125 The Green Game (Exposes "Anti-Green PR pseudo grass roots movements")
124 Re: Forests (response to #118)
123 Forest visitor permits challenged (legality of FOZs tackled in court)
(FOZs are only the latest development towards privatising forest in the Strzelecki it is already happening)
121 Disgusted by limits to forest access (criticises FOZs and the Government’s profit-based "asset management")
120 Royal Commission on forests (answer to Tehan’s 31/7 letter; how about a Royal Commission to sort the mess out?)
119 A bit of stick (short, criticises Government understanding)
118 Green fixation on all native forests (Another industry rebuttal of Forster’s letter of 29/7, with "facts")
117 Going down in the woods to pay (attacks Tehan’s legislation and legality of loggin; impact on tourism)
116 Owner's rules (he won’t get a permit)
115 Forest end flood link scarcely credible (Pro industry; attacks Forster’s letter (29/7), denial, RFA is good etc)
114 DNRE Forest Operation Zones are are bad government policy (My title; snippet from Sat Age, dicusses the FOZ nonsense)
113 Reality check (no, FOZs are not a joke)
112 A bid to cordon off democratic rights (Govt FOZ legislation in forests mimics legislation against Save Albert Park)
111 Sick of the 'snow jobs' (More suspect Govt legislation - excising from National Park for ski resort)
110 You can go down to the woods today (Tehan’s response to 101; some outrageous claims made)
109 A reciprocal lock-out (Kennett Govt attacks civil rights & forests - don’t vote for him)
108 'Protecting' forests from the people (Criticises Tehan’s new regulations and her actions)
107 Threatened forests beyond our reach (Kennett Govt caught suppressing dissent on forests)
106 A view of the floods from a ruined forest
(Logging in East Gippsland as an environmental disaster, makes some very telling points - very well written)
105 Taking a stand on forests (Tehan & Parliament denies us access to our forests)
104 Keeping us out (Criticises the "forest lockout)
103 Going bush (He won’t ask for access . . .)
102 A Tassie turn-off (Tassie in the doldrums, inc. forests)
101 You can’t go down to the woods today
(Opinion piece; very good overview of "FOZs", with facts, very critical of Tehan and the Govt on forest management)
100 Now a permit is needed to visit forests (From someone who found out the hard way about FOZs)
99 Kennett Government locks up our forests - not published (Forest Operation Zones and fines for transgressors)
98 She came, she saw, she fled in a taxi (Marie Tehan's walk in the park turns nasty)
97 Ashes to Ashes (Exposes hypocrisy of Park Victoria)
96 Forest gumption (Otways; excellent letter that prompted #93)
95 How long before the forests are gone? (Tas old growth being chipped)
94 Complaint logged (good response to 93 - protect the Otways)
93 Which way the Otways? (Otways are OK, RFAs are good etc etc)
92 Getting it clear on clearfelling (good stuff; response to #87, see bulletin 33)
In the world of environmental propaganda, things are not what they seem.
Geoff Strong, The Age (article), 17/8/98
ASTROTURF is an American-made artificial grass, but in the public relations industry it has become jargon for something else - artificial grass roots. In the continuing battle over the environment, the corporate world has discovered that setting an organisation to promote interests, then giving it a green sounding name, pays dividends.
And when an industry or a company wants to carry out some controversial or unpopular activity, it finds its case is much more compelling if it has a group of citizens rallying on its behalf. But how do you get the battlers behind you? Some corporate big guns have realised that putting them on the payroll certainly helps. Welcome to the new world of environmental engagement, where the war for the minds of the people has taken on a new dimension and things are not what they seem.
In Australia, the new corporate strategy was probably first put into effect in 1989 when the Australian paper giant Amcor was facing environmental protests against proposed ocean outfall sewer off the South Gippsland coast. The protesters, backed by the environmental group Greenpeace, had organised a community fun day at the coastal town of Seaspray and invited the media to attend. But events took an unexpected twist when 150 burly workers from Amcor's Maryvale mill availed themselves of the public invitation and stood toe-to-toe against the environmentalists, shouting them down and accusing them of threatening their jobs and families. It is not hard to guess what story was carried on that evening's television news. Soon afterwards the then Labor State Government approved the sewer pipeline and the A Team was born.
Although the initial action came out of a union stopwork meeting, its potential was soon recognised and nurtured by Amcor through its corporate troubleshooter, former state Labor frontbencher Derek Amos. Such is the A Team's value to the company that it has its own secretariat and offices paid for by Amcor. When employees are needed for an action, such as participating in a confrontation 18 months ago against anti-logging protesters at Goolangook in East Gippsland, they do so with the company's blessing and on full pay.
The concept has been so successful that it has been exported to northern Tasmania and the Shoalhaven district of New South Wales where the company has other interests threatened by environment groups. The group's secretary, Chris Moody, says it wants to be seen as independent of the company, but he concedes it is bankrolled by Amcor. "They pay my salary and we have an office at the Maryvale mill. We get support from the company when we need it, they support our activities. If we need someone for a task such as an action against greenies, they get time off with pay." he says.
"We realised from when we started with the ocean outfall protest that we could be effective in hijacking the debate from the greenies." Since then the group has been influential in political lobbying. Moody says it encourages its members to join the political parties they would normally vote for and influence them through their branches.
Recently they have been involved in lobbying to put the pro-logging case for the regional forest agreements that are supposed to broker a truce with environmentalists over forest usage. "We have put our cases to both the responsible minister and the shadow minister," Moody says. "We have had no problems getting to see either of them."
Elsewhere in the world of environmental concerns, the positions of the combatants are even harder to determine. For some time, industry has recognised the importance of being seen to be green. The public affairs departments of many companies and industry groups devote a great deal of energy to promoting the idea that they are environmentally sensitive. And they have not been afraid of green-sounding names.
For example, the group Clean Air 2000 has members whose business activities might normally be associated with creating air problems. They have links to oil companies and car manufacturers and the group has its office at the headquarters of the NSW motoring organisation, NRMA. A spokesman for the NRMA, David Anderson, said one of the purposes of the group was to promote transport choices. It believed, for example, that people should use public transport once a week and ride bicycles for short trips.
