Forestry

Forestry Tasmania has set out on a mission to establish a new benchmark for openness and transparency in the debate over the management of our forests.

So far, we have thrown open the doors of our headquarters in Hobart to the media. We have started hosting briefings for the community in our regional offices around the state.

We have demonstrated our commitment to admit to mistakes and we are introducing new ways of communicating with our stakeholders (eg.. Branchline e-newsletter).

These build on an already transparent approach. FT is subject to Freedom of Information (FoI). Our three year wood production plans are freely available, Forest Practices Plans are also made available to the public and we are required by law and through the Australian Forestry Standard to consult widely.

As a Government Business Enterprise, every year our business is scrutinised by the Parliament, and every other day, forestry is scrutinised by the media.

This high level of scrutiny has resulted in significant improvements. We no longer convert native forest to plantation. We don’t use clearfelling on old growth, unless there is no other safe or viable option. Our regenerated native forests are chemical free and we no longer use 1080 to control browsing animals.

The question now has to be asked is whether the failure of forestry critics to match our level of transparency, is causing a whole generation of Australians to be swindled?

The Wilderness Society is a $12 million business. To continue to survive, it needs confrontation and a sense of crisis. It relies on $9 million in donations and why would people continue to give if there is no imminent threat or crisis. A quick look at the society ’s web site will show that every issue is accompanied by a plea for people to give now before it’s too late.

Just as our business is heavily scrutinised, so should theirs. The Wilderness Society is not subject to Freedom of Information. If it were, we would learn how this organisation works. Without this basic tool, the responsibility of media to question is greater. If the media unquestioningly accepts Green rhetoric as fact, there is every risk that well intentioned Australians could be swindled into handing over cash to solve non-existent crisis.

How much confidence can Australians have in what they hear on the news? Are they getting the full story?

Forestry Tasmania has for the past five months endeavoured to find a solution to the dangerous and illegal protests in the southern forests. The Wilderness Society has consistently refused to discuss the issue, claiming that it has nothing to do with the protests and that FT should talk to those responsible for the protests. FT does not accept the Wilderness Society has no influence over the activities of these groups.

However, in May, FT’s Derwent District took on the Wilderness Society’s recommendation, and approached a group of protesters in the Florentine Valley. These protesters assured FT that they were independent and acted without outside direction. A Memorandum of Understanding was struck allowing FT to complete roadworks and to collect fallen timber in the Florentine Valley without further interference from protesters. It has now come to light that MoU was in fact submitted to and edited within the office of Australian Greens leader Bob Brown. It has since emerged that at least some of the Florentine protesters have simply moved to a different forest where one of Bob Brown’s staff, Adam Burling, is a member of an organisation that organises illegal protests. At no point during the negotiations did the Florentine Group reveal their connection to Bob Brown’s office or his staff.

In June, the same group of protesters organised a protest in an area called the Wedge. In our view, it was no coincidence that Mr Burling requested permission from FT for Senator Brown to fly over the area in a helicopter with a photographer previously used by the Wilderness Society on the very same day that these independent protesters decided to hold their protest action.

It stretches the bounds of credibility to suggest the decisions to take a helicopter ride and the decision to stage a protest were taken independently of each other.

In a few weeks, another documentary decrying Tasmania’s forest practices will be aired on cable television around the world.

It will claim that industrial logging of native forests is destroying the habitat of the endangered wedge tailed eagle. To the casual viewer, the program will appear to be a genuine investigative documentary, compiled by an independent film company. It will feature interviews with Senator Brown, the Wilderness Society’s Geoff Law, an assorted group of eagle experts and thrown into the mix to add credibility will be comments by Tasmanian Government public servants and the Managing Director of Forestry Tasmania, Bob Gordon.

The conclusion, however, will be that forestry is driving eagles to extinction. What the viewers wont know is that the program is being funded by an anti-forestry activist, who has provided $200,000 on condition that he remains anonymous.

