 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
| Spring 2004 | |
|||||||||
|
YALMY
REPORT - a damning whitewash Auditor General to scrutinise DSE. Firstly, in mid-July we received a response from the Auditor General's Office confirming that they had decided to investigate the theft of logs from the park. It took many months for them to carry out their preliminary investigation "due to delays in obtaining the relevant information". This indicates DSE officials are loath to have this looked at outside of their control. The AG's office also believes there are other anomalies which need to be investigated. Any significant findings will be presented to Parliament. DSE admits to conflict of interest Secondly - and after 18 months of heel nipping, the Bracks Government rewrote its investigation findings and released them. This was done on the afternoon of Friday 13th, just as the Olympics were starting and any story would be buried under a five page Thorpie special. It's a sanitized but still damning report on illegal logging and theft of logs from the National Park. The conclusions of the report excuses the theft of 50 trucks of logs by saying that people were stressed and confused, and not able to supervise the loggers properly. However there are some other interesting findings. The report admits that the logging works were excessive, inconsistent with the prescriptions and made the area they were engaged to protect even more flammable. It also highlighted the conflict of interest in hiring a senior logging industry figure to undertake the work. It says there were "at least four" ex DSE employees hired to work on the fires. They were "in many cases now retired" but one was now a "senior member of the timber industry". This indicates three (or more) came out of retirement. We'd guess the other person could only be Garry Squires, CEO of East Gippsland Logging and ex-senior manager for DSE Gippsland. It was that person who made the initial prescriptions for the Yalmy Rd works, and it was those initial prescriptions that didn't distinguish between the National Park and state forest wood. You've got to ask yourself why someone who's been up through the ranks for 20 years and was senior manager for all of Gippsland didn't know logs weren't supposed to disappear from Parks. Kid in charge of a lolly shop. In summary, the DSE admitted the clearing work was opportunistic and carried out by an industry leader who had a clear conflict of interest.
We accept that the Yalmy Road edge of the Snowy Park had some Messmate trees with bark which can be flammable. However, the over enthusiastic felling of all species of trees and the illegal taking of logs from the National Park was not due to either confusion or stress. It had been brought to the attention of DSE superiors early yet no action was taken until it was too late. No evidence? The investigation compared the logs removed with the logs that were said to have ended up at mills. The report doesn't present the figures or log volumes, or name the mills. Unfortunately, despite clear breaches of the Act and knowing who was involved, the investigation team said it could not gather the crucial evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against any individuals. Civil proceedings (ie suing the thieves) doesn't seem to have been considered. One of the frustrating things about this report is that its authors, who decided that the theft and destruction was "procedural rather than the wrong doing of any individuals", are anonymous. We only know that one is in the DSE (and reading between the lines it appears that DSE personnel were equally implicated in this looting activity) and one is a former Senior Prosecutor from the DSE's Offence Management Unit, so it is possible that he or she is a former close colleague of Squires. So it's ironic when they say "this obvious conflict of interest was not well managed". They could look in the mirror and say the same thing. Part of the 7 page report states:
So a logging industry boss is let loose in a national park with bulldozers and chainsaws and the DSE are amazed that the area turned into a logging coupe. This happened at the same time the loggers were patting themselves on the back for their services to the community. The report goes on to say that concerns were raised by staff at the time but were not acted on until it was too late and "significant parts of the control line had been prepared beyond the requirements of the prescriptions". Conflicts-are-us In its recommendations, the report suggested that in future, if any non-departmental staff are employed to manage or supervise at wildfires, DSE must 'identify and manage' any conflict of interest. It seems that managers constantly have to be reminded of the obvious way to manage. The DSE does seem to have conflicts of interest quite frequently. One solution could be to clean out entrenched upper level foresters from the Department so that DSE can start to reflect its name and stop being apologists for gluttons. Suggestions of collusion between industry and senior forestry staff is implicated but not adequately explored in this report. Just vague statements that "sawmills were without logs . local industry leaders were . putting pressure on local staff . the valuable native timber resource . Added to this pressure NSW was also demanding that backburning take place off Yalmy Road . valuable plantations". At this point we'd like to repeat that there was a "local industry leader" right there in the office, drawing up the Yalmy Road logging prescriptions, and that his business partner, Bob Humphreys, was in the media squealing for more logs during the crisis. However "Not all staff supported the decision to