Another green-sounding group, the Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation, is associated with companies such as BHP and Western Mining. Despite their names, they are not green groups. Critics say they have been deliberately devised to confuse the public and the media while pushing a corporate agenda. While these techniques are still in their infancy in Australia, they are extensively used in the US, where the anti-environment movement is well developed and receives corporate backing. Has this corporate effort been worthwhile? In Australia, it would seem so.
In its social trends survey released in June, the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that Australians' concern for the environment had gone off the boil. From a peak of environmental awareness in 1992 when 75 per cent of those surveyed nominated an environmental concern, the 1996 survey found that across all key environmental issues, public concern had dropped to 68 per cent. Concern was most marked in more abstract issues such as ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. The report's authors speculated that the reasons for the fall might be that people were taking comfort from the perception that environmental problems were being tackled.
The trend could be explained by the work of Associate Professor Sharon Beder, an Australian academic who has charted the sophisticated methods used around the world by forces such as corporations and industry groups to reshape public and political opinion on the environment. In her book ‘Global Spin’, released last year, she explained the trend to Astroturf the green movement.
When a corporation wants to oppose environmental regulations, or support an environmentally damaging development, it may do so openly in its own name. "But it is far more effective to have a group of citizens or experts - and preferably a coalition of such groups - which can publicly promote the outcomes desired by the corporation while claiming to represent the public interest. When such groups do not exist, the modern corporation can pay a public relations firm to create them." Professor Beder said these techniques, while far more widespread in the US, were beginning to be used by Australian companies that saw their objectives frustrated.
She said the most high-profile example of this was the Forest Protection Society, which made no secret of its links with the timber industry umbrella group, the National Association of Forest Industries. High up on NAFI’s website are links to the Forest Protection Society's site. The society states its main aim as: "Protecting our forests and rural communities through a balanced healthy environment and a strong economy." While its terminology and presentation is very similar to that of an environmental group, a closer examination shows a focus on preventing what it refers to as the "locking up" of forests in national parks and reserves.
It argues for what it calls "productive conservation". This is interpreted as being conservation to encourage human use of native forest. As well as promoting forest products, it also talks about the importance of the recreational use of forests, usually meaning access for four-wheel-drives and trail bikes.
In its literature, the society often quotes Dr Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, as a "leading scientist" backing their position. Dr Moore, who has switched his allegiances to the industry side, was recently in Australia as a society guest to promote its aims. The society's Victorian branch did not return calls from The Age.
Beder says that much of the society's terminology and approach is similar to a phenomenon in the US known as the Wise Use Movement, a broad-ranging, loose-knit coalition of groups promoting a conservative agenda. "The movement has no formal structure, but includes everything from industry-funded front groups to blue-collar, grassroots organisations opposed to environmentalists. Sometimes these grassroots groups have sprung up by themselves, in other cases they are organised by PR consultants on behalf of companies, collections of companies or trade associations.
"These consultants will use sophisticated marketing techniques, tailored mailing lists and databases to search out people who will support their client's position. With current technology, building volunteer organisations is as simple as writing out a cheque." She says the movement was founded in 1988 from a group calling itself the Center for the Defence of Free Enterprise. "Its manifesto, released at its inaugural conference, has been described as 'a wish list for the resource-extraction industries', and many of its 25 goals are about guaranteeing access for mining and forestry on public land."
Canberra-based environmental consultant Bob Burton has monitored the activities of what he believes to be deceptive front groups. He said that one Brisbane group calling itself Mothers Against Pollution was active in the early 1990s campaigning against milk in plastic bottles, but folded after it was revealed to be a public relations company working for an organisation promoting milk in cardboard Cartons.
Burton said he believed there were legitimate groups founded to oppose environmentalists. "That is anybody's right in a democratic society. What I am concerned about are the bogus ones funded by industries to do their bidding while pretending to be green." He said the Mabo battle for Aboriginal land rights had been a turning point for the way business fought community and environmental issues. "After the High Court's Mabo decision, the mining companies undertook a big advertising campaign, only to find after it that their level of public support had decreased," Burton says.
"Then when the Wik decision came out, they did it differently. There was no advertising campaign. They got others like the National Farmers Federation to lobby their position for them. They even used some of the land councils. They changed their rhetoric. Instead of opposing it, they said they wanted a workable position. "The result is that they have been much more successful this time around."
Whatever the outcome of the continuing confrontation between industry and green groups, the game has changed forever.
Jill Redwood, The Age (letter), 5/8/98
Coordinator, Concerned Residents of East Gippsland
Mr Gooding’s claims are about as sustainable as the forests destruction he supports (Age 5/8).
Let’s look at the big picture. Australia has only 5% forest cover remaining - most of this has been, logged, burnt grazed and generally degraded. Down in the SE corner we have East Gippsland. A tiny patch of green that has been exploited for woodchips and timber for decades, to the extent that only 10% remains as protected old growth. Fairly precious wouldn’t you say?
What is coaxed back after an original forest is clearfelled cannot be termed a forest; it resembles a biologically poor plantation. Using tax-payer’s money our government has created vast mono-crops of trees perfectly suited to short-rotation cutting for export woodchips.
As these areas are not yet old enough to cut down again, 95% of all logging in East Gippsland is targeting the remaining unprotected mature and old growth forests such as Goolengook. These are then being replaced with industrial tree farms. Sadly, 80% of this forest is assessed as being for woodchips only.
Except to supply a cheap resource to the export woodchip industry, we have no need to cut one more stick of our native forests. There are enough purpose grown plantations in Victoria to more than meet all our paper and building needs.
Yes Mr Gooding, trees are ‘renewable’ - especially when grown in plantations. However, the diverse biological intricacies of an ancient forest can never be ‘renewed’ once clearfelled.
123 FOREST VISITOR PERMITS CHALLENGED
Tim Winkler, The Age (Article), 18/8/98
The public's right to enter Victorian forests whenever they wish will be tested in the Supreme Court today. A new State Government law requiring people to obtain permits before visiting certain forest areas so incensed Malvern management consultant Mr Chris Tipler that he has launched a court challenge.
