/05 Launch of Bob Brown’s photographic exhibition and book, Tasmania’s Recherche Bay
27/4/05 Actor David Wenham and director Robert Connolly fly over Recherche Bay and visit the tall trees in the Styx Valley, stating their support for conservation.
20/4/05 Tasmanian Greens leader Peg Putt calls on French scientists to help save Recherche Bay
17/4/05 1000 people rally on site to protect Recherche Bay
Nov, 03 Tasmanian Heritage Council recommends the protection of the north east peninsula for its cultural significance.
[Source: Bob Elliston, Hobart, Green Left Weekly, 19931117, ^http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/34677]A five-year campaign to save part of historic Recherche Bay, in south-east Tasmania, has been won, with all parties involved having achieved a satisfactory resolution. The agreement was announced on February 8 by Labor Premier Paul Lennon.Thanks mostly to the support of well-known philanthropist Dick Smith, the tireless negotiations of Greens Senator Bob Brown and the decency of owners David and Robert Vernon, 142 hectares of forest will now be purchased by the Tasmanian Land Conservancy for $2.21 million.Recherche Bay had been under the threat of logging by Gunns Ltd since a contract with the owners was signed in 1998. The bay became home to a French expedition to observe the Earth’s magnetic field in 1792 and 1793. Had logging gone ahead, today’s very destructive logging techniques would have destroyed any chance for useful archaeology of the site to be conducted.Under the deal, Dick Smith will lend the Conservancy group $2 million, $100,000 of which is a personal donation. The state government, which initially supported the Vernon brothers’ decision to have the area logged, has now agreed to assist with $210,000 towards the cost of the land. In addition, the government will waive the $80,000 it would have collected in stamp duty. donations exceeding $238,000 have already been pledged.Although the small forest will not be harvested, no jobs will be lost. More jobs are likely to be generated in services supporting the local community and scientific interest.
However, the deal is not without its critics. Terry Edwards, CEO of the Forestry Industries Association, is distressed that the forest will continue to grow, rather than be turned into cash for Gunns. Newly appointed federal forests minister and Tasmanian senator Eric Abetz has also criticised the agreement, describing it as “a grubby deal”. According to Abetz, the area “has no heritage value”.
‘The HVEC and Code Green have taken direct action on Tassie’s forest floor this morning to highlight ongoing logging in high conservation value forests that were supposed to be protected under the Inter-governmental Agreement. Campaigners are currently taking simultaneous action in two logging coupes in the north and south of the island – RS117C on Roses Tier, north of Ben Lomond, and in the Catamaran area, where forests are being logged behind Recherche Bay.
“This is an area that should have been given immediate protection on March 15 this year. Instead we are still seeing machines clearing what has been identified by both the State and Federal Governments as being of high conservation value.” Said Jared Irwin, spokesperson for Code Green.
“The lost values of these forests that are bordering the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is such a tragedy, when the logging commenced after the State and Federal Governments announced they would be protected in August 2011,” Said Jenny Weber, Huon Valley Environment Centre’s spokesperson.’
[4] ‘The Axe Had Never Sounded: place, people and heritage of Recherche Bay, Tasmania’, by John Mulvaney, published by ANU E Press and Aboriginal History Incorporated, ANU E Press,
‘A thriving sawmilling industry existed at two centres around the bay by 1900. The steam-driven mill continued at Waterhole Cove until 1868. Then the industry faltered until 1884, when large sawmills were established by the Catamaran River and at Leprena on the western side of the northern bay. By 1900 the population living there exceeded 100 at each centre. It was around the turn of the century that coal mining also offered employment, and an active industrial period followed for a few years. The seams of coal proved limited or uneconomic. As trees were felled, their distance from the sawmill increased. This required timber rail tramways establishing a network radiating out from an area and moved on when that area was harvested. The same applied to transporting coal.
By 1939 a complex network radiated from harbour-based centres at Catamaran, Leprena and Cockle Creek. Traces of these lines survive today in regrowth forests.[1] One moss-covered segment runs by the shore on the north-eastern peninsula in the area of the French activities in 1792.
