“Australia has 155 million hectares of native forests. About 10 percent – 11 million hectares – of those forests are managed for wood production with less than 1 percent being harvested in any one year. The small proportion of forests that is harvested annually is regenerated so that a perpetual supply of native hardwood and softwood is maintained in this country.
And let me say that Australia is fortunate to have some of the best foresters in the world working to maintain our forest assets in perpetuity.”
So began a speech by Martin Ferguson, the Australian Labor Party’s resources and forestry spokesman, to the National Association of Forest Industries titled “Australia’s role in the global sustainability of forestry and forest industries” on 28th November 2005.
The speech was the focus of an opinion piece in today’s The Australian in which Glenn Milne suggests that,
“Ferguson’s speech amounted to the most unrelenting attack on the Greens from a figure of substance on the Labor side of politics since the defeat of the Keating government in 1996. Brown is now on notice. In the words of one senior Labor figure supporting Ferguson: “We’re about sending a message to Tasmania. Some sections of the Labor Party now no longer believe that the rainbow alliance is the way forward, especially when it’s our economic credibility that’s under question. Running around chasing the Green tail just means we’re ignoring our base, and that includes small contractors.”
In the speech Martin Ferguson tries to take the moral high ground on environmental issues as well as shafting the greens.
As Milne reported, Ferguson said, “The Greens are a political movement chasing votes like any other party. The campaign being run by the Greens is aimed at capturing votes, it has nothing to do with the environment or sustainability, and above all, it is dishonest.
The result of the Greens actions could well be to scare international customers away from sustainable forest resources in Tasmania to countries where illegal logging leaves a trail of total devastation, but where ignorance is bliss.”
While the forestry industry and me have been saying as much for a long time, I haven’t read anyting like this in The Australian by a regular columnist or heard anything like this from a federal Labor leader – ever.
The Shadow Minister was talking to the timber industry when he gave the speech. Milne is suggesting the speech is part of a new realignment by the Labor party.
But how will federal Labor promote a pro-forestry policy and also retain some of its inner city seats won at previous elections at least in part because of its popularist pseudo-green credentials which have historically been about opposing logging in Tasmania.
Read the speech here, download file here (51 kbs).
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Federal Labor might begin with the truth and particularly in the inner-city seats of state strongholds. A novel concept, I know, but the very easily won vote for the environment should be even more attractive when removed of impropriety.
Trouble is, the political capital of popularist environmental impropriety has won government under Labor in all states. Kicking free of the greens will be much easier than winning cooperation from state government.
So wishing to be educated – do we have a succinct article on the sustainability (or otherwise) of Australia’s forest resources? Motty obviously won’t be able to hear as he’ll have the opera cranked full tilt.
Sounds like Labor will do anything to pull some votes – what do they really believe? So much for high principles.
The ALP are dishonest; they dont really represent workers they only represent an unelected centralised system of worker domination.
The greens are also dishonest; they really represent a system where the individuals rights are sacrificed to one of a centralised unelected committee of planners.
Whats this about this about principles?
blah blah blah 4 x 2 diplomacy dole bludger conspiracy theory rhetoric blah
the right wing should be licensed, barcoded and monitored for banjo playing.. twang twang
I don’t know about a succinct article on the degree of sustainability of Aus forestry. Given that there are many types of forest in this country, and what’s sustainable practice in one forest is not sustainable in another, it may be difficult to produce one article to cover all bases. I don’t think there is a succinct answer to “what’s sustainable?” in a complex situation.
Some simple observations might stir your neurons.
I find most people think forest harvesting results in agricultural land. I have even read a comment by a celeb critic of forestry to the effect that “such and such a piece of bush that I knew as a little boy is now a cow paddock”, implying that foresters have some interest in running livestock. When my frustration comes to the surface, I ask critics “what’s the difference between clearing and clear-falling?”. Very few people can even comprehend the question; “whadya mean what’s the difference? They’re the same aren’t they?” When so few people have any grasp of even of the most basic forestry practices, communication is difficult. Then when you explain the difference between farming and forestry, people assume you are lying (vested interest again), so in the end it’s like trying to debate with a devout Christian whether or not Jesus Christ was mortal.