How do we know? Well, the producer Brett Shorthouse told Forestry Tasmania, during negotiations on Bob Gordon’s inclusion in the program. While the anonymity of the businessman behind the project would be protected, Mr Shorthouse did reveal when pressed that the businessman had recently purchased a property in Battery Point. To his credit, Mr Shorthouse has behaved honourably. He has never attempted to hide, and in fact warned FT about the pro-conservation motivation behind the program.

However, we believe people have a right to know who funded the program, so they can make up their own minds about its credibility.

Another cable television documentary by world champion swimmer Ian Thorpe also raised concerns about transparency and balance. FT was approached by Mr Thorpe’s producers asking permission to enter state forests.

Of course, permission was granted, but our invitation to brief Mr Thorpe and to provide a tour of forestry operations was ignored. Instead, Mr Thorpe chose to interview only environmental activists. We would have loved dearly the opportunity to at least put an alternative view to Mr Thorpe, but the producers refused on the grounds that the program was non political and really about entertainment rather than serious discussion. We were therefore somewhat surprised to learn that Senator Brown was a participant. We can only conclude that although Senator Brown draws a politician’s salary, is the leader of a political party, Mr Thorpe does not believe Senator Brown is a politician.

Readers of Richard Flanagan’s articles in the UK Telegraph and the Monthly magazine might be forgiven for believing the articles were entirely researched by the author without any outside assistance. It might well come as a surprise for those readers to learn that a few months prior to the publication of the articles, Mr Flanagan flew by helicopter to the Styx Valley with Greens Leader Bob Brown. The excursion was organised not by Mr Flanagan, but by Senator Brown’s office. It was Senator Brown’s office that contacted FT seeking permission to land a helicopter on state forests, and we therefore assume the trip was funded by Senator Brown and perhaps, taxpayers. I am the first to admit that FT does not know the purpose of the trip, and there is every possibility that it was in no way related to the articles written by Mr Flanagan. Nevertheless, it is important for readers, especially those who thought the articles were compelling, to know about the trip. It may assist in helping them to understand why only one side of the forestry debate was presented. To date, Mr Flanagan has not made any attempt to speak to Forestry Tasmania.

Ken Jeffreys
General Manager Corporate Relations
Forestry Tasmania

—————
Republished with permission from Forestry Tasmania’s electronic newsletter. Register for this newsletter by contacting tamika.triffitt@forestrytas.com.au.

“Today the Australian Government launched a Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. This represents a material advance in the global effort to tackle climate change and protect the world’s forests, according to a media release from the office of the Australian Prime Minister.

The media release continued, “the Australian Government has committed $200 million to kickstart this world leading initiative that will reduce significantly global greenhouse gas emissions.

Almost 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world’s forests – second only to emissions from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, and more than all of the world’s emissions from transport.

Globally, more than 4.4 million trees are removed every day or 1.6 billion trees each year – almost 1 billion of which are not replaced. An area twice the size of Tasmania is currently cleared each year – this is the equivalent of removing around 71,000 football fields of trees every day.

If the world could halve the rate of global deforestation we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three billion tonnes a year – more than five times Australia’s total annual emissions and about ten times the emissions reductions that will be achieved during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Reducing deforestation, planting new forests, and investing in sustainable forest management practice are among the best ways to reduce global emissions now.

Working with both developed and developing countries the Australian Government’s $200 million investment will:
• support new forest planting;
• limit destruction of the world’s remaining forests;
• promote sustainable forest management; and
• encourage contributions from other countries.

Specific activities include:
• building developing countries’ technical capacity to assess their forest resources;
• putting in place effective regulatory and law enforcement arrangements to protect forests, including through preventing illegal logging; and
• promoting the sustainable use of forest resources and diversifying the economic base of forest-dependent communities;

Since Kyoto negotiations began more than a decade ago, Australia has consistently and strongly argued for effective international action on deforestation as an essential part of the global response to climate change.

