Tim Cadman,  Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere
August 1, 2000

Australia is only 5% forested, and most forests are dominated by the genus Eucalyptus, which is found in the tropical, subtropical and temperate zones. The majority of forests (excluding tropical savanah and open grassy woodlands) are located along the escarpment of the eastern seaboard's Great Divding Range, south west Western Australia and on the island state of Tasmania (south eastern Australia). 50% of Australia's biodiversity is found in its forests.

The dominant forestry model used on public and private land is that of "clearfelling", whereby forests are almost completely removed and subsequently razed by fire. There is some "selective logging" in drier forest types. Approximately 70,000 hectares of forests are clearfelled on public land every year, with approximately the same amount logged on private land. The predominant forest product is woodchips, which are exported largely to Japan for paper production by large companies including Nippon Paper, Mitsubishi Paper Mills and Daishowa Paper Manufacturing Company. Approximately 8 million tonnes of woodchips were exported last year, comprising roughly 70% of the country's forestry production. Woodchipping is highly unpopular with 80% of the Australian public opposing it.

Under the Federal Government's "National Forest Policy", so-called "Regional Forest Agreements" (RFAs) have deregulated the forest industry, handed powers back to the states and opened Australia's forests to global markets and free trade. The Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system promised in exchange for deregulation has not been implemented to the satisfaction of conservation NGOs. Foreign, largely US investment in plantation establishment is leading to an increase in deforestation, as tree farms are replacing native forests, which are being cleared for the express purpose of creating these new plantations. The Federal Govt has committed itself to encouraging the establishment of another 2 million hectares of plantations over the next 20 years.

The Australian Federal and State Governments are signatory to the "Montreal process for conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forest ecosystems". In conjunction with Regional Forest Agreements, and use of the ISO 14000 "environmental management system" government and industry are attempting to convince the rest of the world that Australia's forests are being managed sustainably. Recent work by Dr Leonie van der Maesen in Western Australia was conducted to the satisfaction of the Dutch Govt that forests were not being managed sustainably, and subsequently purchasing contracts were cancelled. The same occurred recently when Bristish Railtrack cancelled a railway sleeper importation contract worth over $4 million for similar reasons.

Australia's political system is that of a "commonwealth" comprising elected state governments and a national federal govt, all of which operate under the "Westminster" parliamentary system, with the British Queen as the ultimate arbiter. Consequently, all land that is not freehold or leased is "Crown Land", administered by the states. There is no communally owned land, and consequently no impetus for land use initiatives such as community forestry. Large multinational forestry companies essentially pay royalties to take forests on Crown land, with the process overseen by state forestry corporations acting on behalf of the relevant state Minister. The public has little say on the matter, as all problems are addressed through "codes of forest practice" which in the main are non- binding with few prescriptive measures in place.

Global free trade and the destruction of Australia's forest ecosystems – negative impacts of plantation establishment

By the end of this financial year, approximately USD$5 billion will have been invested in the establishment of plantations in Australasia. This has resulted from the deregulation of the forest industry via the so-called Regional Forest "Agreements" process.

Under the Federal Government's "Plantation 2020 Vision" programme, 650,000 hectares of plantations will be established in Tasmania over the next twenty years. This loss of biodiversity is not ecologically sustainable, and indeed many Commonwealth and state officials are deeply worried by the mandatory target of 3 million hectares of plantations by 2020. There is evidence that threatened species on private land are being liquidated by this establishment programme, yet there are currently no monitoring/enforcement provisions to ensure this does not happen. The Forest Practices Code is only enforced on 6% of forestry operations in Tasmania for example, meaning that it is possible that there could be a rate of non- compliance as high as 94%.

The Australian community has had no say whatsoever in these schemes. Foreign corporations, largely from the United States are investing huge amounts of money in plantation establishment. In the case of Tasmania, it appears that joint venture agreements have effectively handed over the ownership of public assets to private companies for terms of up to 70 years. This is also the case in Victoria, where a US life insurance company, John Hancock, now owns 170,000 ha. of publicly-owned plantations.

The following are a number of anecdotes collected by NFN in Tasmania that are a matter of grave concern: 

1) Corporations are targeting prime agricultural land for establishment, not degraded farmland; 

2) Property prices in rural areas are falling due to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses 

3) Other industries are being negatively impacted by this proliferation of chemical tree farms, e.g. Tasmania's burgeoning organic sector

4) Some landowners may be being intimidated by forestry employees and politicians into selling their land at reduced rates

5) Some rural townships are simply closing down as residents leave, thus exacerbating the existing crisis facing rural Australia.