A barrister; Mr Brian Walters, acting for Mr Tipler, will begin proceedings against the Conservation Minister, Mrs Marie Tehan, today challenging the validity of the law. The law, which came into effect on 1 June, requires people to obtain a permit to enter seven zones in East Gippsland and two zones in the Otways.
Mr Tipler said he owned a property in the Otways and did not want to have to wait for a week to get a permit when he woke up on a Sunday morning and decided he wanted to go for a walk in the bush. "I think it's an outrageous farce," he said. "These areas are not fenced - you could easily walk into them without knowing. This regulation denies the basic right of the public to freely enter and enjoy public forests." The Government has declined to comment on the case, but its manager of forest management, Mr Gerard O'Neill, has said the permit system was introduced to reduce the impact of conservationists' protests on logging.
Any member of the public, including known protesters, could obtain a permit by contacting Natural Resources and Environment offices close to the area they wished to visit. Visitors had to state their name and their reason for visiting an area and people who said the purpose of their visit was to protest would not be granted a permit, he said.
The regulations also prohibited the public from digging up or obstructing roads. Permits are free but can only be issued by a government forester after a direct conversation with the applicant. That process can take a week. Mr Tipler believed the State Government could bar access to a forest only if it was fenced, but none of the areas were fenced. As a result, he believed the permit system was invalid.
An East Gippsland conservationist, Ms Jill Redwood, said almost 30,000 hectares of forest had been locked up in forest operations zones, including most of the land along the eastern edge of Errinundra National Park and severs areas of state forest backing on to private land.
122 PRIVATISING OUR FORESTS
Julie Constable, Stony Creek, The Age (Your Say), 5/8/98
The State Government' s recent legislation, which restricts public access to logging zones, has led to speculation about the privatisation of our state forests. Well, it's already happening, In Gippsland, most of the Strzelecki State Forest is in the process of being privatised: 40,000 hectares, half of which is native forest, has been shifted from the management of the Natural Resources and Environment Department and vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation.
This land is now being treated as "private", effectively allowing land managers to bypass the multiple use guidelines for public forests that Mrs Tehan assures us still apply (The Age, 31/7). Roads have been closed to public traffic. Native forest has been converted into plantation.
The Strzelecki State Forest is largely a mosaic of wet sclerophyll forest, dominated by mountain ash and cool temperate rainforest. It provides habitat for numerous species of wildlife, including koalas, greater gliders and the superb lyrebird. It is steep, mountainous terrain, containing the headwaters of numerous rivers and creeks, and sites of botanical significance. It is highly inappropriate that areas like this have been vested in a plantation corporation.
Now the VPC is for sale, aggravating local concerns about the loss of this significant forest for tourism and recreation and the effects that intensive plantation forestry will have on habitat, biodiversity and water quality.
It is time that the Government listened to local grievances, froze logging operations in the Strzelecki native forests and began negotiations for a large reserve in this significant state forest before this sell-off occurs.
121 DISGUSTED BY LIMITS TO FOREST ACCESS
Julian Wacman, East St Kilda, The Age (Your Say), 5/8/98
It is with much disgust that I learn of the new laws restricting access to Victoria's state parks. These laws were enacted to protect the operations of logging companies in what is essentially public lands. Breaches of these laws could incur a $2000 fine.
Not only is the Government discriminating against the majority of park users, it is also removing the public's right to oversee how our precious assets are being "managed". This is just another example of a State Government afraid of scrutiny, driven by profits and clearly out of control.
120 ROYAL COMMISSION ON FORESTS
Peter Campbell, Surrey Hills, The Age (Your Say), 5/8/98
Our Conservation Minister, Marie Tehan, is adamant that her new law hindering the public from entering large areas of state forest is just (The Age, 31/7). However, a balanced assessment of the issues indicates that this is just not the case.
Mrs Tehan claims that these laws are required to prevent protesters from interfering with lawful logging, but the peaceful protesters trying to stop the destruction of ancient forest at last year's Goolengook forest blockades in East Gippsland were well within the law. A court case has since shown that Mrs Tehan's approval to log Heritage River forest was against her own Government's legislation of the time; in breach of the law. It was revealed that the Department of Natural Resources and Environment has been breaching the Heritage Rivers Act legislation supposed to protect forests for the past six years. Her reaction to this situation was to quickly change the law to legalise increased ongoing destruction of heritage forest areas.
Now, where there is continuing public protest about the shameful vandalism of our forests, she simply brings in a law that allows protesters to be thrown in jail or fined heavily. Is this the democratic process for forest use that Mrs Tehan speaks of? Is this a balanced outcome?
Mrs Tehan also makes much of the tourism potential of forest areas as part of the Government-sponsored myth of "balanced usage". But these wide-ranging laws will scare legitimate forest users away with the threat of a $2000 fine should they not apply for a permit. The restricted areas are not publicised. This will act to deter tourism.
These new regulations establishing "forest operation zones" not only mimic privatisation of our publicly owned forests, they set a dangerous precedent for all our forests and public land in the future. A royal commission is urgently required to assess the highly questionable methods used in destroying native forest, and the Victorian Government's support for an industry out of control.
John McCulloch, Cheltenham, The Age (Your Say), 5/8/98
Re Andrew Booth's letter (4/8). Stakeholder ... isn't that someone who grabs a bit of the tree after it's been logged? This is what I believe is the State Government's current understanding of the term.
118 GREEN FIXATION ON ALL NATIVE FORESTS
Graeme Gooding, Executive director,
Victorian Associations Forest Industries, Melbourne, The Age (Your Say), 5/8/98
Unlike those in most countries, Australian green groups have a fixation with opposing all native forest timber harvesting. Activists are constantly grasping at straws to support their cause, such as Nicky Forster's ludicrous suggestion (A View of the Floods from a Ruined Forest, 29/7) that logging in Goolengook is responsible for the East Gippsland floods.
Ms Forster neglected to mention that 90 per cent of East Gippsland is still forested. The region has supplied much of Melbourne's timber for the past 50 years, which is testimony that tree growing is a fundamental part of timber harvesting. The small area that has permanently lost its forest is where farm and town development has occurred and no one should blame them for the floods. Nor should they blame timber production.
