Yesterday the front page of Tasmania’s Examiner read “End of war in Tassie’s forests?”. Today it is “Policy cut down: Environment groups attack forestry plan.”
The war was meant to end in 1997 with the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA). But the campaigning never stopped.
In the deal signed on Friday between Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon and the PM something like 90 per cent of the forest in the northwest know as the Tarkine will now be ‘protected’ from logging.
The campaigners, however, are complaining because the area won’t be World Heritage listed – not even given National Park status. I understand that while logging is now banned there is still potential for cattle grazing and mining.
The timber industry gets money for restructuring etcetera. In fact the $250 million package promised by the PM on Friday is a lot more than the $110 million which came with the 1997 RFA.
There are a whole lot of other components to the deal including banning the use of the poison 1080 in state forests from January. There is apparently no alternative effective control for ‘browsing’ animals who can destroy seedlings in new forest planting, but $4 million has been promised for research.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I guess the squabble will never end? The opponents of commercial forestry will not be quiet until the industry ceases to exist. Given that there are already Australian pine plantations that cannot be logged due to the potential aesthetic impact, I don’t think the debate will end even if we close down native forest industries. Look at British logging opposition, which acts to protect plantations of pine. Plantations, which like-minded people opposed when the trees were planted half a century ago.
The opposition to forestry, after all, gains political support and a sense of purpose from their stance, so they best beware of getting what they want. Reduced political prominence and a pointless existence?
Wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
Before events got lost in time someone should write up a history of the restriction of the Victorian timber industry in the 1980-90’s.
My recollection is several cycles of Green groups making ambit claims for areas to be excluded from logging, against a background of demonstrations and media coverage of just logged coups some demands would be granted.
Seemingly before the ink was dry on agreements the process would be taken up again with protest groups getting more clever and experienced at the buttons to push. Some botanist could always be found to do a survey justifying this or that area classification.
The greens have no intention of ever being satisfied.
Great example of green tactics for someone to research.
Warwick Hughes
When have the greens been happy. The only time they have had anything positive to say is when they believe they have closed the timber industry down.
We have the greens on the north coast NSW campaigning against a proposed plantation in the Kangaroo Creek area.
You just have to wonder, the timber industry was told to give up the native forest and plant plantations to make the industry sustainable. What happens, they don’t want the plantations either.
In fact, living in their timber houses, sitting at their timber tables and using volumes of paper in their campaigns they really only want all these products to come from overseas from forests that are NOT being harvested sustainably.