In my view loggers had the whole of the 20th century to get plantation timber of good enough quality and quantity. Instead they find it easier to chop down 400 year old trees and obliterate swathes of nearby undergrowth, If the ancient tree supposedly for sawlogs turns out to have splits then they go to the chipper, a miserable end to a wonder of nature.

I wonder if the new laws will be the sort that have to be obeyed. In the past directives not to log have been interpreted in novel ways. As in raze everything now before it gets serious. The Tasmanian Greens are not helping by banging on about carbon credits. In their strange thinking the credit should be counted twice from being sold to a polluter to excuse their emissions. Physically nothing has changed except the polluter is exonerated. Are we then obliged to put out natural fires to validate the credit? Hopefully forest preservation will improve land use carbon uptake.

RE: "The bottom line: the forests agreement is a beginning, not the end."

The bottom line is that the elitist exclusive IGA process has demonstrated that the two interest groups (some Industry and some Environment) used the same wrong irresponsible process as the GUNNS Pulpmill fan-club did.
Nothing was learned the IGA process has wedged many and the confusion factor has only just set in.

The local communities and other social stakeholders were deliberately excluded like second class ranking in our society and ignored.

As a former founding Director of 'Responsible Forest Management Australia Limited', trading as FSC Australia, and as an active Member of FSC International in the Social Chamber, I am very disappointment and alarmed about the fact that some of the key figures of the elitist IGA deal are also either present
or former Directors / Board Members of FSC Australia.
As I see it, this IGA construct directly undermines the spirit and the fundamental foundation principles of FSC International.
If this shonky deal goes through, Tasmania / Australia will be exposed and talked about for irresponsible secretive, elitist deal making practices.

As I am writing this comment today, I am listening to the ABC Tasmania Radio segment called The Friday Forum
http://www.abc.net.au/hobart/programs/hobart_mornings with Peter McGlone from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust where he clearly indicates why the
IGA on the table needs to be rejected and a new, proper triple bottom line approach needs to begin in early 2013.

There is no rush, as in fact the international market players have spoken with their feet and walked away from the Tasmanian business dealings.
All the big Japanese paper manufacturers indicated up to 8 years ago that they aimed at getting FSC certified feedstock;
The Tasmanian response to the Japanese customers in the early to mid 2000s was to develop the Australian Forest Standard instead; more recently
in preparation for the London Olympics, one major supplier International Plywood in the UK made it very clear that they expect
honest business dealings or none.
Australia / Tasmania has a choice, either follow the ethical rules or get out of the international trade with forest and plantation products.

In my active role as FSC International Member and responsible forest manager, I see it as my obligation that I need to consult and
share with global FSC organisation and stakeholders about what is going on in this state.
As it looks to me at the moment, there are strong indicators that the IGA elite negotiators have taken Tasmania (in fact Australia) on a pathway
that does not reflect the fundamental and ignores FSC principles, or call them "game rules" that are not followed but ignored.
Australia is know as a sports nation be that for example Tennis, Cricket and Football, therefore the world can expect that Australians know
that a game is only played properly (valid) if / when all the rules apply equally and followed by all players.
When we consider that the international FSC "game"/ process was established already in 1993 / 94, and now nearly 20 years on,
leading Tasmanian voices and politicians call for the FSC to start in earnest.
The National FSC Standard Initiative has to be founded on the global principles, no matter what.
Tasmania has a choice, we either behave ethically and honestly or the pretender process will be exposed as corrupted no different to some
others in the past.
This is not a warning or thread, it is simply stating the fact. Please feel free to share the above with anyone that may be assisted in the process.
Interesting times

It won't last, the Greens will just come back in a year or two and want more. It is an existential need, they need to protest in order to fill up their days. I guess it doesn't matter, when I was in Papua New Guinea I noticed they had obscenely large amounts of virgin forest - far better to clear fell that as last I heard the Solomons were beginning to run out.
I don't see why plantation timber is such a marvelous environmental option. What on earth is green about miles and miles of straight lines of arboreal monoculture?

I find there are always a few things missing from Tasmanian forestry arguments.

1. it is assumed that changing an area into national park will conserve biodiversity. This assumption is not holding up:

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-future-for-biodiversity-conservation-isnt-more-national-parks-11027

2. The costs of managing a national park are not mentioned in economic analysis of stopping logging.

3. All the tall moist forests in Tasmania, at some time or other, were subject to intense wildfire (or logging and fire) that killed virtually every living thing on site. The 1966 fire was a medium one, the last mega-fire was 1934. Tasmania is overdue for another megafire. Tasmania is running down it's fire-fighting resources and know-how.