The timber industry is necessarily situated in forests, so bushfires prove a recurring hazard. The Catamaran mill was destroyed in a 1914 bushfire, coinciding with the abandonment of the coal mine there. The spasmodic and transitory nature of frontier employment was again demonstrated at Recherche Bay when the community of around 100 people, supporting a school and a store, faced sudden unemployment. Today the media feature factory closures and speculate about the future employment of the urban employees. The history of much of rural Australia also has been a boom and bust story of employment, as rural industries prosper then fold. Recherche Bay is a classic example. On a smaller scale than urban plant closures, the impact upon the families dependant upon a timber mill or colliery was no less drastic.’
[Chapter 13. Good and Bad Times]
The State will ensure that, until the further independent verification process required under Clause 20 is completed, wood supply required under Clause 17 will be sourced from outside the 572,000 hectares of ENGO-nominated High Conservation Value forest area unless the remaining State Forest area is insufficient to meet the contractually specified quality and quantity of wood supply. Where this is the case, the Tasmanian Government will ensure that wood supplies are sourced outside the 430,000 hectares placed in Informal Reserves. The Tasmanian Government will ensure that the 430,000 hectares of State Forest identified in Attachment A is not accessed. Where harvesting work has already begun in coupes within the nominated 430,000 hectares, rescheduling will occur as soon as practical and a list of coupes that will be harvested will be agreed by the Governments and the signatories, advised by the Independent Verification Group, within two weeks of the signing of this agreement. If sourcing of wood supply from within the 572,000 hectares is considered to be necessary under any circumstances, the Governments will immediately consult with the Reference Group of Signatories and the Independent Verification Group in order to inform them of the basis for sourcing wood supply in those areas, and with the intention of providing this supply in a way that minimises impacts on conservation values.
During the independent verification process, in the event that Forestry Tasmania reports that it cannot meet contractual requirements from production resources outside the nominated 430,000 hectares, the Governments will undertake the following steps. First, an independent expert will be jointly appointed by the Governments to review scheduling and other relevant data and attempt to reschedule harvesting activities so as to meet the requirements of contracts and maintain the interim protection of the 430,000 hectares. In the event that the independent expert concludes that it is impossible to achieve this through rescheduling on a reasonable commercial basis or through sourcing alternative supplies, the Commonwealth will compensate the contract holder for the value of lost profits and unavoidable costs. Any such costs will be met, in the first instance, from within the $7 million payment in financial year 2011-12 referred to in Clause 35.
The following article is a selected summary of relevant information sourced from the Tasmania Times (TT) online newspaper from articles and reader comments (October 2011) concerning the revelation that Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings unnecessarily paid $34.5 million of taxpayers money to industrial logger Gunns as compensation for it exiting native forestry.
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings (2011- )
What will be her legacy ~ accountable and faithful to the people of Tasmania?
.
The Charge:
.
Previously secret communications between Gunns and Forestry Tasmania, obtained by the Liberals under Right to Information laws, blows a massive hole in (Tasmanian Labor Premier) Lara Giddings’ claim that she had no option but to pay Gunns’ $34.5 million in compensation for exiting native forestry. (NOTE: The $34.5 million = 23m for Gunns residual rights and $11.5m to settle the dispute with FT.)
A letter, dated 18 April 2011, from Gunns Chairman Chris Newman, to Forestry Tasmania Chairman Adrian Kloeden, reveals that Gunns not only wrote to Forestry Tasmania to formally terminate their native wood supply contracts (917 and 918) in April this year, they also offered to terminate the contracts on a “full release and indemnity basis.”
In part, the letter reads: “Gunns therefore wishes to terminate CoS 917 and 918…To the extent that FT requires formal notice, please treat this letter as notice of termination under clauses 3.3(b)(i) of Cos917 and 3.3(b)(ii) of CoS918.
.
“While Gunns remains ready, willing and able to perform its contractual obligations under CoS 917 and 918 during the notice period, we consider than an immediate separation would be in the interests of Gunns, FT and the Tasmanian forestry industry generally…“I therefore propose CoS 917 and 918 be terminated on a full release and indemnity basis in respect of any and all outstanding issues.”
.
Mr Newman also offered to help Forestry Tasmania gain access into the (immoral and greedy) Chinese Woodchip Market, including introducing FT to Gunns’ customers and also offered to hand over roading infrastructure to the value of $200 million over to Forestry Tasmania.