backburn off Yalmy Road . A key element of the decision - to allow timber to be taken off the site for commercial purposes - was not approved by the regional fire control centre in Traralgon." It also says that the "regional centre" did its lolly when it "became aware of" the theft of the National Park logs, and "issued an order to cease". Whoever these mysterious resisters are, a big thumbs-up from us. Those responsible have been shown up, but not named for fear of litigation threats. The Bracks Government claims that there is not enough hard evidence to prosecute. It seems that a smoking gun is no longer evidence unless someone produces the bullet. Let's hope the Auditor General will shed more light on this situation. Whatever the final outcome, it is crucial that Mr Bracks generously compensate the reserve system for this lawless destruction by logging interests. Jill / Liz
SPECIAL
SPRING FEATURE - For the logging industry's movers and shakers at the Australian Forestry Conference in Melbourne in late July, one of the few hopes touted in an otherwise gloomy political landscape was the prospect of co-operating with the World Wide Fund for Nature to divide and conquer the Australian environment movement. Bob Burton reports. "The idea of the forest industry in Tasmania embracing WWF is a very far-fetched fantasy indeed," the World Wide Fund for Nature's (WWF) conservation director, Ray Nias, told ABC Radio, dismissing criticism of his blueprint that backs logging in areas proposed by local conservation groups for National Parks. While Nias was keen to avoid being seen as too close to the logging industry, at the Australian Forestry Conference, elements of the national logging industry were openly praising WWF. In the keynote address to the conference, the head of the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI), Kate Carnell, reviewed the trends affecting the Australian logging industry for almost half an hour replete with management speak - "market opportunities", "value adding" and "sustainability certification". Then Carnell turned her attention to what she described as the industry's Achilles Heel - "public perception". NAFI is an umbrella organisation for state-based logging industry lobby groups. As head of NAFI, part of Carnell's job is to track the public standing of the industry across the country. Carnell's assessment of public opinion trends was gloomy. If strong public opposition to the logging of native forests had been enough to worry the logging industry in earlier years, Carnell added to the list. "Once it was only the native forest sector that was seen to be the problem," she told the audience of over thirty mostly middle-aged men from Australia's timber industry. "But with the advent of the national water debate and fears surrounding chemical usage, plantations are suffering major public acceptance issues as well." While public opposition to the industry was growing, Carnell held out the prospect that a strategy to divide and conquer the environment movement could save them. "One of the keys to a politically stable policy environment will be developing a consensus between the leaders of our industry and the more moderate elements of the environmental debate," she said. "Although the radicals get all the media attention, there are elements of the environment movement which can and do work with industry," she said. Carnell refrained from elaborating on who exactly the 'radicals' were that she would seek to marginalise or who were the 'moderates' to be courted. However, for those attending the conference it was crystal clear who Carnell was referring to. Sharing the opening session with her was Senior Policy Officer with the WWF, Michael Rae, who would be next up to the speakers rostrum. For "bridge-building" to work, Carnell explained, it would require both parties to "protect the ability of those with more reasonable opinions to find a place in the public debate and to win the ear of policy-makers." According to Carnell, making modest concessions to groups such as WWF is a shrewd way of minimising risks. The alternative is prolonged political instability which "means weaker commercial results for forestry over the longer term". Later that afternoon Carnell revealed that she harboured serious doubts about the industry's ability to pull off the strategy of developing 'win-win' solutions with 'moderate' environmental groups. Was such a divide and conquer strategy "really realistic", she asked. Carnell fretted that while doing deals with WWF wouldn't be hard, they lacked the grassroots muscle and credibility to make them stick. "The problem as I see it . is that although I think Michael Rae and WWF are doing an absolutely stunning job [attempting to negotiate with industry]," she said, " . we know that if we come to an arrangement with Michael and WWF, the Wilderness Society will still hate us because their fundamental position is that native forestry shouldn't exist at all". "We then end up with other chunks of the environmental sector that don't believe we should increase our plantation coverage at all, that we have plenty to go on with" she added. "The hard thing for industry," she complained, "is working out who do you come up with the win-win outcomes with and whether you end up with an outcome that is then shot down by somebody else, even if the industry could stick together." Bob Burton is a Canberra-based freelance journalist that edits Disinfopedia http://www.disinfopedia.org for the U.S.-based Center for Media and Democracy, which investigates the PR industry. With Nicky Hager he co-authored Secrets and Lies: the anatomy of an anti-environmental PR campaign published in New Zealand. Reprinted from Tasmanian Times.