Through this initiative we will work with like-minded countries and will be inviting nations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Brazil, New Zealand, Japan and Indonesia to join the Initiative. We will also work with international organisations including the World Bank, and businesses, to reduce emissions from deforestation and to sustainably manage the world’s forests.

Harnessing our combined resources will make a difference for world forests and the climate.

This Initiative also builds on the almost $20 billion invested by the Australian Government for the environment over the past 11 years.

The Global Initiative on Forests and Climate delivers practical action that will substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Facts Sheet

The Australian Government is providing $200 million for ‘Global Initiative on Forests and Climate’. This funding will be used to support projects in selected developing countries (particularly, but not exclusively, in the South-East Asia and Pacific regions) to:
• build technical capacity to assess and monitor forest resources, and to develop national forest management plans;
• put in place effective regulatory and law enforcement arrangements to protect forests, including through preventing illegal logging;
• promote the sustainable use of forest resources and diversify the economic base of forest-dependent communities;
• support practical research into the drivers of deforestation;
• encourage reforestation of degraded forest areas;
• develop and deploy the technology and systems needed to help developing countries monitor and produce robust assessments of their forest resources;
• pilot approaches to providing real financial incentives to countries and communities to encourage sustainable use of forests and reduce destruction of forests.

These projects will be developed in cooperation with regional countries and relevant international organisations including the World Bank. They will reflect the priorities of the countries concerned, while seeking to achieve the maximum possible benefit for forest management and the global climate.

In relation to the provision of incentives to developing countries for sustainable forestry practices and reducing net forest loss, we expect to explore a range of approaches that reflect the differing needs and circumstances of different countries. However, a common element of any incentives is that they will be provided only on the achievement of pre-agreed forest sustainability milestones (e.g. agreed reductions in national deforestation rates). Measurement of achievement of these milestones will be underpinned by the investment in the technology and systems to robustly monitor forest resources.

Effectively tackling the issue of global deforestation will require a huge investment from governments and businesses around the world. The Australian Government will therefore be working closely with governments and businesses from other developed countries to build support for and help in the delivery of this global initiative, so that we can harness the collective effort required.

The contributions that other countries may make will obviously be a matter for them, but we will be talking to key countries about the initiative over the next few weeks. Those discussions will also address the most effective means for countries to mutually identify areas and projects for joint activity, and how best to form clusters of partners to undertake those activities.

As a soon as we have a good initial picture of the views of key countries and others, we will decide how best to proceed with this initiative, including through engaging key Ministers from these countries.

Planning and delivery of the Initiative in Australia will involve a whole of government effort, including through the Environment, Foreign Affairs (including AusAID) and Forestry Departments.” [End of media release.]

Hi Jennifer,

For a second time since the late 1980’s a pulp mill in Tasmania has been delayed by green campaigning. This week we will see if another pulp mill – a value adding, downstream processing, job-creating factory – will also be thrown on the political scrap heap.

If the pulp mill assessment Bill is not approved by Tasmania’s Upper House, it is likely the project will be ‘dead in the water’. If this occurs, will Tasmania’s economy suffer again from the ‘Green Disease’ as described in a 1999 Institute of Public Affairs article by senior Press Gallery journalist David Barnett describing the politics leading to the scrapping of the Wesley Vale Mill.

Since the Wesley Vale Mill’s debacle, a lot has happened in Tasmanian forestry. The Commonwealth and State Governments have negotiated a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) on the sustainable management of our forests and the Commonwealth published Environmental Guidelines for a Bleached Kraft Pulp mill. Technology has also moved on and improved and the bleaching of the pulp is no longer done by elemental chlorine which previously raised concerns about pollution. Today ECF and TCF are the standard.

In 2002, the 5 year review of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement confirmed that we have a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, ecological sustainable forest management and opportunities exist for industry development.

In 2003, the Tasmanian Government tasked the ‘Resource Planning and Development Commission’ (RPDC) to update the Commonwealth emission guidelines for pulp mills, this saw new guidelines approved in October 2004.