One I really like is “high conservation value forest”, which is the label the greens give a block of bush that has been logged and regenerated and now they want to convert it into a national park. Now it just so happens that the same people also tell us that when a forest is logged it is destroyed. Destroyed to me means “1. to injure beyond repair or renewal. 2. to put an end to: extinguish. 3. to kill.” How is it that a supposedly destroyed ecosystem, that is then regenerated (or repaired or renewed) by foresters, can have any conservation value at all? Why does the general public accept this self-contradictory argument from the greens?
If you really want to understand commercial forestry, you have to want to learn about it. If you want to present an honest and intellectually rigorous argument about what is wrong with a forestry practice, you have to educate yourself. This is not easy or cheap, but it’s the same with any other field of human activity. If your response to everything foresters say is “liar, lair”, then you don’t want to learn; you have to be happy with your ignorance and accept that you are maintaining a belief, not an understanding, in relation to the issue.
There is an alternative course of action; restrain yourself from adopting a position about forestry and be a neutral observer. Tim Flannery said in effect that old growth logging and whaling are of minor importance compared to other environmental issues, so if you relax on the question of forestry in Australia, the chances are the sun will still come up in the morning.
Local foresters tell me that a multimillion $ EIS conducted on the Watagans found that contemporary harvesting techniques were 104% sustainable ie they would never run out of timber.
For political reasons only the Watagans are now a National Park.
Wilderness Society are running campaigns showing areas of clear felled devastation when in fact they are photos of log dumps, usually a few acres, where harvested logs are collected, sorted and dispatched.
Phil, the “right wing” as you put it do spend some time finding out what the customer wants, and delivering it.
The “left wing” (of the now ex-Xmas turkey?) seek to impose what they want onto the customer.
What is so unprincipled about serving others?
Rog – (time for a thoughtful response by me) I just don’t see the issue of markets being efficient that simply. There are a whole variety of companies out there in different industries with different management with different motivations.
Some sectors are efficient – some aren’t. Just as some governments are better than others; and good ideas come from all sides of politics.
The democratic system we have isn’t a free market system. Essentially a modest majority (50 odd percent) get to impose their will on a very large but slightly smaller (close to 50%) other half. In the end it comes down to seats not numbers. And of course we could at this point have a very large discussion about proportional and other voting systems (but we won’t).
So if you’re free market in an electoral sense – let’s have anarchy – and we can all do what we want with ZERO government interference – isn’t that what Louis and yourself and have been saying. Get govt, greens and other NGOs out of my life.
Noun: anarchism
1. A political theory favouring the abolition of governments
Of course anarchism can also lead to anarchy
Noun: anarchy
1. A state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
2. Society run on the principles of anarchism
Most of us aren’t that keen on definition number one, as we own or may wish to own land, property, shares, have a right to protect ourselves, not be dealt with dishonestly in daily life and business, have recognized accredited qualifications, and not have a sheet metal plant built next to our house
The market’s job is essentially to provide profits to shareholders. Does it really matter if the customer is not that happy, sold crap products, gives people cancer 20-30 years later, or we dump all our waste in the nearest creek. Not really for “some” companies.
As long as the customers keep coming (somehow) and we can talk our way out . And given the market if very fluid – we have stock markets, electronically networked and globally traded – the penalty for not having your P to E ratio up to shmick is rapid and severe to your share price.
On of the first things you learn in economics classes (as opposed to finance, accounting perhaps) is that some markets exhibit failure. Modern economists and some environmentalists would argue that if the commons (the atmosphere, high seas, and public land) is taken for granted or that internalising externalities doesn’t occur (i.e. it’s free to dump your little gold mine’s cyanide in that creek that waters Rog’s horses) – the market is not really representing true costs to the world, shareholder and the customer.
Of course ethicists and deep greenies would argue that economics is twaddle and very recent anyway. We survived millennia without economics. Before we had an economy we had a society and before we had a society we had an ecology. But maybe without a plasma TV we weren’t happy in our survival.
Now that we have professional MBAs running companies and everyone has read Tom Peter’s Search for Excellence theories we might differentiate companies based on quality and being very close to the customer. Ethical behaviour, codes of conduct and being good corporate citizens etc.