Asian appetite for woodchips cares squat about the forest source, cares squat about the means.Tasmanians understand: Asian corporate culture is single bottom line: Personal ends justifying any eco-social means to maximise personal economic wealth!
.
.
A Tasmanian Case to Answer:
Tasmania’s traditional Coat of Arms‘Ubertas et Fidelitas’? …”fertility and faithfulness”
.
The significance of this letter cannot be under-estimated. Under the hand of Gunns’ chairman, Gunns voluntarily wrote to Forestry Tasmania to terminate its contracts ‘immediately’ on the 18th of April 2011 requesting an ‘immediate separation’ which clearly would have extinguished the Premier’s so-called “residual rights”.
This is supported by the advice of Forestry Tasmania Managing Director Bob Gordon In a subsequent Ministerial Brief dated 10 May 2011 from to Bryan Green, where Mr Gordon informs the Minister that this offer to terminate on a “full release and indemnity basis” from Gunns would “extinguish” the need to negotiate in good faith new terms of agreement for supply, the so-called “residual rights” that Ms Giddings has claimed as the reason for the $34.5 million in compensation.
.
Given this correspondence, it appears inconceivable that Lara Giddings could have been advised by the Solicitor-General that the Government was obliged to pay Gunns to extinguish the contracts. Ms Giddings now has no option but to release the Solicitor-General’s advice on the matter.
Tasmania’s Resources Minister has played down correspondence between Gunns and Forestry Tasmania, which the Opposition says raises questions about Gunns’ right to government compensation for pulling out of state forests. The Opposition obtained a letter between Gunns and FT under Freedom of Information Laws, which shows Gunns offered to terminate its contracts. Liberal spokesman Peter Gutwein says it contradicts the Premier’s argument, that she had no choice but to pay Gunns.
“The Premier now has no leg to stand on,” he said.
.
.
Community insights and informed analysis:
‘If all the above is genuine, and I can see no reason why it should not be, then the matter needs to be taken further. Much further. Lara and her “advisers” need to peruse all correspondence, memoranda and diary notes etc from Gunns in relation to their claim as to why there should be a payment to them by the taxpayers. Should there be a deliberate deception, or a deception by deliberate ommission that resulted in a serious financial advantage to Gunns then all avenues of recourse should be explored. If criminal charges are appropriate then so be it. It all would depend on the nature of the claims/submissions put forward by Gunns. There should also be cross referencing with any correspondence on the matter by Forest Tasmania. A formal investigation is surely warranted and the reason for the indecent haste in coughing up the taxpayer’s hard earned to Gunns and FT needs now to be justified.
Oh Lara. What a patsy you are. Your only contributions to the negotiations in this “complex” matter were to first publicly announce that “…we need Gunns..”, and secondly to publicly announce that you had $45 million in the “envelope” to resolve the “complex” matter. Brilliant. Just brilliant Lara.’ ~ Len Fulton (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
Woodchip stockpile – same colour as the chainsawed ancient Myrtle above
.
‘Very interesting documents. Regardless of whether you support the pulp mill or not there is something extremely fishy about this payment to gunns and all australian taxpayers should be screaming for the tabling for scrutiny of all documentation regarding the justification of this payment. Just on these produced documents and the fact that gunns had already closed down x no. of mills dismissed employees and placed triabunna on an approx. 8 week closure at the time the payment of compensation was dubious let alone some $34mil for the remaining life of the contract/s. This has a bad smell about it – now this previously “keep quiet” info is out Mr Gutwein what are you going to do about it?’ ~ Ian (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Liberal complacence has helped foster the culture that has allowed our government to use excuses like “commercial in confidence” to not keep the public informed. So while Peter Gutwein is bouncing up and down on this issue, will he actually do anything, or remain as noticeable as a fly on the backside of an elephant? ~ Salamander (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Very revealing letter. I’ve previously argued that, if required, the Government should be prepared to buy back Gunns timber rights. Now, it seems, there was no need to buy them back at all because they had already formally relinquished them. This sheds a very nasty light on the way the Government rushed to pay Gunns double the initial offer. It also brings up questions about the $25 million that FT were apparently owned and why the Government felt it necessary to settle this matter to “avoid expensive legal arguments”.