In December 2004, Gunns proposed a Pulp mill that was declared a Project of State Significance (POSS).

In terms of the small Tasmanian economy it certainly is significant, potentially adding $6.7 billion (+2.5%) to the economy, including an additional $894 million in extra tax revenue between 2008-2030, 3,400 more jobs in the state than if the mill were not constructed and once operational, an average 1,617 more Tasmanian jobs.

However, the assessment process has come to a crisis point following two directions hearings held by the RPDC. These hearings were held after almost two years. There was one year to develop guidelines for an “Integrated Impact Statement”, and another year for the developer to write such an impact statement, time for the public to provide written comment and for the RPDC consultants to undertake independent peer review.

At the first directions hearings the Greens challenged a panel member, Dr Raverty, because he was an employee of a joint venture with CSIRO. They challenged the CSIRO’s TAPM (the air pollution model) and other CSIRO activities including the fact sheet by ENSIS.

This legal challenge resulted in Dr Raverty resigning, leading to the Panel Chairman also resigning, a new panel being appointed and a second directions hearing being held.

At the conclusion of that 2nd preliminary hearing in February no definite date had been given for future optional hearings, and no detailed time line given, only a time span, may be November, maybe next year!

Gunns Limited, the developer, withdrew from the RPDC stating that the assessment process was too long, and was too opened to enable due and proper project management in terms of accessing capital and ordering equipment. They considered that each additional month of delay was costing $10 million.

In order to salvage the project the Tasmanian Government has introduced a Bill that will see the assessment process finalized by an expert consultant, with a definite time table of assessment. The consultant’s report will be submitted to Parliament by 31 August 2006. Then both Houses of Parliament must consider the report and approve/ reject the project.

The Bill requires the project to be assessed against the emission guidelines approved in 2004.

A casual glance at Tasmanian media will confirm that this situation has created literally hundreds of news stories in Tasmania with private conversations being reported, speculation of conspiracy, cherry picking reports and documents, and so called independent experts offering their opinions.

The Lower House approved the Bill with 21 of the 25 members supporting it. Today it is debated in the State’s Upper House, the Legislative Council.

Cheers, Cinders

————————-
Cinders also provided me with a link to a letter from Rodney Stagg, Retired bushman and log truck owner, sent to the RPDC on 30th August, click here: http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/69061/11_Rodney_Stagg.pdf

In a new book ‘Eco-Freaks, Environmentalism is hazardous to your health’, John Berlau contends that environmentalists have promoted doomsday scenarios some of which have proven to be false, and that nature is not always benign and can sometimes pollute and poison.

Following my post on John Berlau’s chapter on DDT (Eco-Freaks: Part 1, DDT), a regular commentator at this blog known as SJT, suggested the book was misleading because Berlau’s has written that, “tree contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than cars.”

When I first posted on DDT, I hadn’t read the chapter on trees or the chapter on cars.

I read on, and on, and on, including these two chapters. But I could not find any reference to “trees contributing more C02 to the atmosphere than cars”.

So I emailed John Berlau. He replied:

“Jennifer,

I never have written that trees contribute more CO2. I was talking about the hydrocarbons in smog, [in] which I do document that tree contribute a greater portion, part of which is due to the fact that the catalytic converter has reduced cars’ hydrocarbon emissions by 90 percent.

But also due to the fact that new measurements show that gases from trees contribute much more than thought, when devices were developed to trace the hydrocarbons’ source.

The first such study documenting this was the University of Georgia Chaimedes in 1988. It has been show again by dozens of prestigious reasearchers, including some I cite [in the book] from Australia’s top scientific agency.

[Ronald] Reagan, however, was not simply pulling this out of his hat when he said this in the late 1970s and the 1980 campaign. He cited scientists such as Texas A&M’s John J. McKetta, who questioned the assumptions about the relative contributions of cars and trees [to smog] and were later vindicated when the research confirmed their theories.

