This new Plan will open up 420,000 ha of pristine public native rainforest and oldgrowth for taxpayer funded plundering by the special timbers industry. This includes 225,000 ha of rainforest and oldgrowth in conservation reserves.
The Plan is essentially a help-yourself DIY approach to public forest management, with an Open Season on the last of Tasmania’s rainforest and oldgrowth.
After the Executive Summary the Plan begins by trying to tell us how important the special timbers industry is; total industry employment, total value, etc.
It’s like the Government telling us that Centrelink is a commercial business not welfare.
The Tasmanian Government believes in Welfare State Forestry, even whilst in competition with private tree growers! So profitability, good commercial management and responsible forest management are out the door.
This draft Plan is not a business plan.
This draft special timbers management plan begins with the premise that Tasmania’s last remaining oldgrowth and rainforests exist to be plundered…….at taxpayers expense……for the exclusive benefit of a handful of local woodworkers!
This draft special timbers management plan does not begin with the premise that Tasmania’s premium timbers should be sold into competitive open markets to help fund schools, roads and hospitals.
Nor does the Plan even consider whether these forests are more valuable left untouched.
In 2010 the special timbers industry was formally admitted into Tasmania’s Welfare State. This new draft management plan now takes that Welfare State to a whole new level of plunder, waste and welfare.
The only basis for a successful forest industry is profitable tree growing.
This Plan represents the exact opposite. It’s a disaster for current and potential private blackwood growers.
The draft Plan is open for submissions until 9am Monday 28 August 2017. Submissions can be sent directly to the Department of State Growth by emailing: email@example.com
The Plan will become law once it is signed and gazetted by the Minister.
This excellent article in today’s Mercury newspaper succinctly captures the pain suffering and the high cost to Tasmania of the failures of the last 35 years.
But I certainly don’t agree with the authors final note that the political system can somehow find a solution to the problem.
The one fundamental lesson of the last 35 years is that Tasmania’s political system cannot solve the forestry crisis.
Whilst we continue to log public native forest there will always be politics, conflict, corruption and waste.
That is the fundamental lesson.
This is true not just in Tasmania, which provides the most extreme case, but in all Australian States where public native forest is logged.
Putting our hopes in the political system again, when all indications are that the forthcoming State election will be a bitter and divisive contest with forestry once more a major issue, is sheer lunacy; a classic example of Einstein’s definition of insanity.
No political party (Liberal, Labor or Greens) has a plan to resolve Tasmania’s forestry crisis.
The Response keeps the focus of forest policy firmly on a public forest resource and a failed, self-declared bankrupt public forest manager.
Any transition to profitable private tree growers is completely out of the question.
Absolutely nothing has changed!
The bulk of the Response is about what the long suffering Tasmanian taxpayer will continue to do for the forest industry.
The continuing wanton waste of taxpayer’s money on the forest industry is beyond belief! The forest industry has access to the Treasury piggy bank like no other industry in Tasmania!
It now appears certain that the Tasmanian taxpayer will take over responsibility for funding the construction and maintenance of all thousands of kilometres of forestry roads on public land. This is a direct contravention of competitive neutrality.
Remember there are private forest growers who receive none of these taxpayer benefits.
Finally on to special timbers discussed on page 4 of the Response.
As part of the continuing forest industry gravy train, the Tasmanian taxpayer is throwing money at a propaganda initiative to tell us about the benefits of continuing to plunder the last of Tasmania’s oldgrowth and rainforests for the benefit of a handful of venerable craftspeople.
Tasmanian Special Timber Woodcraft Sector Community, Market Awareness and Engagement Program Funding
Funding of $115 000 has been provided to the Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance for the development and implementation of a Tasmanian Special Timber Woodcraft Sector Community, Market Awareness and Engagement Program. This program will support the implementation of the Special Species Management Plan.
It is all so sad, pathetic and predictable.
Forestry in Tasmania continues to be nothing but waste, politics, and conflict.
Many Tasmanians seem more than happy with this outcome.
As a forester I find the situation incomprehensible.
40 years of this nonsense and it just goes on and on….
When will Tasmania get a fully commercial profitable forest industry?
Not in the foreseeable future that is for certain!
The Tasmanian Ministerial Advisory Council on Forestry has finally produced a Strategic Plan for the industry.