4. If Tassies tall moist eucalypt forests are not "destroyed" by logging or wild-fire, they will be destroyed by time - they will slowly turn into myrtle-beech/sassafras rainforest which has lower biomass (i.e. carbon stores) and biodiversity. It seems ironic but in order for a particular site to stay as tall moist eucalypt forest over the long term, it has to be destroyed by fire or logging and fire to rise again as the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes.

5. Adversarial politics is always going to struggle with complex issues when groups of people form into polarised grouping who believe they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong - this is the time-immemorial template for battle.

Here with permission the latest contribution by Peter Henning:
Source: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/roundtable-for-two-please

Headline: Roundtable for Two Please

Peter Henning
03.12.12

“Table for two? Just two?”

“Yes, of course. It will be a permanent booking.”

“Same as usual then? Put it on the public tab?”

“Of course. Money’s no issue. It’s not ours”.

“So, clearfell for you and a bit of the old growth for you then?”

“We’ll need to send a meal to the corporate boyos, usual transport, on the public tab, don’t forget. With gravy”.

“Anything else for you both?”

“We’re interested in a large helping of residues with extra plantation garnish.”

“Large?”

“As always, of course.And done the same way.”

“So just the two of you then?”

“We like to be exclusive, so there will be nobody else, unless the Man rings…”

“We have a new FSC dessert. Like to try it?”

“New? What’s in it? How will it go on top of clearfell?”

“Umm… I’ll check with the chef. Something to do with free, prior and informed consent.”

“Sounds a bit unhealthy to me. Just like those carbon credits with coffee.”

“Oh well, it might be what the other tables want.”

“What other tables?”

“The rest of them. You know, the public tables.”

“Never heard of them. Must be outside the tent. By the way, we might try the FSC dessert, but the social chamber sauce looks a bit rich. Any way to replace it…?”

The real winners from the 30 month negotiations are the ENGOs. The real losers are the timber industry itself and the Tasmanian public. If ever a chance to really restructure the timber industry onto an economically and socially sustainable footing was lost it was blown to pieces during this disastrous period.

At no stage throughout the whole process were the substantive issues of management satisfactorily addressed. The main outcomes were all about trade-offs between the industry dinosaurs on one side and the one-issue conservationists on the other. It was essentially a roundtable for two, with a hide-bound focus on the local turf war, all about carving out territory and then using heaps of public funds for all sorts of buy-backs, buy-outs, and special purposes, such as a “plantation management fund” and a “plantation manufacturing innovation fund”.

There is no evidence of any attempt to remodel the industry away from past and present clearfelling practices in the catchments, or of intensive logging, or of bulk woodchipping.

“Residues” are to continue being created as they have ever since woodchips became the mainstay of the industry. In relation to that, the agreement calls for “urgent” access to “the Triabunna processing and export facility and Burnie wharf facility”, to be publicly funded by a “value-adding facilitation fund”, whatever that means.

Ambiguity surrounds the volumes of everything, from high quality sawlogs, to the size and purpose of the plantation estate and the quantity of “low-quality sawlogs” and “residues”.

According to the agreement “at least 137,000 cu.m of high quality sawlogs” will be a “minimum supply requirement”. This is later contradicted by another clause which says that “sawlog volumes are to be reallocated up to 137,000 cu m per annum”, and that “high quality native forest sawlog above this minimum agreed figure will be permanently retired”.

Which part of the agreement are we to believe? Presumably the ambiguity is deliberate, because these people have spent months together working out the wording.

There is no detail about peeler wood supply for Ta Ann, except for the need for renegotiated contracts. What the deal will be between Ta Ann and Forestry Tasmania will be buried from public scrutiny, as is normal, as will the ways and means that Ta Ann will be featherbedded through various subsidies.

Special timbers have their access areas reduced, and lipservice is given in the agreement to train the clearfellers to identify different species, presumably to prevent at least some of the more valuable timber being “residued” or burnt. That exposes its own story, especially about the obdurate and incomprehensible support given to clearfelling and woodchipping for years on end by some of the more publicly known users of special timbers. Everyone who has worked in the “residued” industry can tell stories of special timbers being chipped, as well as stories of workers trying to save the timber from such a useless fate.