An interesting point is that in cars, the catalytic converter reduces pollutants by, or course, transforming hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide into water vapor and carbon dioxide. This was hailed as a great advance at the time, around the early 1970s.

Liberal senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat from Maine who sponsored the Clean Air Act of 1970, spoke about how wonderful this device was that could turn these harmful pollutants into, in his words, “harmless carbon dioxide” that we breathe out and plants breathe in.

This is a point that needs to be made more often: that one major reason for the increase in carbon dioxide emissions is actually pollution control. [end of quote]

The first time John Berlau mentions trees and cars in ‘Eco-Freaks’ is in chapter 4 ‘Smashing the engine on public health’. This chapter is essentially about the long running campaign in the US against cars. On page 118 Berlau makes the point that:

“The main charge against cars made since the late 1970s is not that they are adding harmful pollution. It’s that they are contributing to the buildup of carbon dioxide … but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant like lead. It is a basic element that humans breathe out and plants breathe in. In fact, cars are emitting carbon dioxide in part as a way of reducing pollutants. Catalytic converters, placed on cars after the mandated pollution reductions from the Clean Air Act of 1970, “oxidize” pollutants such as carbon monoxide and harmful hydrocarbons and transform what comes out of the tailpipe into water and carbon dioxide. … Proponents of the Clean Air Act, including many environmentalists now sounding the alarm about carbon dioxide, thought this was great … proclaiming proudly that with catalytic converters, cars would now be primarily emitting the same substance that plants breathe. [end of quote]

In summary, trees can contribute to smog, cars now emit more carbon dioxide than they used to, and don’t believe everything you read in comments following my blog posts.

Dear Jennifer,

This morning 23rd March, an item on ‘AM’ the ABC Radio current affairs programme quoted an ARTC (Australian Rail Track Corporation) report as saying that the use of timber sleepers results in 500x the carbon emissions compared to using concrete sleepers.** That report claimed the Australian Greenhouse Office as its source.

I have commented to AM through their web site which unfortunately goes to them and them alone. For your interest the following is a reasonable reproduction of that email.

“Dear Sir,

Your item this morning 23rd March quoted the Australian Greenhouse Office as the source of a statement that the use of timber sleepers produces 500 times the carbon emissions of concrete sleepers. That statement must surely put the credibility of the Greenhouse Office at risk.

Some basic facts:

Fact 1. We should all know that timber contains carbon and concrete does not.

Fact 2. To store 1000kg of carbon in railway sleepers 67kg of carbon will be emmitted in the process. The production of concrete to do the same job emits 430kg of carbon and stores none.

Fact 3. To convert a timber sleeper track to a concrete sleeper track means that all the timber sleepers become an emission. Add that to the emissions of producing the concrete replacements and we have a combined emission of 61.2 tonnes of carbon per km and none in storage.

Fact 4. A natural forest of regrowth and old growth is carbon neutral. That is it is emitting carbon at the same rate it is absorbing it from the atmosphere.

Fact 5. A healthy, sustainably managed, production forest is constantly absorbing more carbon than it emits. At the same time carbon is being stored for the life of its products in service.

Fact 6. By excluding the tribal aboriginal from the river front, open woodlands of River Red Gum have turned into closed forests of tall slim trees. If these forests become National Parks they will still need thinning treatment if they are to support the range of biodiversity that we expect to find.

Fact 7. Forests in National Parks can receive thinning treatment, as is the case in the Box- Ironbark, but the trees must be felled to waste as the product from a National Park cannot be sold.

Yours faithfully
Vic Eddy

—————–
** On October 01, 2006, I blogged ‘Switch to Concrete Railway Sleepers, Negates Wind Farm Savings’ with comment that:

“There is much community concern about global warming and an expectation we will all do our bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So why did the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) decide to transfer its annual requirement for 400,000 railway sleepers from timber to concrete?

According to Mark Poynter* this will result in an extra 190,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year that could otherwise have been negated by carbon sequestered in forest regrowth and saved by avoiding concrete manufacture.

Read the full post here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001660.html