The expense argument always seemed spurious. When there’s $25 million in dispute, surely it’s worth thrashing the matter out in court? On the other hand, the trouble with courts is that all the facts are likely to come out. I bet the Greens are having some interesting discussions at the moment! On the one hand there’s nothing to be gained by pulling the pin on Lala, but on the other hand, how far can they afford to let their reputation be trashed before they’ll never be able to recover the ground lost?’ ~ Steve (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
‘So Mr Gutwein, what are you going to do about it?
Are you quite rightly going to demand the return of all the ill-gotten monies from Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania? Are you also going to demand FT collects monies owed by Gunns Ltd to them? Are you going to demand all the IGA (Julia Gillard’s Intergoverment Agreement) monies be shared amongst everyone except these two companies as was intended?’ ~ Russell Langfield (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘This isn’t the first or the biggest apparent fraud Tasmania has seen – the land swap was far bigger and the pulp mill approval business was more blatant – but it’s still very unusual to see the LibLabs falling out on something like this. The Tas justice system was magnificent in snatching Bryan Green from disaster, but do they have they the moxie to save the government’s bacon here? I suspect that Tas Inc’s closets are too dank to support an explosion, but I hope I’m wrong.’
~ John Hayward (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘These damning documents show that the potential financial scam perpetrated upon the Australian and Tasmanian taxpayer is even worse than that stated by Peter Gutwein. Firstly, a further 10% GST has been added to the payments made to Gunns and FT increasing the amount paid in so-called settlement to $37.95M. On top of that, FT has effectively written off the $13.5M balance of the $25 million reputedly owed to it by Gunns under the ‘take or pay‘ provisions of its wood supply contracts bringing the total amount gifted by the taxpayer to at least $51.45 million.
Tasmanians must be told why, and on whose advice, was Gunns’ termination offer made on 18 April 2011 not accepted by FT and what part did the Premier and her Deputy play in this? What was the role of the Solicitor General and what were the circumstances that led to the Premier claiming the need for payment to extinguish Gunns’ “residual rights”?
What is the legal precedence and basis for the taxpayer settling a financial dispute between a private company and GBE over which the Minister has limited jurisdiction and no apparent financial control? The scale of this matter is beyond the scope of the feeble Integrity Commission and is so serious that it demands a full criminal investigation.
Finally, given that the release of this documentation has the potential to bring down the Government, the motives of the usually recalcitrant FT for being so forthcoming to the Shadow Minister for Forestry’s request are extremely suspect and demand that FT is put into administration pending the outcome of investigations.’ ~ PB (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘As per Chris Newman, Gunns ….“I will not recount Gunns’ various complaints of defective performance and non-performance by FT ….” Why? Not consistent with Gunns previously pretending the woodchip driven industry was sustainable let alone ‘worlds best practice’! Can the public see a copy of those complaints? Surely they are not all ‘commercial in confidence’.
“The reputation and marketability of Tasmanian native forest woodchip product is, and has always been directly affected by FT’s forestry management practices …” You forgot to add … and Gunns greedy easy street deal to woodchip bio diverse forests into oblivion. “FT was aware of the damage that its forestry practices were causing to the reputation of Tasmanian woodchip products …” Oh so FT’s forestry practices haven’t been a beautiful shining example afterall … I’m shocked at having been so deceived!! “Gunns therefore wishes to terminate CoS 917 and 918, noting our agreement that construction of the pulp mill did not commence by 30 November 2010.” You mean Gunns deliberately didn’t make a commencement of the mill to get out of the contract or used the companys own incompetence and failure to grab a government payout?
“Ünless a commercial resolution can be reached, I fear that these disputes will ultimately result in court proceedings.” Is that called holding the state to ransom … or bribery perhaps?
“I therefore propose that CoS 917 and 918 be terminated immediately on a full release and indemnity basis in respect of any and all outstanding issues.” So that’s what Gunns meant as per their ASX market update.
“3. Mutual release between the company and Forestry Tasmania from certain current and future claims arising out of those agreements.” “At the same time, FT will receive the benefit of a substantial infrastructure, worth in excess of $200 million, established by Gunns in anticipation of harvesting pulpwood from State Forests pursuant to CoS 917 and 918.” Is that where the touted $200 million figure for the so-called locking up of native forests originally came from? And you mean to say those native state forests being established, (albeit in reality little more than plantations) after wiping out the original diverse forests, weren’t actually being grown for future sawlogs, but indeed for nothing but pulpwood … thought so!