So it looks like business as usual in a smaller paddock. Nobody was allowed to participate in the process who was known to have questions about current management practices, or questions about monocultural plantations, or who wasn’t willing to trade on the pulp mill. There is nothing in the agreement which poses any problems for any consortium willing to buy Gunns’ permits if they are put up for sale. There is no doubt that the government will use this argument to get MLCs to back legislative implementation, in much the same way that they tried to help get Gunns a joint venture partner after the 2010 statement of principles was signed off. The argument back then was that the statement of principles had created a “social licence” for the mill. We’re in for a repeat of all that.

In this sense, it is interesting that a whole host of environmental groups which had initially opposed ENGO involvement in the forestry roundtable process, and even publicly distanced themselves from their peak organisation, Environment Tasmania, have now endorsed the forestry agreement. No doubt most of them have fallen into line because they believe that their local interests have been addressed, if we are to believe that representatives of the Blue Tiers, Western Tiers and many others who were previously very critical of the whole process which began in May 2010, have now swung behind the ENGO signatories, TWS, ET and ACF.

Looking at the map, there is good reason to understand why parochialism has won the day for so many who have been ignored for so long. The prevailing consideration is that any agreement which locks out forestry operations in areas identified as having high conservation values, irrespective of the trade- offs, is an indisputable winner as far as they are concerned. In fact that is exactly what one of their representatives said in the joint press release of 16 environmental groups. They seek to rest easy after seeing their landscape trashed for years on end.

Perhaps they should have had a closer look at the map. Parochialism has its virtues, but it also has its self-destructive limits. It’s a great map. What it shows is that the catchment areas which have been mercilessly trashed over the last generation or so of clearfelling can expect more of the same. This is where the general Tasmanian public is the real loser from this whole two-sided deal. It means that in the end the final costs – in money, water and land degradation – will be higher for the whole Tasmanian community. It’s truly a lopsided deal for a sector of the economy which represents such a small proportion of the workforce and which relies heavily on the public purse anyway. It is also likely that the concern expressed by Jonathan West that the “wood zone” will be more heavily trashed than ever, will come to pass.

The MLCs aren’t known for the length and breadth of their vision beyond short-term self-interest, so they’ll consult their navels very closely on this, with loud announcements of personal angst. That anxiety will have been ramped up by the fact that Ta Ann has given its imprimatur to the agreement, especially among those who rely heavily on a political image as forest industry stalwarts. We have already seen Paul Harriss fly the energy flag as a salve to conservative opposition to the agreement in his electoral heartland, but we also know that key elements of TCA – particularly in the Huon, but elsewhere as well – have always been confident of their ability to influence the votes of some MLCs on this issue. Ta Ann versus TCA is about as unlikely a scenario as you could get. But since about 2006 the splinters of division within the Tasmanian community have sprouted like ecological diversity in a well-managed forest – how ironical is that! –so whether we now see a rapid evaporation of any deep-seated concerns of any sort among MLCs on the back of their kow-towing to the predominant corporate interest, as in 2007, will be a sight to behold, or at least entertaining.

(Photo of Evan Rolley)

Whatever the case Ta Ann is now much better placed than any forestry corporate interest in Tasmania’s history, apart from the now defunct Gunns, to rip-off the Tasmanian taxpayer and future generations of Tasmanians in short-term profits for off shore investors for about 100 local jobs. They’ve learnt a bit from Gunns, but the signs are good that they’ve learnt the wrong lessons. A couple of weeks ago Ta Ann said it was poised to leave Tasmania if it didn’t get what it wanted from the IGA. This was pure theatre, equivalent to John Gay’s histrionic blabber about leaving Tasmania for China unless he got his way.

As soon as a company starts to sprout that sort of propaganda they lose public credibility, and it’s a bit too soon to copy Gunns’ methods of public relations. Their corpse still stinks too much. But we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactics. Evan Rolley has brought a new dimension to Ta Ann. He is similar to Robin Gray at Gunns, but with important differences.

Rolley has got himself in a key position with an offshore company which has a horrendous international reputation for its practices in its own country, Malaysia, and he is also a former key executive of Forestry Tasmania. Great combination.

It’s taken 30 months to produce this strangely ambiguous document, shot through with all kinds of loose ends, dichotomous phraseology and junk clauses. One of the reasons it has taken so long – if not the most important reason – is that it failed in its purpose of getting a joint-venture partner for Gunns. Throughout 2011 the process floundered as Gunns unravelled, and really only came to a more speedy conclusion after Gunns final exited stage rear a couple of months ago. Perhaps that also helps to explain why the agreement is such a shoddy document, but such an explanation makes it no less shoddy.