More than two-thirds of East Gippsland forest is reserved from harvesting. In Sweden, green groups are promoting their industry's cause environmentalists had successfully pushed through demands to set aside "a total of at least 5 per cent of the productive forest area ... from forestry" In Australia, green demands are for 100 per cent reservation. This hardly seems sensible given the environmental benefits of suing wood as renewable resource.
Finally, Ms Forster promotes the Goolengook blockaders. Last year, these protesters told me they opposed any intervention in nature, such as such as stopping lightning fires. In 1983 loggers assisted in preventing extensive lightning fires from burning out Goolengook and most of the 83 per cent of East Gippsland 'old growth" that is now reserved from harvesting. If not for their actions, the "old-growth'' (which is actually regeneration from fires in the 1880s) would now be natural l5-year-old fire regrowth.
117 GOING DOWN IN THE WOODS TO PAY
Liz Ingham, Yarraville, The Age (Your Say), 3/8/98
For a legislator, Marie Tehan (The Age, 31/7) has real problems understanding the law. Her new "logging reserves" aren't there to stop unlawful protests, such as at Goolengook. That protest was well within the law. The Moe Court ruled that it was the logging of this Heritage Rivers area that was unlawful.
In fact her department was logging these areas for six years until we caught them at it. Then she shamefully changed the Heritage Rivers Act, rather than change her logging schedules. These new "logging reserves" won't prevent protesters like me, who are arrested regularly. In fact, I got a permit quite easily. And, anyhow, large fines have never stopped us.
It's the tourists who will be intimidated by $2000 fines for trespassing in areas that, as taxpayers, they own. Marie Tehan was the first Environment Minister to sign an agreement never to increase reserves for endangered species. Then she got caught logging Heritage River reserves. Now she's making new "reserves" - for logging! Logging truly "locks up the forest".
John Fraser, Hawthorn, The Age (Your Say), 3/8/98
You won't catch me in Goolengook with a permit.
115 FOREST END FLOOD LINK SCARCELY CREDIBLE
Dr Peter Attiwill. Read and Associate Professor, School of Botany,
Jane Fewings, project coordinator, Scientists for Sustainability, School of Botany
Nick O'Brien, research fellow, School of Botany
Chris Weston, lecturer, School of Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville
The Age (Your Say), 3/8/98
Nicky Forster (29/7) draws a very long bow by claiming causation between recent logging and the extent of recent flood damage in East Gippsland. This year East Gippsland experienced its highest June rainfall on record. The second-highest 24-hour rainfall total ever recorded in Victoria occurred at Club Terrace, north-east of Orbost, on 23-24 June when 285mm of rain fell. The average rainfall for Club Terrace for June is 117mm.
The flooding came shortly after the break in a prolonged drought, which resulted in there being less vegetative cover than normal, making soils more prone to erosion. Soil exposure and erodibility of agricultural lands, particularly in marginal areas, are orders of magnitude greater than in forest coupes that are quickly regenerated.
We calculate that less than 1 per cent of East Gippsland's old-growth forests is available for logging in any one year, given that more than 60 per cent of old-growth is protected in formal reserves and only one eightieth (assuming 80-year logging rotations) of the remainder may be logged each year. Given the severity and intensity of the rainfall and the small amount of old-growth forest logged in any one year, Nicky Forster's causation claim is scarcely credible.
The Regional Forest Agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments for East Gippsland compels the State Government to publish audits of compliance with Victoria's Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production; protection of the soil resource is a primary component. There is much potential for informed debate on management of East Gippsland’s forests, based on an understanding of the supporting science. Public pressure should be directed towards governments meeting their obligations under the agreement, to increase their research efforts and to make all results public.
114 DNRE FOREST OPERATION ZONES ARE ARE BAD GOVERNMENT POLICY
Simon Hughes, The Age (Week’s End), 1/8/98
The Department of Natural Resources and the Environment deserves much better than the libels heaped upon it in the last week. At issue has been the question of whether a citizen has the right to enter a "forest operations zone". For those who have failed to keep abreast of government policy in this area, a "forest operations zone" used to be a plain forest and citizens were free to enjoy the peace and tranquillity within. But the forests, it was seen, weren't paying their way, in fact they had become a burden the taxpayer. Very sensibly, the minister, Mrs Marie Tehan, and her department decided it would be more fiscally responsible to cut the bludgers down. As for the $2000 fine bush lovers are likely to incur should they enter a "forest operation zone" eventually they will see that it is for their own good. The last thing a minister would wish is that people should go all that way to commune with the spirits of place only to have the idyll shattered a chainsaw or the roar of a logging truck. On behalf of a grateful populace, thank you minister, thank you.
Alex Hayward, Bittern,. The Age (Your Say), 1/8/98
Wait a minute, let me check. This can't be right. The forest is to be conserved for the loggers and forest lovers are to be kept out? It must be a joke.
112 A BID TO CORDON OFF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
Carolyn Hutchens, President, Save Albert Park, South Melbourne, The Age (Your Say), 1/8/98
The use of vague and draconian legislation to attempt to stop political protests against inappropriate commercial activity on public land (Now A Permit Is Needed To Visit Forests, The Age, 27/7) is nothing new under this State Government.
Supporters of Save Albert Park in 1995 and 1996 faced legislation that effectively made it an offence to enter all or part of the park as a "declared area" or a "works area". Like the "forest operation zones", such areas were often only vaguely delimited, and protesters faced similar potential penalties of up to $2000. Under the regulations, any person could be authorised by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation to enforce provisions clearly designed to prevent peaceful protests in a public park.
One can only conclude that the Victorian Government is a poor learner. It does not seem to have learnt anything from the successful challenge to its legislation by Save Albert Park. By accepting more than, 650 arrests and defending charges, protesters proved the Australian Grand Prix Act and regulations to be flawed in law. None of the charges' laid under the act was successfully prosecuted despite several attempts.
More importantly perhaps, the Government appears to have paid no heed to widespread criticism of its blatant attempt to limit democratic rights to protest. The Government was allowed by the media to get away with it in Albert Park, seemingly because the end was thought to justify the means. It is hoped that this time the media will stand firmly on the side of citizens' rights and good governance.
