"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).
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).
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.
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?
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.
That should read +100 years to harvest the full 10%.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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