One thing is most disturbing. The composition of this roundtable guaranteed – tragically for the future of the industry – that key issues were not on the agenda, especially to ensure a full canvassing of a range of alternative models for the future, in a rapidly changing world. Those alternatives were deliberately excluded by the complete politicisation of the whole process, narrowing everything down to the balkanised interests of old-style industry stalwarts and blinkered environmentalists.

This whole process has actually further weakened the capacity of the forestry industry to drive reform from within. Nowhere is this made clearer than in the bland statement that “the signatories will actively support FSC certification”. That will be an interesting challenge if the current management practices are not changed. If, as seems likely, the industry attempts to stack the social chamber or rort the updated FSC certification process requiring “free, prior and informed consent”, FSC International will seek to protect itself.

The Tasmanian industry is in a real bind in relation to certification. After scorning FSC accreditation for nearly 20 years, they now find that it’s the global marketing benchmark which they can’t ignore. But how can they reform the industry to meet those standards?

Then we come to plantations.

This is where things really go off the rails into the realm of deep illusion. Everything written about the plantation “solution” is mired in fallacy. There can be no transition into a sustainable forestry industry in Tasmania based on monocultural plantations planted for pulp. This goes to the heart of the lack of honesty and transparency at the centre of the negotiations which began in May 2010.

Whatever the fate of this weird and anachronistic shambles, based as it is on siloed thinking of the worst kind, it’s hard to know how the old forestry industry, with its cargo cult mentality still predominating, can learn to change.

Siloed thinking never works. It always fails to accommodate important relevant information because it is so often confused with incremental reform. Those who say we will “fix” this issue before we move to the next issue are doomed to failure. There has to be an integrated approach to policy development which is based on careful and ongoing assessment, not an approach which focuses on the interests of narrowly-based groups which inherently excludes valuable information for political reasons.

Many of those who have supported the establishment of the roundtable in May 2010 and everything which has taken place since then until now, have made their decisions on a hope and a prayer that a two-sided roundtable had the capacity to deal with issues in an environment of compromise for them alone, and nobody else.A table for two which enshrined their power to influence how public funds would continue to flow into a bottomless pit for the indefinite future, under all sorts of funding programs.

The reality is that…

“Table for two next week then?”

“Must say that side dish of special species was not up to much. Haven’t you got something more appetising? Didn’t like that new FSC stuff either. Needs watering down”
“The chef’s working on it, but don’t forget most of it has already gone into the main course”.

“Bit like caviar, eh? Another one for the public tab, don’t you reckon?”

“The good old public tab. Where would you guys be without it? No more dining out…”

“Must run. Man’s on the phone. Commercial in confidence. By the way, what did happen to that sturgeon you used to sell, you know, the caviar stuff? Used to be part of the clearfell course. Remember?”

Courtesy of Miranda Gibson(B.A. B.Ed) - The Observertree.

http://observertree.org/2012/11/25/critique-of-the-forest-agreement/

Critique of the forest agreement

The following critique of the forest agreement has been prepared by Miranda Gibson of Still Wild Stil Threatened and Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Center. We hope this will help to unpack some of the detail in the agreement and dispel some of the myths about what it will mean for our forests. Please read and share.

No time frame for protection and false numbers on the area of forest to be protected

Although we would welcome the creation of reserves, if and when that happens, the numbers of hectares being often quoted are misleading. A deeper analysis shows a very different reality in terms of real forest protection. The more realistic figure is 395 000 ha, down from 610 000ha. Though there is nothing certain in the agreement for secure protection.

It is 395 000ha on the table for the first tranche, this is far different from half a million. The remaining areas that have been agreed for protection will be held to ransom, pending silencing the rights of people to participate in a democracy, and remaining areas will be logged over ten years and then possibly protected.

There is no moratorium on logging of the proposed reserves in sight, and in fact there are clauses that allow for logging to continue in these areas. In addition there is no transition schedule worked out according to a timeline.

Ongoing logging within the proposed reserve area is unacceptable. Given the track-record of rescheduling efforts so far, none of which have led to the full implementation of the moratorium or conservation agreement, this clause raises serious concerns about how much forest will be logged and how long it will be before the reserves are protected. The wording in the agreement implies that the protection of these areas will only occur if and when rescheduling takes place. “The Signatories will work with governments and Forestry Tasmania (including the Chair of the Board) to develop the agreed transitional schedule prior to the issuing of the Protection Order”.

