State's quick fix on forests could backfire

Claire Miller, Environment Reporter, The Age (article), 2/4/2000

The timber industry, already heavily subsidised and heavily in debt to the Government, will get  $42.6 million to adjust to reduced timber volumes by increased value-adding. But it will be business as usual for the next two years during the "transition" period.

Opponents concerned about water catchments, endangered species and tourism have been offered a few extra reserves, some tourism development money and a study of how clearfelling affects water quality and quantity. It is unlikely they will be so easily appeased.

 The Commonwealth, at least, has achieved its political objective, which is to absolve itself of responsibility for the electorally troublesome forest debate. All forests covered by agreements are exempted from federal environment protection laws or woodchip export controls.

But in signing this Band-Aid solution to emerging community anger over forests, the ultimate objective of the Bracks Government is less clear - although there may be a hint in the reviews it has promised to undertake over the next 12 months including:

• An examination of forestry practices such as clearfelling and the consequent chipping of lowgrade timber.
• A study of the economic potential of the tourism industry in the Otways.
• A review of royalties and other charges, which consultant KPMG said last year were 30 to 60 per cent below true market value.
• An independent review of how sustainable logging rates are set

It is possible the State Government in the short term just wanted, to get the agreements signed and out of the way to avoid a confrontation with the Federal Government over woodchip exports, and an internal brawl with the CFMEU forestry division over job losses in native forests (the union has few members working in plantations).

Having signed, the Government may now feel free to pursue the agenda outlined in its environment policy before the election, which is to put logging in  native  forests  on  an ecologically  sustainable  and commercially competitive footing. This assumes the agreement is flexible enough for potentially sweeping changes at a later date.

If this speculation is correct, then the Government is playing a dangerous game with public trust, which is in precious short supply among the myriad community, conservation, local government and commercial groups opposing the regional forest agreements.

It would be wishful to think they will postpone anti-logging campaigns pending the outcome of reviews and studies that may or may not be undertaken, and may or may not be acted upon.

On the other hand, putting forestry on an ecologically sustainable and commercially competitive footing would inevitably mean further reductions in the available timber resource and raising prices for an industry that owes the state at least $6 million in unpaid royalties and fees.

In such a case, many could go broke or be forced out of the industry. Taxpayers would then be entitled to ask why the Government spent millions of dollars of scarce public funds on an assistance package now if not simply to buy time.