111 SICK OF THE 'SNOW JOBS’'
Graeme Thornton, Yallambie The Age (Your Say), 1/8/98
Congratulations to Brian Walters for his article on the political locking up of our forests (The Age, 27/7). It's not only our forests that have been subject to secretive legislation; our national parks have also been compromised. In November 1997, the Victorian National Parks Association uncovered, by chance, legislation to excise 285 hectares of land from the Alpine National Park and give it to the Falls Creek resort. Land has never before been removed from a Victorian national park. To add insult to deviousness, the excised land is now part of a proposed skiing development for which the Minister for Planning, Rob Maclellan, has yet to call for an environmental effects statement (EES).
The proposed development is huge, approximately one-and-a-half' times the size of existing Falls Creek development (The Age, 22/5). All of this in an area recommended for protection by the Land Conservation Council and containing habitat listed under both the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act. Why? Why the clandestine excision in the first place? Why is there no EES protection? Which national park is next? The Prom?
Rob Maclellan must act now in providing immediate protection and Marie Tehan must instigate legislation to return this significant area to the Alpine National Park where wise council has said that it should be. We can't continue to discover adverse and un-Victorian legislation that has been passed secretly in the dead of night.
110 YOU CAN GO DOWN TO THE WOODS TODAY
Victorians have not been shut out of their state forests.
By Marie Tehan, State Conservation; Minister. The Age (Opinion), 31/7/98
Victorias state forests remain widely accessible and are important to people as places to enjoy as well as being a place of work. Through planning processes that consider environmental, social and economic values, and extensive input from many Victorians, the State Government has a sound basis for protecting our forests.
Tourism and recreation in state forests contribute more than $100 million annually to the Victorian economy. For this activity to occur, state forests must be accessible and available to the public and small businesses. In the past three years more than $1.5 million has been spent on maintaining and upgrading vehicle tracks to the many scenic, historic, hiking, fishing or other places used by people enjoying state forests.
New visitor facilities at Triplet Falls in the Otways provide first-class facilities for visitors in a beautiful setting. Right now the Forest Service is working at providing new trails and facilities at Lake Elizabeth in the Otways, a project supported by the Federal Governments ecotourism program. Neither of these sites requires a permit - nor do the many hundreds of other places where people enjoy our forests. Our state forests provide for many uses, and timber harvesting is one. Australian eucalypt forests provide high quality building materials for our homes as well as being an important source of export earnings. Feature-grade timbers are increasingly sought after in valuable world markets, including Japan, America and Europe. In Victoria the timber industry, based on access to our native forests, supports regional economies, and generates more than $1 billion annually of economic activity to the state.
In recent times disruption to the operations of licensed timber harvesting contractors in East Gippsland and the Otways has caused great distress and economic loss to local businesses. The protests in far East Gippsland last year extended over 100 days and involved thousands of hours of time by police, foresters and forest workers who patiently went about their/ task of enforcing the law and carrying out their jobs. Damage to roads, erection of barricades and the disablement of harvesting equipment have been features of protester activity over the past few years.
The Forest Act requires individuals wanting to go into nine forest operations zones in East Gippsland and the Otways to have a permit to enter; those areas. The regulations also clearly establish that it is an offence to damage roads or block access to the forest. The area to which the regulation applies comprises less than 0.1 per cent of the 3.47 million hectares of state forest in Victoria. The aim of the regulations is to ensure that legitimate timber harvesting operations are able to occur: in safety, with a clear and safe distance placed between timber operations and people not directly associated with the operation.
The suggestion that the regulations mean people will have to get written permission to protest in the forest is a nonsense. The regulations simply serve to separate people who are not part of the timber harvesting activity from the area of harvesting operations. In addition, as Mr Brian Walters (on this page on Monday) and others have done, they are free to voice their concern through the many and varied outlets available to them. What they shouldn't be able to do is cause loss to the community and hardship in regional communities, especially those suffering under the burden of drought or flood.
It is ironic that Mr Walters protests over restrictions in these forest operations zones when the protesters he has represented actively restricted access to the forest operations areas for many weeks. The concern expressed over the restriction to some areas of forest perhaps should also extend to consider the rights of those people in the timber industry to access their place of work.
Sally Polmear, Eaglemont, The Age (Your Say) 30/7/98
Be alert, Victorians, to what is being stolen from us and our children: our forests, democracy and our civil rights (The Age, 28/7, 29/7). The Kennett Government locks up our forests for exploitation by his woodchipper friends but we'll lock him out of government at the next election
108 'PROTECTING' FORESTS FROM THE PEOPLE
Rodney Waterman, Eltham. The Age (Your Say) 29/7/98
Andrew Picone and Brian Walters rightly question the priorities of the State Government regarding the new and draconian regulations for public access to State "Forest Operation (Logging) Zones" (The Age, 27/7).
The Conservation Minister, Marie Tehan, gave further insight to Government thinking in this matter when she referred last week in an ABC-3LO interview with Jon Faine (23/7) to these restricted access logging areas as "protected areas".
We now have a "Conservation" Minister who is regulating to "protect" public forest areas of high conservation value from general public access. One can only guess as to how Minister Tehan may define other "protected" conservation reserve categories, such as "national park"!
107 THREATENED FORESTS BEYOND OUR REACH
Dr Rod Anderson, forest campaign coordinator, Environment Victoria, North Melbourne
The Age (Your Say) 29/7/98
The Kennett Government has been caught secretively and massively suppressing dissent against its environmentally destructive activities (Brian Waters, The Age, 27/7). Unannounced declaration of "forest operations zones" in our public native forests is yet another example of what this dictatorial regime will get up to when the Commonwealth abrogates its responsibility for safeguarding our environmental heritage.
For the Regional Forest Agreements are nothing if not a handover of control to the states allowing ''ringbarking'' of our national parks by open-slather woodchipping of fabulous old forests such as Goolengook.
Shame, Marie Tehan, Minister for Devastation. Last month you made illegal logging legal by amending the Heritage Rivers Act. Now by secretive unannounced regulations you have made it a criminal offence to enter large tracts of public native forests. Is this a foretaste of what is to come, with the anticipated privatisation of our great old forests? By its virtual handover of responsibility for the forests to the states, the Howard Government is allowing habitat destruction on a previously unimagined scale.