There is no indication of how long it will take for the Protection Order to be delivered. In the meantime logging will continue. If this process must be done before the Protection Order, and in addition the first durability report also complete, there will be a considerable delay on implementing protection.

The 21 411 hectares that will be logged once-off or of-last-resort cannot be considered to be part of the reserve figure either, because they will be open for logging. They have no guaranteed protection in the future, as their tenure status will be dependent on wood supply.

Wood chipping and clear-felling to continue in Tasmania’s forests

Woodchipping

The use of the woodchips produced in the logging cycle is still left unresolved. Alarming and unacceptable wood chipping and clear-felling will continue in Tasmania’s forests, with the support of the environment groups signed on to the agreement. Silvercultural practices need to change, yet the deal locks in unsustainable and ecologically damaging logging practices.

Biomass is not mentioned in the agreement, though it is not specifically ruled out as a domestic option that will be proposed in to the future for feeding native forests in to furnaces or ethanol plants.

Triabunna woodchip mill has been urged by the signatories to reopen. If Triabunna woodchip mill is not re -opened or another alternative for ongoing unsustainable wood chipping, this will be reflected in a durability report prior to the protection order.

If the durability report and therefore the possibility of the Protection Order even being implemented are reliant on external parties such as Triabunna Mill, and reliant on the locking in of wood chipping, then there is a real risk that there will never be protection. Or that the destructive, large scale and low value industry based on wood chipping that has already failed in Tasmania, will be brought back to life and propped up by this agreement.

The clauses around “residues” clearly highlight the intentions to continue to log native forests on industrial scale.

Abandoned Transition out of native forests

The transition out of native forests that was a core conservation outcome and outlined in the Statement Of Principles seems to have been abandoned, as signatories agree to an “ongoing, vibrant forestry industry based in native forests.” The concept of seven years of research planning is mentioned in the agreement, subsided by the government. This appears to be either a tokenistic gesture or a delay tactic. What Tasmania needs and what the global customer base need is not ambiguous statements, but a clear time frame for a transition.

Another aspect of the agreement that point to a further entrenchment of native forest logging include the redefinition of state forest areas as “Permanent Wood Production Zones.” This change in language from the previous “multiple use forest” definition, indicates the real intentions of this agreement and that is to leave these forests open for logging permanently.

We are calling for a clear time frame to be placed on a transition and are calling of the industry out out of native forests within two years.

Sawlog buyback reallocated

The saw log quota has only been reduced to 137,000. And this is in fact a minimum not a maximum requirement, allowing for this to be increased at any time, but never reduced.

Controversially a larger quantity of cubic metres was offered to the Government for the HQ sawlog contract voluntary buyback program that could have reduced the HQ sawlog quota to less than 137 000 cubic metres, subsequently securing more forests for protection. Now the signatories are suggesting additional funding for the loggers and the sawlog quota will not be retired but reallocated. This essentially means that the entire process of a government funded saw log buy back scheme failed to achieve the conservation outcomes intended, because the majority of the quota bought back will be re-distributed. The question must be raised, will this then work to simple eliminate some of the smaller saw mills and bolster up the remaining mills?

Market endorsement for unfounded “peace in our time” assurances by environment groups for ongoing clear-felling of Tasmania’s native forests. And potential supply of high conservation value forests to Ta Ann.

The Agreement indicates that a lot is yet to be negotiated and finalized. One controversial aspect of the industry has been the supply of wood from high conservation value forests to Ta Ann. The agreement does not indicate that this will cease. And as it is clear the destruction of those forests is set to continue, it is evident that Ta Ann will continue to receive this wood. For Ta Ann to continue to sell ply made from such destruction and labelled as “eco” friendly does not resolve the controversy in the market place. International customers expect a higher environmental standard and the tick of approval from some environment groups is not enough if there is no real change to the company’s practices.

Alarmingly, Clause 6 states “long-term compensable supply contracts, with legislated sovereign risk protection.” To legislate these supplies is a risk to Tasmania, when markets could change again and continue to decline, leaving the taxpayer to compensate. In addition, it raises questions about Ta Ann and whether their controversial wood supply will be legislated, locking them into destruction of our native forests.

False market endorsement for controversial product

The unfounded “peace in our time” assurances that will be made by the signatories in the international market are unacceptable. As is the call for a government funded propaganda machine to sell clear-felled native forest products internationally. Ultimately Tasmania’s wood products must stand the test of international scrutiny, and a PR campaign coupled with a tick of approval for some environment groups will not be enough to hide the fact that destruction is continuing in the forests. The only way to bring about market stability is to bring the product in line with customer expectations by adopting strict environmental practices, which this agreement fails to do.

