There is no campaign against the export of woodchip from Queensland’s native forests because all the forest ‘residue’ that could be turned into woodchip is burnt instead.
I understand this was the outcome of the 1999 deal between the Queensland Government,Queensland Timber Board, Wilderness Society, Australian Rainforest Conservation Society and Queensland Conservation Council. That is, that everyone agreed it didn’t matter what happened to the ‘residues’ from native forest harvesting as long as it was not exported as woodchip etcetera or used for ‘green energy’ generation.
This is so wasteful.
The Tasmanian industry has agreed to no such deal. I understand that woodchip is a good earner for their forest industry – and there is a campaign against it with at least one Japanese Company agreeing to not buy Aussie woodchip. But I don’t think they have agreed to stop making paper – and indeed there was no campaign against paper.
The Forest Industry has suggested that the Japanese should rethink their policy, and according to ABC OnLine,
The Forests and Forest Industry Council (FFIC) has made a submission to Japanese paper company Nippon Paper Group, saying the industry in Tasmania is not destructive.
Nippon Paper Group is reviewing its policy on its raw materials supply.
FFIC chairman Rob Woolley says the submission detailed the sustainability of present forest practices.
He says one of the major aims of the submission is to reiterate that any harvesting of old growth forests is minimal and only a small amount is used for woodchips.
“The harvesting is primarily done to get high quality saw log and veneer, and that the chip component that comes out is a by-product,” Mr Woolley said.
“The importance of the chip component is that is adds to the economics of harvesting these timbers.”
I am all for making use of all byproduct including woodchip for paper rather than just burning it. But as per the above media report, I wouldn’t agree that the industry isn’t destructive (it is and needs to be because involves clearfelling patches, see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000708.html)and I understand that woodchip can be a significant component of the total harvest.
Some of the campaigns against woodchip:
http://www.chipstop.forests.org.au/whatis.html
http://www.tcha.org.au/paper.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
In relation to the SEQ agreement, does this mean the “forest residues” (to use the link’s inverted commas) are simply burnt in SEQ?
If the parties to the agreement agree the residues must be cleared, or to put it another way, the forests must be maintained, why do they fail to put the residue to any use? I’d be interested to see some statistics on how much is cleared and the corresponding unrealised potential in terms of revenue for sales or production in terms of green energy, SEQ is missing out on because of this “agreement”.