Suppression of dissent by secretive and anti-democratic regulations can happen when, hand-in-glove with their giant woodchipper friends, a Government such as Jeff Kennett's follows its natural inclinations, unrestrained by the Commonwealth.
106 A VIEW OF THE FLOODS FROM A RUINED FOREST
Nicky Forster, Mt Eliza Association for Environmental Care, Mt Eliza
The Age (Your Say), 29/7/98
How obvious must it be that the logging of East Gippsland's old growth forests is intrinsically connected to the monster flood damage before real change to the logging industry occurs? Having just returned from visiting the Goolengook State Forest area, I am reeling from images of acres of farmland ruined by furrowing erosion and lost top soil, weak single-species regrowth forest felled by floodwater, and an unrecognisable Heritage-listed river.
The old-growth forest had until it was felled - worked in a structural role, knitting the soil together, buffering the impact of heavy rain on the soil with a diversity of foliage, and maintaining the integrity of the mountain slopes. The logged coupes are now open wounds -- no longer able to lessen the quantity or force of the floodwater-bleeding red soil and corrugated by deep rivulets flowing into the Heritage listed Goolengook River. I invite biology and ecology students and researchers, especially, to come and study this perfect case of environmental mismanagement.
There have been floods in the past, but none so devastating. Surely the correlation between the extent of logging and the extent of flood damage is convincing enough to urge reduced reliance by Governments and timber towns on the logging industry. The question must be asked: in the light of Government relief aid, is anyone other than the logging 'corporations benefiting from the export of our native forests as woodchips? Certainly not the thrice-cursed people of East Gippsland - first the loss of their forests, then the droughts, and now these tragic floods.
I can only conclude that the enormous weight of damage control being shouldered by farmers, townspeople, and the taxpayer should rather be placed on the logging corporations.
The environmental and human costs in this situation overwhelm the benefits of meagre local employment in the timber industry -- a point proven time and again around the world. There need to be alternative industries developed for the timber towns -- industries that are more appropriate to the nature of Australia's uniquely fragile soil and ecology.
Timber-industry workers, farmers, taxpayers and conservationists should all realise the importance of the blockade to save Goolengook, and in a show of unity endeavour to provide viable, truly renewable alternatives to the logging industry. A repeat of the East Gippsland tragedy must be prevented.
Amanda Weir, Nunawading, The Age (Your Say) 29/7/98
How can members of Parliament who supposedly reflect the common interest of the public make decisions without any prior consent or notification to the community (The Age, 27/7)? A democratic society is hardly reflected in a Government that makes decisions in this way that affect us all.
Can we justify the decisions of Minister Tehan, which have led to the denial of public access to around 30,000 hectares of publicly owned state forest that we, the public, have the right to enjoy? This is merely another move towards privatisation which aims to control the last remnants of pristine old growth for private profit.
On a continent where there is less than 5 per cent of native forest cover remaining, logging of this forest is indeed a tragic loss to us all. It is time to take a stand on the destruction of these last remnants of old-growth forest. Indeed, it is our responsibility to protect them for future generations. Let us not sit back and allow Minister Tehan to continue her short-sighted support for assaults on native forests.
Maria Prosperi, Pascoe Vale, The Age (Your Say) 29/7/98
I am in a state of disbelief. I have learned that the Kennett Government is going to privatise our state forests and that we actually need a permit to enter them. These people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. What is going to be left for our children?
Mark Stennett, Rosanna, The Age (Your Say) 29/7/98
If I wake up one decide to go bush to take some photographs, I certainly won't be asking anyone for permission.
Dr Norman K. Sanders, Former Australian Democrat member of Tasmanian House of Assembly
Tuross Head. NSW. The Age (Your Say) 29/7/98
Poor Tassie! First came the theft of the land and the attempted genocide of the original owners. Then the forests and the rivers were plundered. Now the Laborials have destroyed the one bright spot left on that increasingly gloomy and ravaged island. They have selfishly dismantled the voting system that allowed the voice of the concerned, caring minority to be heard in Parliament. Will the last person to leave please turn off the Hydro generators?
101 YOU CAN’T GO DOWN TO THE WOODS TODAY
Stroll into some newly zoned state forests in Victoria and you commit a crime.
By Brian Walters, The Age (Opinion), 27/7/98
Brian Walters is a Melbourne barrister and co-founder of Wild magazine.
In the dark the rain kept pouring down, and as floods hit Gippsland last month, the Goolengook River was steadily rising. Andrew Picone was in his car on the wrong side of the bridge when it washed away. He was stranded. Andrew had been engaged as a volunteer in a flora and fauna survey in the Goolengook forest area. These surveys have located endangered species, helping to save areas of forest from logging.
Andrew needed help, and his father, Tony, made the long drive down to help, Tony asked for assistance from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. They would not help - and then told him that there was something he should know. He was not allowed into the forest at all: it would be a criminal offence to go into the forest unless he obtained a written permit.
It is true. On 1 June, with no publicity, the Victorian Government passed regulations that made it a criminal offence to enter "forest operations zone" - unless you are a logger, a policeman, or a person with written authorisation. These zones are very large, and are currently in East Gippsland and the Otways. One of the zones in the Otways is just north of Apollo Bay, and covers an area some five kilometres by three kilometres. Four of the East Gippsland zones are contiguous, and form a band some 50 kilometres by 15 kilometres. There are no signs or fences to mark out these areas. You are expected to get the regulations yourself and find the boundaries of these zones. If you get it wrong, you face a fine of $2000.
Many of the zones go right up to private land - as at Bonang and Combienbar. If a ball goes over the back fence, you'll need a permit to retrieve it. If your child goes wandering, you'll need a permit before going after him or her. For many kilometres these zones border national parks. If you stray on a walk and go into a zone, you are liable to be charged. Major logging roads are open and 30 metres on each side of them. Go further than 30 metres from the road - say for a picnic - and you'll commit an offence unless you have a written authorisation. Dead end tracks are no go zones. If you want to find that special spot, be careful you are not committing a crime.