Durability

The details about the durability reports are absent, though there is a clear requirement that they be delivered before protection of forests. This not only leads to a very dubious delay in forest protection, but also leaves a cloud of uncertainty around whether protection will ever be implemented.

The protection of these forests should not be subject to conditions. They have been verified as high conservation value by independent scientists and should be protected regardless. Yet, the agreement implies that the protection will not proceed unless there is “public and proactive” support for entire agreement, including in the market place. This kind of statement is akin to blackmail. To expect the public, who have not been consulted or involved in this process, to give proactive support to this agreement is a way of stifling open and honest public debate and discussion. The community should be free to critique aspects of the agreement without being having those verified forests held to ransom. The specific mention of public support in the markets is unacceptable. There are problems with this agreement in terms of the real conservation measures that would be needed to satisfy customers buying ‘eco-friendly’ products. These customers have a right to know about these issues. There should be space for problematic aspects of the agreement to be critiqued.

Dispute resolution

The Agreement refers to “ in relation to activities external to this agreement that may undermine it,” Yet, it is questionable how this agreement can be bound by activities that are external to it. And if this clause is intended to refer to protest activity, it is extremely problematic and a dangerously undemocratic precedent to set.

Missing timelines, ongoing logging as delay continues to protect forests or restructure the forestry industry that is urgently needed to transition the industry out of native forests,

When it comes to conservation outcomes, this agreement lacks in substance. Filled with vague statements and a distinct absence of time frames for protection, it does not offer with confidence any indication that forests will be adequately protected.

Certification

The agreement appears not to rule out AFS certification, which is an unacceptable form of certification for forests and which is aligned with PEFC, a certification standard that has been condemned internationally by environment groups.

The call for FSC certification is also problematic, because it is based around the permanent timber production zones, which will consist of native forests outside the reserves. An attempt to gain FSC for these areas shows an intention to continue to log them, indicating again the clear lack of a transition. The reality is, however, that current industry practices including clearfelling and cable logging are unacceptable and should not be approved by environmental certification standards such as FSC.

The agreement states that the forest manager should be “able to undertake and demonstrate full management control of the production forest estate (forest management area).” This looks suspiciously like an attempt to lock in Forestry Tasmania to managing the forests, which is in contradiction to the government’s approach in relation to the URS review, which would see a restructure of FT. FSC for Forestry Tasmania’s logging practices, unacceptable agreement that an Australian forestry standard is a standard suitable for forestry industry. This standard is not recognised as such domestically or internationally.

Forest Practices Code needs strengthening

The statement that “the Forest Practices Code should be progressed in a manner consistent with this agreement” is vague and meaningless, and raises alarm bells around the critical issue of the FPC upgrade that has been recommended by the Forest Practice Authority. The statement in the agreement could be interpreted in a number of ways, and in fact to say that the FPC be “consistent with this agreement” seems to imply that the code, like everything else in this deal, be treated as secondary to wood supply.

Special Species Zones

There are questions around the management of such zones. In particular around those areas identified as eucalypt forest, as the agreement states “If any forest within the Special Craft and Timber Zone is typed as eucalypt forest the special management order should permit those forest areas to be harvested as if they were part of the Permanent Timber Production Zone Land.”

–Such areas could be exposed to the same industrial scale logging as the permanent production zones, and therefore they cannot be included in the reserve figure.

Regional Forest Agreement is flawed & should not be endorsed

This agreement implies endorsement and support for the Regional Forest Agreement – which should, instead, be thrown out. “The outcomes of this agreement should be incorporated into existing State and Federal mechanisms, including the Regional Forest Agreement.”RFAs are discredited and should not be entrenched through this agreement.

Join Miranda on Dec 14th to celebrate 1 year in the tree!

Only 5 days to go till Observertree's worldwide livestream event, as I celebrate surviving one whole year at the top of this tree. We’ve had a great response so far, with many people planing to log-on and a number of public events. We’d love some more! If you want to organise a community event in your local area, let me know and we’ll help you get it sorted.

So far we have people keen to organise community events in: Brisbane, Melbourne, Launceston, Lismore, Ballarat, Bondi, Nimbin, Alice Springs , Hoddles Creek, Edinburgh, Bristol, Seattle.

Please register your interest now! Whether you want to host your own event or simply plan watch online – we’d love to know!

http://observertree.org/celebrate-observer-trees-1st-birthday/