Alex Bainbridge, Hobart
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) released a controversial report on the Tasmanian forest industry on August 3 which has been roundly criticised by most Tasmanian-based environmental groups.
The report calls for the protection of the Tarkine forest but allows for continued logging in a number of other high-conservation value old-growth forests that have been the focus of environmental campaigns. It calls for the expansion of plantations in Tasmania whereas most environmental groups oppose this because there are already enough plantations to meet timber needs and the current management of plantations is unsustainable.
In a letter published in the August 4 Hobart Mercury, Huon Valley environmentalist Neil Cremasco wrote that "this blueprint has enough glaring omissions and destructive recommendations to largely negate the many fine recommendations contained in it". He added that "many people feel that the WWF has hung our wilderness and its supporters out to dry".
Forest campaigner Glenn Shields told 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly that the WWF report begins by denying that the clearfelling of native forests is a form of land clearing. "This disclaimer means the WWF blueprint rules out looking at the one issue concerning Tasmania's community and environment groups the most, which is the clearfelling and burning of native forests and the poisoning of native animals."
Shields, who is also the Socialist Alliance candidate for the federal seat of Franklin, added: "This document makes no mention of the adverse effects of 1080 poison."
The National Tarkine Coalition has rejected the WWF report because the coalition doesn't want to trade off other old growth forests to save the Tarkine.
The Wilderness Society (TWS) campaign director Geoff Law is reported to have said that under the WWF proposal "we get the worst of both worlds — we don't get the forest protection that we need and we get ongoing industrial forestry".
The Hobart Mercury has tried to scandalise TWS for lobbying the WWF to amend the report prior to its release, implying that TWS is against free speech. However, Shields told GLW: "There was nothing sinister about [TWS actions]. It was just sensible — trying to get the WWF to adopt a better policy and to avoid a split in the environmental movement."
Government and forest industry figures are delighted. A report by Bob Burton on the tasmaniatimes.com website reveals that Kate Carnell of the National Association of Forest Industries has described "public perception" as the industry's "Achilles Heal". She argued at the recent Australian Forestry Conference that "one of the keys to a politically stable policy environment will be developing a consensus between the leaders of our industry and the more moderate elements of the environmental debate".
Burton reported that Carnell declined to name the environmental "radicals" she would seek to marginalise, nor the "moderates" who were to be courted. "However, for those attending the conference it was crystal clear who Carnell was referring to. Sharing the opening session with her was senior policy officer with the WWF, Michael Rae, who would be next up to the speakers rostrum."
Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute revealed on August 3 that the Howard government had shifted more than $10 million in funding recent years to the previously broke WWF. He argued that the WWF blueprint was an attempt by the federal government to gain "green cover" in the lead up to the federal election.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, August 18, 2004.
Visit the