When you apply for your permit you'll have to state your purpose for going into the forest. Is curiosity, or wonder, or a love of the bush an acceptable purpose? Why were the regulations kept so secret? Was it so that the authorities would have this charge in their back pocket as a nasty surprise for protesters? Forest bureaucrats say we have nothing to fear. They will give permits to everyone - everyone, that is, except protesters. But this is even more alarming. If the law is really to suppress democratic dissent, why does the Government not openly say so? And why should we have to obtain written authorisation to wander in publicly owned bush - or even to protest?
Some of these zones, such as that around Bonang, have no logging scheduled within them at all. Perhaps this is an attempt to ensure the public does not see how impressive these places are so that they do not oppose future logging. Or perhaps it is an attempt to prevent volunteers like Andrew Picone from obtaining information which would oblige the authorities to desist from logging.
Department representatives also say the law has been made because protesters are costing money. This might carry more weight if the department would publicly reveal the cost of native forest logging. But the present administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep this secret. There is no doubt that heavy effective subsidies are involved, with taxpayers paying for roads, rehabilitation of clearfelled areas and countless other costs that the royalties for timber do not cover. The Government will not release the precise figures.
In the past the timber industry has accused conservationists of wanting to "lock up" our forests. Now the Government, under pressure from the timber industry, has been caught with the padlock in its hands. The bush has always been part of our heritage as Australians. But now it seems before you can go into a forest to find a clear stream, to sit by a large tree, or just to be inspired, you must first obtain written permission.
In the end Andrew Picone and his father secured permits and retrieved the car. But in so doing, they unearthed a set of regulations that show how far the Government is prepared to go to destroy our forest heritage.
It's bad enough that our taxes being used to finance the large scale destruction of our forests, it adds insult to injury to deny the public access. Thanks, Marie Tehan, for this new regulation; we know where your priorities lie.
100 NOW A PERMIT IS NEEDED TO VISIT FORESTS
Andrew Picone, The Age (Your Say), 27/7/98
It is now a criminal offence to enter into some 30 000 hectares of publicly owned state forest. If you do enter these restricted areas you are potentially liable for a $2000 fine. The restricted areas are described as "Forest Operation Zones" and are mainly concentrated around the Errinundra National Park in East Gippsland and two areas in the Otway Ranges. The size of the Forest Operations Zones in East Gippsland are larger in area than the Errinundra National Park.
Those areas affected by this new regulation are generally high conservation value forests such as Goolengook and Hensleigh Creek. When the areas are drawn on a map the cunning tactics of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment are plainly obvious.
High conservation value forests containing threatened species and rare vegetation communities are being strategically logged to destroy the possibility of their inclusion in the Errinundra National Park. The park itself is slowly being ''ringbarked" by clearfell logging to prevent further expansions.
The Forest Operation Zones bordering the Errinundra National Park restrict public access to the few remaining areas that have not been completely obliterated by clearfell logging. To carry out threatened species surveys you now need a permit. If you want to show your children what an untouched, pristine old growth forest is before it gets clearfelled, you'll need a permit. Whether you are a photographer, bushwalker or fishing enthusiast you risk a hefty fine for simply walking through a forest.
99 KENNETT GOVERNMENT LOCKS UP OUR FORESTS
Dr Rod Anderson, Forest Campaigner, Environment Victoria (not published, 28/7/98)
Jill Redwood, Coordinator, Concerned Residents of East Gippsland
The Kennett Government has recently been caught secretively and massively suppressing the democratic rights of the public to protest against environmental destruction.
Unannounced declarations of new 'Forest Operation Zones' in publicly owned forests is a clear example of the lengths governments will go to when it is losing the publicity war against the conservation movement.
Last month saw our environment minister Marie Tehan, secretly bring in a regulation which makes it a criminal offence with fines of $2000 to be found without a permit in many areas of native forest.
Is this a taste of things to come with the anticipated privatization of our public native forests? Or is this simply a means by which to privatise without the private sector having to pay for it (ie the woodchip companies)?
We are seeing more and more of this type of suppression and silencing of public concern over unpopular government decisions. The hand-in-glove behaviour between large corporate industries and our government begs the question - just who is running this country and for who's benefit?
98 SHE CAME, SHE SAW, SHE FLED IN A TAXI. MARIE TEHAN'S WALK IN THE PARK TURNS NASTY
A minister is rescued as anti-logging protesters launch an attack.
By Carolyn Webb, The Age (Article), Wednesday 22/7/98
The state Conservation Minister, Mrs Marie Tehan, was jeered and jostled during a confrontation with anti-logging demonstrators yesterday. Mrs Tehan was forced to escape in a taxi after protesters blocked two Government cars from leaving the opening ceremony for a new public park at Beaconsfield, in Melbourne's outer south-east.
During a 20-minute stand-off, Mrs Tehan waited in the back seat of one car as protesters blocked its path and screamed abuse at her. After conferring with Mrs Tehan's staff, a 12-member police cordon surrounded the minister and bundled her through a line of protesters and into a taxi. One protester, Mr Dave Castro, 24, of Abbotsford, said he had a twisted ankle after getting his foot jammed in the front undercarriage of one of the minister's cars as the driver attempted to move it.
He and other protesters from the Melbourne Cleanwater Coalition said they were trying to highlight the destruction of old-growth forest. through logging at Goolengook in East Gippsland. "(Mrs Tehan) appears to have almost no understanding about extremely important issues such as forest and water conservation," said a spokesman for the group, Mr Anthony Amis. "On World Environment Day in 1997 (Mrs Tehan) sent the bulldozers and loggers into one of the best remaining rainforest areas in the state at Goolengook Forest." Mr Amis said Mrs Tehan's department was planning to privatise native forests throughout Victoria - about 20,000 hectares of state forest in the Strezleckis had been corporatised and privatisation was expected to go ahead later this year - making it easy for big corporations to raze pristine forests and grow plantations for timber.
Earlier, the protesters banged drums and shouted through the walls of a transparent tent as Mrs Tehan opened the Manna Gum Picnic Area, the first stage of the planned Cardinia Creek Parklands suburban "green belt". Mrs Tehan said the parklands would serve the recreational needs of Melbourne's south-eastern growth corridor. "The parkland will provide high quality recreational experiences and open space, while protecting the environmental values of the area," said Mrs Tehan, who also announced that a further 62 hectares had been bought on 30 June for $1.9 million for the project's second stage, a 10-kilometre walking and cycling trail along Cardinia Creek.