Yes another strategic plan for the forest industry!!
Our public library shelves are at breaking point, weighed down by the dozens of these plans, strategies and reviews that have been produced over the past 40 years, all to no avail.
Two issues ensure that the use-by date of this Plan has already expired:
The State Government deliberately excluded non-industry representatives from the Advisory Council. This Plan only represents the interests of a small select group of Tasmanians. It is a 100% political document! This Plan is only as good as the next election if that!
The two most contentious issues of a) public forest management, and b) the future management of Forestry Tasmania, should have been dealt with a separate section within the Plan. Instead these issues are woven through the document, fundamentally compromising the entire Plan. If the forest industry cannot unchain itself from these two issues, and focus on profitable tree growing, then the forest industry is doomed.
If the future of the forest industry is to be based on profitable tree growing then this Plan fails completely!
Reviewing the Plan is therefore an academic/intellectual/painful exercise.
As a forester having read many previous forest industry plans and strategies, reading this Plan is painful and frustrating. Besides the poor structure and legibility, much of the contents are straight out of previous plans I’ve read. There are very few new ideas in this Plan.
The surreality of the Plan is overwhelming, in that the Plan completely ignores the current hostile political, social and economic context of the forest industry.
“The future growth potential of private plantations is significant”. This statement on page 6 of the Plan says a lot about the future growth of the forest industry. Unfortunately it is not expanded upon anywhere else in the Plan.
“Government involvement will be as an enabler rather than as a commercial participant.” This statement on page 9 of the Plan is the most curious feature of the Plan. It stands alone with no further detail or explanation of what it might mean. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
“It is recommended the Forest Practices Act and the implementation of its provisions be reviewed in keeping with progressive developments in forest practices and science”. A review of the FPA is certainly needed, especially around plantation development and management. Forest plantations should exist within the same regulatory environment as any other primary industry, just like in New Zealand – a level playing field.
“While the industry comprises a diversity of often competing interests and business models, individual stakeholders also share a range of common interests. Within this context, there is a need for an umbrella organisation to develop and represent the shared interests of the whole of the value chain on matters of common concern”. The Plan calls for the formation of a new industry representative body. Private forest growers are the future of the forest industry. They need strong leadership and a strong voice.
That’s it! Four statements in the Plan that I think have some merit and potential. The rest of the Plan is padding or worse.
The main con is the absence of non-industry representation on the Advisory Council, making this Plan a 100% political document;
The Plan assumes indefinite ongoing access to taxpayer subsidised public forest resource;
The complete absence of profitable tree growers and profitable tree-growing as the basis of any successful forest industry;
Log pricing is not discussed nor are transparent competitive markets;
The Plan is not a response to a review of the forest industry. Firstly we need a document that lists the major problems and challenges facing the forest industry. Then we need a strategy that addresses those problems and challenges. The logic needs to be transparent – problem, solution, outcome! By itself this document provides the reader with no context by which to judge the strategy, let alone any possible outcomes. I would classify this as a major flaw.
These Plans are always about what the Government can do for the industry, never about what the industry must do for itself; and
Hence always involve spending large amounts of taxpayer money;
Private Forests Tasmania is not mentioned in the Plan!!
The Plan retains the stupid rhetoric about “resource security”. The forest industry does not need “resource security”! The very successful New Zealand forest industry does not talk about resource security, because the NZ industry is based on a private forest resource. “Resource security” in NZ only comes from profitability; either pay a good market price or go out of business! “Resource security” is a forest industry euphemism for loss-making, taxpayer-subsidised, politically protected industry. “Resource security” is anti-competitive and against the principles of competitive neutrality. Private forest growers should not be subject to “resource security” so neither should the public forest grower. In my opinion the word “sustainable” has come to serve the same purpose within the industry. The Plan uses the word “sustainable” ad nauseum whilst the word “profit” appears only once!
The inability of the Strategy to recognise and address issues of competitive neutrality, such as the proposal that the State Government fund forest road construction and maintenance (p. 20). Government money must then also go to private forest growers for road construction and maintenance in order to achieve competitive neutrality!
The section on Meeting Community Expectations (p. 13) is a complete joke, in fact it is laughable.