WWF plan - a death of a thousand cuts The World Wide Fund for Nature (Australia) is already under fire for being too close to the Howard government. The Australia Institute in its report 'Taming the Panda' notes WWF have received over $13 million in grants from them since 1998 and in return, " .can usually be relied upon to praise the Howard Government's main environment policies, while other organisations are more likely to provide an independent assessment." In early August, they launched a deliberately divisive 'blueprint for Tasmania's forests' that protects part of the Tarkine and sells out the rest. The environment movement, including many regional forest groups as well as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society are enraged by the blatant sell-out. Green Senator Bob Brown calls the plan a 'shocker'. The plan does not even suggest protecting the Styx and only part of the Tarkine. If this plan succeeds it could have serious implications for all mainland forests and campaigns to save them.
The Wilderness Society together with 15 local conservation groups representing 4000 Tasmanians, had written to the WWF opposing the plan. The blueprint allows ongoing destruction of old-growth forest and supports a wood fired power plant if the logging operations were to gain certification. The WWF plan also suggests even more plantations for Tasmania and the giving of yet another $144 million of taxpayers money to State Forests and the industry to help those plans along. WWF also ignored the massive poisoning of wildlife using 1080. A web search revealed that WWF has a history of undermining local campaigns against logging destruction in other parts of the world. It does achieve some positive outcomes, but mostly where large corporate or government interests are not threatened. However, there is a difference between not wanting to tackle large power brokers and actively assisting them by undermining years of work by local groups who have the guts to tackle the giants. The report on WWF by The Australia Institute can be read at www.tai.org.au. (See previous article on Kate Carnell's address to the Forestry Conference and plans to disrupt the green movement.)
What is it with ex-ACF Presidents? Toyne, Caswell and Garrett all appear to have mutinied and joined the pirates of plunder. Some think this could be a sign of infiltration and eventual clean-up, but the plunderers are not that stupid to let serious tree-huggers into their ranks, nor are these ex-conservationists silly enough to think they can change the Forces Of Darkness (FODs). In early June, Peter Garrett suddenly joined the union, signed up as an ALP member and was hastily pre-selected to run in the Sydney seat of Kingsford Smith. By doing this Garrett has very effectively taken precious votes away from the Greens and handed them to the ALP, a Party that has lost its environmental credibility. The Greens will be running a candidate against him in that seat but there will be a number of swinging disillusioned voters who could return to Labor.