Bobby Gordon to embattled Bryan Green …. “It is unlikely the exchange of letters between Gunns and FT will become public.” … Why, something to hide perhaps? Obviously Labors Braddon office shredder mustn’t have been available.
“In the event that stakeholders become aware of the termination notice, Forestry Tasmania intends to release the following statement….” Is that called conspiring?
Let’s call it as it is, the $23 million for ‘residual rights’ and the Labor Gov gifting Gunns $11.5m to virtually pay itself via FT wasn’t to buy back HCV state native forests, it was hush money! Gunns are undoubtedly as successful as a trap door in a canoe. Gunns would be better off to start manufacturing butchers chopping blocks on wheels which they could pass around to their shareholders, directors, contractors, workers and political allies. Afterall, apparently they are attributing any future succusses on continuing to mobilize a self-serving carvery …
Citizens’ justice – doing away with privilege, the French way
[Source: http://www.toonpool.com/user/589/files/it_chops_383035.jpg]
.
Caught in an avalanche of their own making, Gunns have at least successfully pulped themselves …Gunns and Forestry Tasmania and indeed blokes like Bryan Green and the Tasmanian Labor Government have been treating the public like fools for far too long … just desserts is the same ridicule and contempt they have shown the state of Tasmania.’ ~ Claire Gilmour (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Other than the pyrotechnic display contained in this letter there are other incendiary devices. Such as the Gunns Chairman admitting that “construction of the pulp mill did not commence by 30 November 2010” That’s very different from the findings of EPA director Schaap. There is also a clear accusation that FT abused its monopoly position in the Tasmanian pulp wood market.’ ~ Karl Stevens (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Has Gutwein called the Federal Police? If not, why not?
His inference is that The Commonwealth, and the State of Tasmania has been defrauded and if so it is very difficult to see how the Premier and Prime Minister are not parties to the act. In the absense of that call to the police being made, Mr Gutwein is nothing but another useless mouth we are feeding for no discernable benefit. Time to piss, Peter, or get off the bloody pot.If you don’t, many of us will return to our default position which is that we are governed by a coalition of liblab with the greens used as a smoke screen.’
‘Your party’s voting record backs that view to the hilt.. On reflection I would go further: Either it is fraud and therefore conspiracy to commit fraud, or it is extortion. Either way, it has all the hallmarks of something the federal police should be investigating. Why the Feds? Aside from the obvious reason it is federal money involved. My bet is that Gutwein will do nothing substantial because the bottom line is the Libs are run by TasInc who want the mill built right or wrong by anyone because they can make a dollar out of it. They fund both wings of the liblab machine. Such is the nature of party representatives. They know what the voters want, but serve the party interests first because that is where their loyalty lies. You get what you vote for. That gaping hole in the mills risk profile has not and will not go away regardless of any of this. It just keeps getting larger.’ ~ Simon Warriner (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111004
.
‘Having also read all the FOI it is interesting to see that Gunns had already terminated the wood supply agreements and that after the 15th of October the agreements were finalised. Also the $200 million of roading and bridge assets that they told FT they would be giving them would have reverted to FT ownership after 45 days under the agreement anyway. It appears that the rush to give Gunns money was important because after the 25 th October there would have been no reason to pay them anything. The briefing docs to Bryan Green show that he was fully cognisant of the deal ending.’ ~ Pete Godfrey (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111004
Federal taxpayers paid $34.5 million to Gunns to extinguish its rights to log Tasmania’s native forests without Canberra first seeking advice on whether the payment was legally required. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke told The Weekend Australian he had not sought legal advice on whether the payments were necessary to extinguish Gunns’ contractual rights.
“I didn’t seek any advice on that,” Mr Burke said. “Legal advice on that was sought by the Tasmanian government.”
The state Liberals claim the payment was not legally required because Gunns had already voluntarily handed back the contracts to harvest 210,000 cubic metres of sawlogs each year. Tasmania’s Labor-Green government, which brokered the payment to Gunns, is refusing to release its own legal advice on the issue. However, Premier Lara Giddings insists the advice backs its stance that the payment was needed to remove Gunns’ “residual rights” over the vital contracts.