Harry Ward, Albert Park, The Age (Your Say) 19/7/98
The forest in the Dandenongs National Park depicted in the Parks Victoria half-page advertisement (5/7) may have been "carefully handled for over 100 years" but it is certainly no longer an "untouched, forest" in view of recent happenings under Parks Victoria. Mature mountain ash trees have been felled in picnic areas, presumably to tidy them up for tourists.
Visitors to the Dandenongs have enjoyed them for over 100 years (in the case of my family for four generations) without this type of sanitising influence of Parks · Victoria - and costly advertisements at taxpayers' expense to tell us how well they are doing their job.
Belinda Melzak, Hampton, The Sunday Age (Your Say) 28/6/98
Parks Victoria may well be proud. "We babysit one of Victoria's oldest living inhabitants," it advertised in The Sunday Age, referring to a picture of a glorious 170 year-old mountain ash tree in The Otway Ranges National Park.
Unfortunately, it was of little relief to see that some of our forests are in good hands. The remainder of the Otways, which include many areas equal in age, beauty and biological significance to those referred to in the advertisement, are devoid of protection and are subject to constant interference and destruction.
The Otways are one of the few cool temperate rainforests - these forests and their associated vegetation occur only in the south-eastern corner of our continent and link flora directly to the ancient forests of the super continent Gondwanaland.
A study by the Geelong Environment Council in 1994 found that the reserve system (being the present area of the Otway National Park) is not sufficient to protect the rare and valuable areas that it houses. Logging and the natural process of aridification are a constant threat to their survival.
The Geelong Environment Council proposal to extend the present boundaries of the Otway National Park effectively triples its size and yet reduces native forest hardwood across our state by only 1 per cent. It would ensure the protection of unique flora and fauna for generations to follow, yet it has been ignored by those responsible for the care and maintenance of our forests.
At present, about 80 per cent of the timbers removed from the Otways are used for the woodchips, a large percentage of which is purchased for use in the production of toilet-tissue products. An interesting example of Jeff's Victoria on the move!
As "babysitters" of our protected forests, Parks Victoria may be doing a good job. It's a great pity that the rest of our valued inhabitants are left out in the cold to combat chainsaws, ignorant political policies and blinkered multinational companies.
95 HOW LONG BEFORE THE FORESTS ARE GONE?
Helen Cameron, Wynyard, Tas., The Weekend Australian (Letter), 27/6/98
I work in Burnie and live in Wynyard. Every time I travel between these places I see at least two trucks carrying the remains of our native forests presumably to the woodchip mill at Hampshire. It doesn't matter when I travel, they seem to be always on the road. How long will it be before our forests are almost gone?
Belinda Melzak, Hampton, The Age (Your Say) 12/7/98
Ion Drohan's interesting letter 'Which way the Otways?' (517) seems little more than a PR exercise designed to lure people away from realising the true state of play in the Otway state forests. Our rare and valuable flora and fauna as well as the economic future of this region is running the gauntlet of a blinkered pulp-wood industry.
My letter of 28/6 commenting on the inadequate size of the present Otway National Park was not, as the letter put it a "false" picture of the Otway forest. As I wrote in that letter, studies done in 1994 by the Geelong Environment Council have shown that the present area protected in the national park is not sufficient to protect the valuable species that dwell within it.
I find it hard to believe that the clearing of large tracts of forest, building of roads and the constant flow and drone of huge machinery in our forest does not affect the natural balance of things. Whether the Otway forest management plan is adhered to at all times is also dubious.
I can accept a certain amount of logging, but thousands of tourists flock to this region every year to experience its natural wonders, bringing about $100 million to the area. There are many economic, social and environmental reasons for extending the national park and very few for clear-felling our valuable state forest for pulpwood products.
]on Drohan, director resources Victorian Association of Forest Industries, Melbourne, The Age (Your Say) 5/7/98
Belinda Melzak's letter paints a bleak but false picture of the Otway forests (28/6). These forests are not "devoid of protection". Only one-third of the region's public native forest is suitable and available for sustainable timber production.
All "rare and valuable areas" including cool temperate rainforest, are well protected - in formal conservation reserves (national parks) and protective management zones - in the Otway Forest Management Plan. The Otways themselves are part of a larger "bio-region" that spreads across Victoria and into Tasmania. The regional forest agreement process between state and federal governments will ensure a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system is formally established for all important forest regions. As such it supports and builds on current actions aimed at balancing the need for environmental conservation with our community's social and economic needs.
Ms Melzak's proposal to triple the size of the Otway National Park may sound appealing but what of the impact on the region's employment profile and economic base, particularly when no scientifically valid reason has been advanced for taking such a step?
92 GETTING IT CLEAR ON CLEARFELLING
Colin G. Smith, Murrumbeena, The Age (Your Say) 22/6/98
In his defence of woodchipping (4/6) Peter Sheehan uses the example of timber production from reafforested farmland in South Gippsland to claim that woodchipping has a relatively minor impact on biodiversity or may even be good for it.
This sensible use of formally degraded land has significant environmental and economic benefits and should be applauded. Woodchipping however, which necessitates the clearfelling of native forests, does not only occur on these lands and its effects are far more severe than Mr Sheehan cares to mention.
The clearfelling of undisturbed forests or those that have been selectively logged has a major impact on the biodiversity of these forests. The reduction in the number of large old trees that contain nesting hollows dramatically affects a wide range of native animals that depend on them. The vegetative composition of the forest changes and species are lost. For example, soft tree fern, a species that typically survives wildfire and on which many other species depend, is crushed and destroyed by clearfell harvesting activities. Weeds and feral animals spread along logging tracks, further impacting on native species.
It is far too simplistic and indeed wrong for Mr Sheehan to use timber production from reafforested land to press the view that woodchipping has a minor impact on the diversity of life found in native forests. Its impact on the remnant forests of the Strzelecki Ranges and elsewhere and on essentially untouched forests is dramatic and will remain of great concern to the many Victorians who care about their environment.