Wearing the ALP hat, Peter Garrett has done a turn around on many environment issues. He would like to see a pulp mill in Tasmania, and justifies continued logging on the grounds of jobs. Strange. In the past he always had alternatives for these things. No doubt, the ALP would not have put him in charge of such a seat if they thought he would rock the policy boat and argue for more progressive ideas within the ALP. Senator Brown appraised Peter Garrett as an "honourable man that has made a monumental mistake" Jill
Another ex-ACF President, Philip Toyne, has moved on from being a consultant to the industry to becoming a board member of Australia's second-largest sawmilling and plantation company. Toyne's past employer, Neville Smiths Timber at Heyfield in Gippsland, paid him for two years to sell their native forest wood as eco-friendly and convince government officials with helicopter joy rides that all was hunky dory down below. NST has now been merged with Integrated Tree Cropping (ITC), a large plantation company based in WA with operations in Victoria. One of Toyne's agendas while he was consultant seemed to be to reel in whoever he could from the environment movement to negotiate the green-tick for logging regrowth forests. He now claims the movement is split on the issue. However, there are only one or two small Victorian groups (much smaller than EEG) who believe logging in native forests should get a green tick. Others are opposed and believe existing plantations are the solution with some small scale specialty timber operations. Both he and Caswell have dusted down the old line about it being better to log our forests than buy it from overseas rape and pillage countries. Which actually amounts to less than 2% of our sawn timber use - hardly an argument to flog our native forests to oblivion. Jill / The Age 30-7-04
CASWELL WANTS INDUSTRY TO BE LOVEDTrish Caswell has had been well briefed since she joined the Victorian Association of Forest Industries in April. In an interview on ABC radio (30th July) she parroted the exact same industry rhetoric we've heard for decades: the need for 'sustainability', no job losses, that it's better to log our forests than poorer countries' forests, we all use paper so we have no option, the need to value add, and so on. The old 'compromise' line was dressed up in new words: "Industrial systems need to work alongside natural systems and social systems". She wants government money to get all players together and work out a solution that everyone is happy with (golly - that's something never before tried). However, a few extras were thrown in about which I had to call her to ask for clarification. Like how to log old growth and still maintain its values. Her answer to that was that she didn't know if it could be done but is something we need to 'work through'. Caving in to immorality When I asked how she could do such a turn-around on woodchipping in the eight years since she was arrested at the Tarkine she said we can't keep saying 'no' to everything. As a well-known Earth Garden editor put it - "I thought this was called 'holding a line' when it was against something immoral, unjustifiable and horribly destructive, like slavery, child abuse, racism, domestic violence, old growth logging. But it seems that somewhere along the line of "keeping on saying NO" we're supposed to say, "Oh, alright then". She makes it sound virtuous and creative to cave in to immorality. And anyway, we've never "just kept saying no". Dr Judy Clark has had the solution sitting on the table since 1995. In fact we're all sick to death of talking about 'existing plantations', but it seems Trish has never heard of them". Trish Caswell's only new media line tries to appeal to people's softer side - she wanted the industry to 'have credibility' and 'be loved'. Jill
Rainforests still logged to within an inch of their edge The Bracks government has released new statewide logging prescriptions (though now they're called "procedures"), combining all regional prescriptions into the one document. The procedures seem to have few changes, at least as far as rainforest is concerned. The Mixed Forest definition (rainforest and eucalypt) is now included but is complex and will be hard to apply in the field. These forests should now be protected where stands meet the size limits of 0.4ha. Past logging of these forests have been put down to the inability of foresters to identify them, so we're not sure what will change. Predictably, the government is still clinging on to its 20m minimum buffers for linear rainforest (along streams and gullies), in breach of section 2.3.7(i) of the Code of Forest Practice which states buffers must be a minimum of 40m. Despite this having been pointed out to them, DSE foresters refuse to give ground. Interestingly, 60m minimum buffers apply in the Otways, yet the Central highlands Myrtle Beech dominated rainforests receive the sub-standard 40m, again in breach of the Code of Forest Practice; so much for state-wide "standardisation". No public review/consultation period existed for these new procedures. These are a farce at the best of times but all major planning and management instruments such as this one should invite public comment. Victorian Rainforest Network / Jill