You also might not without some heavy consumer and environmental legislation for recalcitrants. And markets can also lead you to arguing in court that black is white and the sun rises in the west. See testimony of tobacco companies.
The question is what is a fair balance. That’s what I’m interested in. A balance. I don’t want anarchy or a socialist or facist or nazi state. I might want a plasma TV, a stereo Walkman, and a Ford Territory and the kindly efficient market might provide me with that at a good price (I actually own none of the above). But I also might want some nice parks, clean streets, wild places, native animals, freedom of speech and tolerance of others. You can’t get it without a balance.
Would your prefer on a lifestyle basis to live in Sweden, Australia or the USA?
Maybe BP gets it ?
http://www.bpalternativenergy.com/liveassets/bp_internet/alternativenergy/index.html
Corporations, markets, governments of all colours, and NGOs, and individuals can all do good and bad things. I suggest less ideology and more critical independent thought on individual issues.
Phil, I applaud your concluding remark. However why is it that if Ferguson argues that not harvesting our forests means we consume someone else’s forest (often harvested in the absence of any competent forestry practices), that is an example of unprincipled popularism by the Labor Party? Yet the actions of the Australian greens, which has filled your local Bunnings store with rainforest timber – these actions are somehow principled?
BP does get it, as does Shell and maybe some other oil companies. They are preparing themselves for the future when oil becomes uncompetitive. They wave the greenish hued flag in the present to improve their public image. Market economics. They’re smarter than some of the other oil producers, so they will still be profitable in 50 years time.
Boxer – yes I agree. I’m not anti-forestry. My original question at the start of this thread – is there brief summary of where we are with national forestry in the sustainability debate. Seems to me that we have issues in Tasmania – would have thought that an intelligent forward looking Tasmanian timber industry would be doing a “BP” and getting those issues well ventilated, settled and off the agenda.
I don’t buy Bunnings rainforest timber. I support my local crusty old independent. The Australian industry should publicise its position and expose unsustainable practices in Indonesia and Oceania.
BP won’t woo cynical greens I’d think. However if they think global warming and/or Peak Oil is an issue(s) – they are positioning themselves in the global energy business more than totally the fossil fuel business. For the rest of us – that’s not bad.
Thats right Phil, all we want is a fair balance – between customer and client. When ideology interferes with freedoms (ie speech, association, trade etc) that is neither fair nor reasonable.
Phil
I actually don’t know the details of the Tasmanian situation. In a fair and reasonable world, it would be sensible for the industry there to open the subject for debate and settle a few issues. However in my experience on the mainland, it is actually very difficult to air the issues sensibly and the public generally believe what the greens say and are sceptical of anything a commercial interest has to say.
In my state the single local daily paper took up the forestry issue in a big way and it was very difficult to get a message out from the industry side. When the paper did publish something pro-forestry as a gesture to “balanced reporting”, the article was a full page written by a forest scientist and it was not the sort of article the average newspaper consumer would take the trouble to read. Even though these articles were informative, they were also detailed and tackled the complexity of the issue. These occasional pro-industry presentations had no chance against the newspaper’s torrid editorialising (while brushing aside the observation that newspapers are printed on wood fibre) and the slick slogans deployed by the greens. The greens even had a news item with photo to describe their use of a public relations consultant to produce the said slogans. Presumably the public thought this demonstrated that the greens are clever at manipulating public opinion without recognising that they, the public, may have been duped by such blatant manipulation.
That’s all in the past and our industry is now much smaller and shrinking. The point is, just because you don’t hear the industry explaining itself in Tasmania doesn’t mean it hasn’t tried or isn’t prepared to. What they say is probably just not reaching you because our society applies very heavy self-censorship upon our public discourse on contentious issues. If you want to know what the industry thinks, communicate directly with it. I’d be interested to know what you find.
Another factor: most forest scientists are public sector people, and public servants are not encouraged to discuss their work in public forums. You may be aware that the principal function of the public servant is to NOT embarass the Minister under ANY circumstances. My minister was part of the public campaign to crush the local forest industry. So I’m not likely to participate in this sort of debate in a more public place using my own name am I? Somewhere in the public service act there is the power for my employer to put me in a corner to sharpen pencils for the next decade for writing this.
The public elects flaccid armchair conservationists into state governments and they get flaccid natural resource management. I’d even say that you’re getting better government than you deserve.
