Liz Ingham (27/2) from the Wilderness Society castigates Dr Peter Attiwill for daring to support the East Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) and classifies him as a "woodchip apologist". This offensive rhetoric is no substitute for proper process and analysis. The RFA is the culmination of a long and complex process. It substantially endorses 25 years of state land-use studies and decisions through the Land Conservation Council and initiatives such as the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and legislated Code of Forest Practice.
That work has been focused on providing balance between competing forest uses and excludes almost two thirds of East Gippsland forersts, and 95 per cent of identified wilderness areas from harvesting and regeneration. Environmental lobby groups have been integral players and loudly applauded initiatives like the doubling of parks and halving of timber quotas in 1988. The National Forest Policy, signed by the Keating and Kennett Governments, stresses that managing Australia's forests in a sustainable manner, calls for policies that can be adapted to accommodate changes - new information about forest ecology and commercial and non-commercial opportunities for forest use. Special protection zones provide some flexibility. Apparently, Ms Ingham cannot accept that the forest policy is also about regional employment, current account deficit and social justice.
The disgrace of the past 20 years that has seen millions of tonnes of
residual wood wasted on the forest floor in areas harvested for sawlogs,
despite the available markets that could have produced government revenue,
rural jobs and export dollars has been addressed by the RFA - it is a tragedy
that it has taken so long.