Their surrender was key to the protection of 430,000 hectares of forests under the $276 million federal-state forest peace deal signed by (Prime Minister) Julia Gillard in August (2011). However, Gunns had said it was leaving native forest logging regardless and documents obtained by the Liberals under state right-to-information laws show that on April 18 the company gave “formal . . . notice of termination” of the contracts.
Despite this, on September 15 deeds signed by the Tasmanian government granted $23 million in funds provided by Canberra to Gunns and a further $11.5 million—also federally sourced—to Forestry Tasmania. Mr Burke said yesterday the money had been provided to the Tasmanian government to “facilitate” the peace deal, also known as the Intergovernmental Agreement on Forests. Late yesterday, federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig and Tasmanian Deputy Premier Bryan Green announced an additional$45 million voluntary exit package for Tasmanian forestry contractors. “This package will assist eligible contractor businesses to exit the native forest harvest, haulage and silvicultural contracting sectors,” he said.
Meanwhile, Forestry Tasmania continues in earnest its wholesale massacre and incineration of Tasmanian Old Growth for woodchipping pittance
(Upper Florentine Forest old growth, photo taken 28th September 2011)
.
.
‘Minister dodging questions on Forestry handout. Mill buyers. Gunns quizzed’
The Tasmanian Greens today said the Forestry Minister Bryan Green has failed to explain to the Tasmanian people why he approved another $1.1 million in public funding to prop up the failing forestry industry. Greens Forestry spokesman Kim Booth said there’s no credibility to the Minister’s claim that the industry could afford the transportation costs to Triabunna, but somehow could not afford to go the remaining 146 kilometres to Bell Bay without receiving public subsidisation.
.
“If the woodchipping industry is so unviable that it cannot even afford to pay the cost of transporting logs 146 kilometres, it is about time that the Minister realised that the industry is just not viable,” Mr Booth said.
“The Minister must first justify then explain why he thinks woodchippers of native forests should be paid with public funds and should take priority at a time when other areas are having to do it tough by cutting services.”
“As for the question of the supposed ‘log jam,’ the question must be asked why Forestry Tasmania is causing these trees to be cut down if the operators cannot even afford to transport them to the point of sale?”
“Every other transport business in the state must survive on its own resources, and there’s no doubt that all the other struggling transport operators in Tasmania would love a handout. So why is the woodchipping industry treated so differently?”
“How many million dollars of public money will this Minister rob from the public purse and give to his industry darlings before he wakes up to the fact that public money if for public benefits like healthcare, not to prop up unviable private businesses.”
..The Tasmanian Government’s logo…’explore the possibilities’…at what cost?
A return to Tasmania’s traditional coat of arms would be very appropriate.
Road dozing into the spectacular forests of the Esperance, Southern Tasmania
This photo was taken in scheduled logging coupe EP011A last Friday.
[Source: ‘Treachery to the Forests – Secret Letters Exposed’, 20120925, ^http://taann.net/2012/09/25/treachery-to-the-forests-secret-letters-exposed/]
The industrial culture of taming Nature as if Man needed to compete
Gunns Pulp Mill Site
Tamar Valley, Tasmania
(an ideal job for Planet Ark to make amends)
A puppet passing the buck
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings tactically softens the crash: “this does not mean that the pulp mill project itself is dead”
(famous last words in Tasmania’s Parliament, last Tuesday)
[Source: ‘Giddings: Gunns ‘not the end’ of pulp mill project’, 20120925,
^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-25/giddings-not-the-end-of-pulp-mill-project/4279564]
Ta Ann received timber from Old Growth Coupe HA045E
Jenny Weber
‘Ta Ann’s veneer of truth‘
[Source: Huon Valley Environment Centre]
.
Markets for Change spokeswoman Peg Putt
speaks to the media outside Tasmania’s State Parliament 20120925
Photo by Loretta Johnson, The Examiner
[Source: The Examiner, Hobart, ^http://www.examiner.com.au/story/358861/green-groups-split-over-ta-ann-letter/?cs=95]
Unprotected ancient native forests around Tasmania’s Recherche Bay