The section on Special Species Timbers (p. 17) is a joke;
The section on Private Forests (p. 14) is completely inadequate. The objective of private forest growers is profitability. Improving profitability and competitiveness is not discussed in the Plan at all.
I could go on, but the patient is already in the Terminal Ward.
The weaknesses and omissions in this Plan mean that it has already been consigned to the dust bin of history. In 3 years time the Strategic Plan of 2017 will be long forgotten. Yet another failure by the Tasmanian forest industry to reinvent itself.
Another 3 years wasted. More subsidies, more politics, more community conflict can only follow.
PS. Another significant omission from the Plan is the subject of a budget and funding. Of course we all know that the long suffering taxpayer will be asked once again to throw money at the forest industry by way of this Plan, to the tune of $100s millions of dollars. Given the billions of dollars that have been wasted on the forest industry over the past 30 years, taxpayers should be extremely wary of supporting any forest industry plan that does not include significant forest policy and industry reform. This Plan contains very few recommendations for policy and industry reform.
PPS. If the forest industry and the Tasmanian community are serious about the future of the industry then I recommend these two reports as a good place to begin:
The only way any of this makes any sense is if it is considered a political ruse, a deception.
What if the Government only wants to open up the 430,000 ha of public native forest to allow taxpayer-funded, destructive, unsustainable special timbers harvesting of our last remaining oldgrowth and rainforest?
The Government knows that by itself such an idea will get little public support.
But within the context of the “threat” of large-scale industrial forestry, a “compromise position” of special timbers harvesting becomes much more palatable.
The Tasmanian community are being played for fools once again.
The fact that FIAT (the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania) opposes the Law but supports the special timbers provisions within the Act indicates that at least some of the forest industry are aware of the deception.
It’s all just a game.
As I said previously the Tasmanian Government has no plan to rebuild the forest industry. Nobody has a plan to rebuild the Tasmanian forest industry.
The only basis for a successful forest industry is profitable tree growing and there are no profitable tree growers in current Government or industry policy.
The Huon News is the weekly newspaper of the Huon Valley, a Tasmanian community that has been particularly hard hit by the 35 years of forestry wars. The community has been left shattered and bitterly divided. And still we have our politicians stirring up trouble and pain.
The second and third articles are in this week’s Tasmanian Country (24/03/2017) newspaper, a weekly newspaper published for the rural community.
The Tasmanian Government is actively working against the advice of its own forest management agency Forestry Tasmania.
The Government is also acting against the advice of both the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT) AND the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) representing private forest growers.
The Tasmanian Government says it is acting on behalf of the Tasmanian community AND it has a mandate from the 2014 election, and on that basis it will ignore these three critical organisations.
After reading these articles you are left scratching your head wondering what on earth is going on?
There are two points I want to highlight from these articles:
FIAT says that the forest industry is not taxpayer subsidised. I beg to differ in the strongest terms. Despite going to the 2014 election promising no more subsidies for the forest industry, in the past 3 years the Tasmanian taxpayer has given over $250 million in subsidies to the forest industry. This includes the Tasmanian taxpayer assuming responsibility for $150 million in superannuation costs from Forestry Tasmania!! So much for health and education. What private company gets that kind of special treatment?
The TFGA talks about bipartisan political support for the forest industry. Given that neither FIAT nor the TFGA have any forest industry policies or plans it is difficult to determine exactly how we are to judge the issue of bipartisan support. Exactly what are the political parties supposed to support? Exactly who is leading? It was blind bipartisan political support that created the Gunns and MIS disasters.
Our political system is deliberately competitive (and ultimately destructive). It’s like a football grand final. Winners AND losers!! Bipartisan political support is an oxymoron. The 2014 State election proved that.
NO ONE HAS A PLAN FOR THE TASMANIAN FOREST INDUSTRY.
Not FIAT, nor the TFGA; neither Liberal or Labor.
And if they did have a plan it would only be as good as the next State election…….if that!
While the State Government remains a major player in the forest industry then the industry is doomed.
In 2014 the people of Tasmania voted against the forest industry at the State election.
No matter what the outcome of the 2018 State election, the Huon Valley community along with the rest of the Tasmanian community and the forest industry will lose.
And on top of this the State Government is looking to bring a 150,000 cubic metres per year sawmill to Tasmania from Victoria. The Victorians have run out of sawlogs and the mill will close.