Editor, Canberra Times
By email:
31 May 2013
Readers might appreciate some background and context to better understand Jenny Weber’s letter [20 May] and articles by Richard Denniss [11 and 25 May] about the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill.
Prior to the ‘peace deal’ 80% of Tasmania’s natural forests were already reserved for conservation, unsuited for timber production, or privately-owned. In addition timber has been harvested from much of the 504,000 hectares of high conservation value forest that is proposed for new reserves under the deal!
This begs a very simple question. Is this peace deal about conservation or ideology?
Firstly, it cannot be about conservation because a majority of Tasmania’s public natural forests are already reserved from timber production and because forests where timber has been harvested are apparently still considered good enough to place in conservation reserves. The latter means that the current management must have been doing a very good job to produce timber while protecting conservation values, so there was really no reason to change tenure.
Secondly, any serious cost benefit analysis would opt to retain the status quo. Weber and other conservation proponents are very quiet about the economic and social cost of a large increase in the reserve area. The forest areas were in no long term danger but the loss of potentially 3,500 jobs in small and often remote rural communities in Tasmania, a State that is already struggling economically, will have a massive emotional and financial impact on the families affected by this decision.
Few of us on the mainland really understand the facts around this deal and some of the proponents would probably prefer it stayed that way. To them ignorance is a tool.
The Institute of Foresters of Australia is neutral about forest tenure. Our aim is to ensure that Australia’s forests and woodlands are professionally managed to ensure all their values are sustained in perpetuity. Our members work in both conservation and production forests. We believe in the sustainable use of natural resources for the betterment of humankind. Reducing the areas of forest we can harvest in Australia will only increase the demand for imports from forests overseas where they are may not be nearly as well managed as ours, and will increase use of energy-intensive materials as substitutes.
Rob de Fégely
President, Institute of Foresters of Australia