So – is an answer a realclimate blog for foresters. “Real Forestry” – where the nitty gritty gets aired. A sideline for Jen ?
The answer is political.
So you reckon don’t persuade people to a point of view – just legislate them into the submission. But will that settle the issue?
Define “political”
For many years I voted Labor, on the grounds of a fair go for all. I stopped voting Labor when Brian Burke destroyed the Forests Department of WA. Carmen Lawrence did not attract my loyalty either. Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating – less said, the better. I am glad to hear Martin Ferguson talking common sense on forest and environmental issues. If he keeps it up, and state parties follow his lead, I might vote Labor again. I suspect a lot of others might too. And I have been a working conservationist for nearly forty years. I have planted trees in the rain, wearing a fertiliser bag, because I could not afford a raincoat. Are you listening in the Labor Party?
Davey – so give us a broad brush piccie of what common sense on environment is .. ..
or anyone else for that matter .. .. having the top job and implementing policy perhaps different to being on the sidelines
If I’m anyone else, (as a horse, perhaps I’m anything rather than anyone) common sense on an environmental issue is choosing the course of action that does the least damage to the environment while meeting the demand for the natural resource being exploited. Zero environmental damage is not an alternative because we all need our computers, don’t we?
I agree about the top job being different to working in the trenches. The top job is an ugly emulsion of natural resource supply and demand, and politics. Politics is market place for votes with a very short term investment horizon. Resource supply and demand is a market place for material goods and services and it operates over human generations when it comes to forestry. The two markets are not closely coupled, so we do have a fundamental problem if we want to manage the natural resource market by pulling levers in the political market.
Which makes one wonder, why would anyone want the top job? Must be like trying to drive your car to the pub for a restorative ale while you’re travelling home on the bus.
For the forests it seems to be a simple sum, harvest + death is greather than or equal to growth perhaps averaged over a decade and averaged over some regional basis with appropiate set asides for the “biodiversity”,
All can be measured but perhaps those who do the measurements need to be seen as independent from the owners private companies, individuals or state governments and an up to date web site with actual measurements, locations provided for public verification. Lack of transparency leads to supision and attack from the left right and middle
I think the starting point of this blog included some information about total harvest being less than growth. It’s true that there needs to be an understanding of what scales of time and space are involved, but this varies from forest to forest. If you want to achieve a balance between harvest and growth over one hectare and one decade, that won’t be possible in native forests. If you want to talk in terms of a particular forest type over centuries, then there is a balance in all forests to the best of my knowledge. This has not always been the case, but like any profession, foresty has made progress.
There is no such thing as an independent group to conduct the measurements, but if the industry makes the measurements, it’s critics should be allowed access to the data for review and public comment. Whoever makes the measurements will be paid by the industry, either directly, or by some form of industry levy managed by government. If industry opponents collected the data, the industry would not believe them and visa versa. In the course of a few conversations with a number of greens over the years, I’ve never heard any interest in real data. Resorting to the data means everyone has to become proficient to some degree in forest science and there is no way such a complex process would survive the political imperatives. This issue is a very clear demonstration of the triumph of political superficiality over fact.
Forestry industry should put their data and do a “realclimate” style blog on forestry. Make the case with some technical depth.
At least with journos you can then say – nope that’s a furphy – been discussed already – read this URL.
And if you’re any good – get an award for pro-active communication/education.
Phil,
By environmental common sense I mean a middle path, aiming for (perhaps never quite achieving) harmony between nature and human society. Some ‘deep ecologists’ would like to abolish human society. Some ‘developers’ would like to bulldoze nature out of existence. Gardening is a good starting point – in my garden I do disturb nature in order to grow tomatoes, but the tomato bushes in turn provide habitat for beautiful little green tree frogs – perhaps they never had it so good. I cut some grass short, and leave other parts long, giving a variety of habitat for my friends the bandicoots, and other beasties – common sense. I don’t feel in the least guilty about being here on Earth, and will harvest what I need, without being greedy. Scale that up to forests, farmland, suburbs, and National Parks.
