By Faruk Avdi
MELBOURNE — "Sustainable forestry — has come to mean the sustenance of a small number of large timber corporations involved in the chipping and pulpwood sectors ... a principal theme of the industry to preserve — or 'sustain' country employment and country towns does not appear likely to be met.
"From the timber industry perspective, a sustainable forest is one which yields a given amount of timber product on a regular basis. This perspective appears to exclude the 'sustaining' of water values, flora, fauna and values of bio-diversity, general conservation values, recreational values etc." — Dr Andrew Dragun, Latrobe University
The federal government's decision to expand woodchipping operations in Australia has generated enormous community anger. Since the occupation of Australia by European settlers, we have cleared over half of our native forests and 75% of rainforests, lost 20 mammal species and are in immediate danger of driving more than 500 more plant and animal species to extinction. The community is outraged at the continuation of this loss and tragic destruction and wants action, now.
There has been a lot of confusion in the woodchipping debate generated by the timber industry in its attempts to hide behind concepts of "sustainability" and being "sawlog driven". It is time to debunk these myths behind the continued destruction of native forests.
The concept of "sustainability" or "sustainable development" is proffered time and again to the public by industry and governments wishing to exploit Australia's natural resources. "Sustainable developments", we are told, are environmentally friendly, job and wealth creating and the industry equivalent of "having your cake and eating it too".
However, some industries in Australia have a reputation for not delivering on promises of jobs or protecting and replenishing resources, or maintaining healthy environments. This is the case with the native forest timber industry.
In forests with trees and ecosystems that may have taken thousands of years to evolve, the proposition that companies can in some way "put back" that which they have extracted defies all logic and experience.
Many in the community feel at a complete loss when witnessing forests of 700-year-old trees being clear-felled in WA for woodchips, or trees of 300-400 years of age in Tasmania, Victoria and NSW suffering the same fate. An equal loss is the devastating consequences this has on the creatures and ecosystems that depend upon these forests. With creatures which depend particularly on old growth tree hollows for their habitats, once the trees disappear, so do the animals, forever.
The industry that prosecutes this destruction would have the public believe it is acting in good faith and according to principles outlined in concepts of "sustainable development" as it pursues its goals. But if the native forests and their broad range of faunal, floral, water and recreational values are being destroyed as a result of woodchipping, what is it that is actually being "sustained"?
Recent studies indicate that "sustainable development" in respect to the logging of native forests actually means private companies clear-felling vast tracts of publicly owned forest and state forest agencies replacing these forests with what are in effect plantations of "industry preferred species". For private profit, publicly owned forests are being turned into plantations at the taxpayers' expense.
Hardwood (native forest) operations are predominantly woodchip/pulp oriented. In Tasmania a common ratio of woodchip to sawlog production is 4:1 escalating to as high as 12:1. The ratios are similar in Victoria's East Gippsland and the south-east forests of NSW. This puts paid to the myth that native forest logging is in any way "sawlog driven".
Our forests are being razed at an alarming rate. Clear-felling — the complete flattening of entire forest areas, leaving nothing standing, nothing alive — is the basic method of woodchipping. Over the last 20 years it has caused massive erosion, polluted waterways and caused the loss of vital animal habitats and pristine water catchments. None of the costs associated with these losses are paid for by the industry.
Nor has it been particularly concerned at shedding jobs.
There has been a 37% decline in employment opportunities in the forest and forest products industry over the last 20 years. This decline has been double the national average rate for the manufacturing sector and has little to do with conservation demands. In fact, it has been largely due to the restructuring of the timber industry to accommodate the economics of woodchipping: 98% of job losses have been the result of increased mechanisation, lack of resources due to overcutting and competition from plantations.
Plantations in Australia are currently under-utilised and as an environmentally friendly substitute are being forced to compete with massively subsidised native forest logging. There is a great opportunity for new jobs and development in the plantation sector, which could also include such items as environmentally sound pulp mills.
The timber industry is right when it says that facts can be lost in the forest debate — they have an enormous vested interest in keeping it that way. We are not anti-logging as such and look forward to being part of the win-win solution.
That solution is a vibrant plantation sector with downstream processing and environmentally friendly jobs for Australians — which all can be proud of. This will leave our old growth and wilderness forests in place for all to enjoy, it will save us millions of dollars in subsidies and it will provide long-term job security for timber workers.
Most timber workers no doubt do care for the environment. An unfortunate fact being overlooked by some in the forestry union at the moment is that their bosses don't.
[Faruk Avdi is research officer for the Victorian Branch of the Wilderness Society.]