SCIENTIST
NARROWS HIS VISION Dr. David Lindenmayer has written many books and papers on forest ecology and spent years researching the Leadbeater's Possum in the Central Highlands. He's always been a fearless advocate for Leadbeater's Possum against those who seek to log it out of existence. His books make his research accessible to the general public. However we are sorry to say that he has recently had a turn - in his stand on logging. We are disappointed to see someone of his calibre now involved in a blatantly unscientific process. We don't want to brand him an eco-rat with the others, but we disagree with him, and here's why. Besides supporting the WWF 'blueprint for Tasmania' which is basically a non-scientific plan to preserve the logging industry, he has come to see logging in native forests as acceptable if tiny islands of forest are left in each clearfelled area. Although much of his past work has helped argue the case against this exact type of pointless management, he is now advocating it as solid science. Other academics are shocked by Lindenmayer's new-found politics. ' 'Variable retention
harvesting' This method, called 'variable retention harvesting', retains small islands of forest within a clearfelled area. In the test sites either one 1.5 hectare area is retained within an average 30 hectare logging coupe or three half hectare areas. The idea is that enough trees within the retained clumps would grow to the 200-400+ year old trees that Leadbeater's Possums would live in, while feeding in the surrounding wattle regrowth. Costly and flammable One test site has
several sites of rainforest significance, large stands of mixed age
forest and old growth. The coupe we looked at had three 1/2 ha clumps
unlogged. Lindenmayer's research team worked closely with department
to ensure the islands survived the post-logging hot burn. This method
took two days instead of a few hours and cost $5,000 extra. The Department
said that in future this cost would be reduced as areas to be maintained
within the coupe would be set between coupes rather than within them.
Which looks like it will be business as usual in the end. The areas
between coupes are often in gullies, and Dr Lindenmayer has previously
warned that "vegetation strips retained along watercourses. . . Unsuitable for Leadbeater's David was concerned about the loss of hollow bearing trees and said this would be a means of ensuring older trees survived. 1.5ha in a 30 ha coupe is 5% of the original forest; this flies in the face of Dr Lindenmayer's earlier opinion that:
Dr Lindenmayer has in the past emphatically denied that clumps of habitat trees in a sea of regrowth are useful for Leadbeater's, as the possums prefer habitat trees that are regularly distributed, not in a "clustered or clumped arrangement". He said that:
He goes on to say that many attempts to conserve nest sites in logged areas have failed due to logging fires, and he reminds us that the large dead trees favoured by Leadbeater's Possum are particularly flammable, collapsing as soon as they are burned, and that increased wind and temperature fluctuations in logged areas may hasten the collapse of retained trees. (p.106) Fragmenting populations And as for those juicy wattle feeding grounds that grow around each retained area after clearfelling, his prior research shows that Leadbeater's rely on large tree crickets and other insects that live in the bark strips which hang from the branches of montane ash trees as "a valuable source of protein", and "it may be a long time before these flightless insects can re-colonise logged and regenerated sites". Not to mention the dangers of isolation of the possums by fragmentation of the forest, in which small colonies in retained clumps could become extinct (perhaps by predation by owls which would also favour those same retained clumps) and never get re-colonised, gradually leading to larger extinction patterns.(p.107) He states emphatically:
Dysfunctional eco-systems The main focus of Lindenmayer's research is protecting the Leadbeater's possum, however when asked about the Yellow-bellied Glider he responded that this species required old growth and would not be directly helped by this method, nor would rainforest, or the myriad of other factors that determine a functioning ecological system. David's research appears to be a micro model and does not address the problem logging has on biodiversity across the landscape. Research shows that it could take 1,500 to 2,500 years for forests to regain their ecological integrity after clearfelling. Maintaining a few trees within a coupe will undoubtedly have a minimal effect. Gord 'elp other areas David said this model was only appropriate in the Central Highlands and further research would be needed to determine its applicability to other areas. He believes that the present reserve system along with this method would be sufficient to protect the Leadbeater's Possum. He also said that the Central Highlands and Tasmania would be the last areas to end logging. If that's the case, we need to bring about that end as quickly as possible. Liz Ingham Environment East Gippsland / Megan Clinton - The Wilderness Society
|
||||||||||