The current dogma of some urban academics, and green politicians (and perhaps even one television savvy fire chief) on the ‘benefits’ of blanket long fire exclusion is a prime example of a complete lack of environmental common sense. Even Blind Freddy can see that the result is vast feral fires which destroy frogs, bandicoots, native seed banks, houses, tomatoes, old growth trees, pollute water and air, and even sterilise the soil itself, or sometimes bake it to terracotta. Dismissing Aboriginal understanding of fire is environmental stupidity. Likewise locking up our own forests, so promoting the destruction of other people’s.
How was that for a rant?
The point is that only 10% of forests are harvested and the rate of harvesting is 100 years to harvest the full 10%.
Just what exactly are the greenies prattling on about?
That should read +100 years to harvest the full 10%.
Davey – I agree most of us would aim for a balance. That’s a good start and an admirable personal position.
How to judge the balance and how to sell it to a cynical urban electorate ?
As an aside – I also remember marvelling at cotton water storages filled with water birds, frogs and fish. Whether I’d eat the fish is another matter though.
Phil,
I think there has been, over the past few decades, too much selling of the environmental credo by the media, stoked with ‘fast news’ delivered to their offices, like pizzas, by the environmental industry. The sales pitch is getting a bit threadbare – one can only take so many drowning polar bears, floods in Bangladesh, melting icebergs (haven’t they always?), and hurricanes of hot air about the Kyodo Prodogol (where the devil is Kyodo?). Isn’t there an old story about the little boy who cried ‘wolf’ once too often?
I will vote for a politician who likes green frogs, possums, bandicoots, and me; supports sustainable logging; avoids environmental photo-opportunities and sound bites; looks nothing like Bob Brown or Kerry Nettles; understands the basic need for careful fuel reduction burns; sees through eco-mountebanks; and promises not to use the terms ‘biodiversity’ and ‘ecosystem’ more than, say, once a month. Cynics like me will buy that, no selling needed. Or am I politically naive? (I hope so)
P.S. Such a politician must also promote a ban on supermarkets selling tasteless tomatoes, picked before they are fit for consumption. The poor birds and bugs have tears in their eyes. Or are supermarket tomatoes GM, crossed with a raw potato? Wasn’t there a Russian once who crossed a cabbage with a radish (same genus Brassica?), and ended up with the root of a cabbage, and the leaves of a radish? Or do I digress?
Phil,
Prue Hewett personifies comonsense environmentalism; having invested her entire redundency package into Daintree World Heritage rainforest; and deriving a sustainable income from ethical travel in exchange for eco-cultural insight and self-sustaining protection.
Neil – full marks to Prue. Not wanting to be ornery but I guess that logging was halted in that area by Hawke/Richardson with some considerable angst from sawmillers and industry. How do you feel about those times now in retrospect. Could the values that bring people to the Daintree now co-exist with logging. (Have been to Daintree, Cape Trib, Bloomfield areas twice but probably didn’t understand what I was looking at).
Davey – have to say that despite all the machinations – the regional bodies in some areas at least seem to be self-actuating and getting into some serious personal resource management. GIS and remote sensing imagery going like topsy. Big thirst for data.
In Queensland we have a major issue with fire – too little in most of the state and maybe too much in the top end. Result – mixed woodlands thickening and becoming forests. Some good field measurements, photographs and isotope studies to back it up. So some mulga forests for example were not there 100 years ago.
Phil,
I strongly support WH listing of Qld’s Wet Tropical rainforests. In retrospect, the manner of nomination and inscription could have been handled much better. I was working in Ravenshoe at the time Richardson was stoned by angry timber-workers and have read more recently that he considered these acts of hostility invaluable in winning support of the metropolitan masses through mainstream media.
As for continued logging and its attraction to tourism, visit any award winning eco-resort and I guarantee that you will bask in the richness and diversity of rainforest cabinetry.
The failure of tourism to replace timber economies in places like Ravenshoe leaves an entirely different justification for concurrent logging. The Daintree generates far greater income through tourism than logging ever provided, but its bounty is deflected into politically more powerful communities of Cairns and Port Douglas, but this is another issue altogether.
Interestingly, a disefranchised Ravenshoe logger was jailed for a year for poaching timber from WH-listed state forest for a lesser quantity than the Wet Tropics Management Authority deemed as minor and inconsequential to avoid compensation in our Daintree portion.