Circles within circles ... a lamentBy ROELF ROOSThe stormy Tasmanian spring weather could have a bearing on the superlative estimates and astronomical figures being bandied about. A result of Prime Minister John Howard's testing of the waters, loading the possibility of an end to old growth logging onto his election waggon. At this point, it is necessary to look back to the 90s, prior to the aptly named Rapacious Forestry Alliance (RFA) coming into being. The chronic unemployment at the time must not be forgotten and compared with the threatened redundancy of workers today, exceeding the 10s of 1000s, should just that part of the forest industry (old growth) come to an end. According to FIAT, the loss of timber products alone to its association members will exceed $9 billion and so it goes on. (We are talking about publicly owned forests.) In this context it is fruitless to look, where the $billions ended up, that represent the awards for all the timber reaped up to date, enough, to change the face of Tasmania forever. In the pockets of corporate shareholders, global financial institutions and overseas machinery manufacturerers. Andreas Stihl, the world's largest chainsaw maker, once claimed, Tasmania was his world best market. The unemployment rate (since the 90s) appears to have dropped appreciatively, 2-3%. Mainly as a result of an increase in tourism, following the twin ferry purchase. However, if 2-3% equals the quoted 12000 redundancies in this case, we are looking at a work force of 400,000 to 600,000, exceeding the total Tasmanian population. As interesting, as all the confusing figures given out in respect of the protected and reserved forest areas, with a tiny percentage being carefully and sustainably logged. No map with an overall Tasmanian picture and tonnage taken for the past ten years is available, nor will it ever be. These ten years, or at least to 1996, the inception of the RFA, are crowded with what appear coincidental happenings, seen from my perch on a tree stump in the heart of the north eastern highlands. The then Forestry Commission released an armchair study report in respect of the South Esk Catchment, foreshadowing considerable, if not drastic changes ('93 or '94). It was one of a number, including the CSIRO. This was followed by the Forestry Commission turning into a profit oriented corporation, Gunns ("our core business is not wood chipping") slipping out of its chrysalis, unfolding its wings and baring its fangs, the development of the RFA and the Department of Agriculture swallowing up Environment, Water, the River Commission, Inland Fisheries, Parks and Wildlife and more, including the newly sponsored Landcare and associated movements, funded by the part Telstra sale under the Natural Heritage mantle. Landcare, in my view and indeed experience, as such became a group of loyal voters, fund receivers, fencers and enhancers of private properties, long since sold, without being concerned on behalf of all that land surrounding them, subject to severe degradation. A result of clearfelling the steep valley slopes, burning down mountain sides and the rest. The free sausage sizzle in the valley, while the mountains were mown down. (The alternative would cut off the sausage resource.) The RFA was said to be an agreement with all sections of the public. Whilst nothing could be further from the truth, the last letter stands for that. As the forestry operations moved through the mountains and escarpment, water problems soon became apparent. These were soon addressed by another ploy, putting responsibility onto the shoulders of the public, in this case PEVs. The DPIWE created this acronym, standing for Protected Environmental Values, holding meetings in localities deemed to be most suitable (by the DPIWE), on community water values in conjunction with Local Government. (In my particular case, Break O'Day, the meeting was held in the Bayside Inn, Cecilia St., St.Helens, on 18.5.2001 at 7pm. I did not attend, our Council seat is over 100km distant, more than 200km return and time involved from 5pm to midnight.) There is no further comment necessary, the events of January 2004, the oyster kill in Georges Bay, the recipient of the St.Helens catchment and Local Government pro and reaction are well known. Nevertheless, the PEVs have been established, following forestry operations, with or without public consent. The preferred description of "stakeholders" for the public is a politically convenient and misleading expression. Since, we learnt the controversial Forest Practices Board is to be replaced by an authority. The possible effect of forestry pulp plantations on the water resource is to be researched and, wait for it, the Freedom of Information Act is going to apply to Forestry Tasmania (as it did to the former Commission). All after the fact, not before. Finally, the Secretary of the DPIWE, Kim Evans, in the wake of increasing concerns about Tasmanian drinking water, today announces the necessity of whole catchment monitoring and management. Considering the former head of the DPIWE, Bryan Green, is today Forestry Minister, we have turned another complete circle, losing in this process, what made Tasmania unique and special. We have no one but ourselves, the public, to blame. We agreed to it, or did we?
R.D.Roos,
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Saturday, September 18, 2004 |