6) Plantation prospectuses are grossly exaggerating the benefits of carbon sequestration as an additional economic benefit to pulp production whilst completely ignoring the fact that the principle of carbon sequestration is not even currently recognised by international scientists and policymakers. The federal government is complicit in this cover up, and is currently seeking to preempt international processes by playing a "numbers game" with countries supportive to its position.

7) Due to the federal government's new capital gains tax provisions companies can write off 150% of the costs associated with the destruction of agricultural infrastructure on the farms they have purchased (i.e. dairies are being bulldozed, farmhouses buried in huge pits, dams being filled). This is depreciating rural Australia's agricultural assets.

Many people are completely unaware that foreign companies are ultimately calling the shots. They are continuing to try and develop dialogue with state forestry corporations who are not making it clear that they are no longer responsible for resolving the concerns of the public.

This is all part of the federal government's "Plantations 2020 Vision". However, establishment is occurring in secret. The public is not being made aware of what companies are planting nor where they are planting. State forestry corporations are complicit in this. It is also highly likely that these companies will be using their plantations as potential carbon "sinks", despite the enormous carbon pollution that will result from their establishment and ongoing pulp production.

There is still a raging international debate over the real value of carbon "sinks" for sequestration. Many scientists believe that the best way to store carbon is to maintain existing forest cover across the landscape (carbon sources). Clearing of forests is not an efficient way to store carbon as the forests must first be cleared then burnt. The plantations themselves are then cleared, which again leads to further emissions. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory has shown that carbon emissions from the forestry sector have risen since 1992, while other sectors (e.g. electricity) have declined.

The recent destruction of approx. one third of the remaining habitat of the Red-tailed black cockatoo population of Western Victoria by plantations company Timbercorp. emphasizes that something is going drastically wrong with federal environmental policy, and that the establishment of plantations as a response to global warming is nothing more that a very sick joke. And unless Australians and the world take action to deal with these problems before the end of this financial year, it could be too late. Forest Product Certifcation

The Australian Federal Government is seeking to develop an "Australian Forestry Standard" that can be used as a basis for selling Australian forest products in the international "certified" timber market. Internationally, governments and industry are deeply worried at the market dominance of the Forest Stewardship Council, and the development of the proposed standard is part of an international campaign to swamp "ethical markets" with a number of competing schemes. One such example is "Pan European Forest Certification", which like the proposed Australian standard is based on national forest policy initiatives, and international forest protocols, such as Helsinki and Montreal. The international government trend appears to be one of "mutual accreditation", whereby a country signatory to one of the various international forest protocols will recognise ("accredit") the timber exported from another signatory country as being sourced from "sustainably managed forests".

There are a number of common factors in all these proposed schemes: 

1) They have all been developed with virtually no meaningful input from non-governmental organisations (particularly environmental and Aboriginal groups) and hence fall far short of the stakeholder consultation mechanisms that are a prerequisite for indepdendent, third party certification systems such as the Forest Stewardship Council. For example, both PEFC and the proposed Australian Standard have been heavilly influenced by forest industry preferences, while NGOs have had virtually no input.

2) They are significantly weaker that independent certification schemes in terms of environmental standards. International protocols such as Montreal are process- rather than performance oriented, and hence do not directly address a number of major environmental management concerns raised by NGOs (eg chemical use, clearfelling, etc.). For example, the Australian Forest Standard will be based on Regional Forest Agreements and exisiting codes of forest practice.

In an attempt to create a show of government/industry indepedence, these schemes will be accredited under the ISO 14000 "environmental management system". However, this system does not examine the sustainability of a company's performance on the forest management unit level, and does not "certify" logging standards.

There is growing international opposition to these "quasi governmental schemes" by NGOs, who have opted instead for certification processes that are undertaken by independent, third party certifiers at arms length from government, industry and NGOs.

Responses by Australian NGOs In addition to the implementation of consumer and investment "boycott campaigns" targeting the major forestry corporations (NORTH, BORAL, AMCOR, Daishowa, and Bunnings) NGOs are also developing a nationally consistent set of management principles for independent third party forest product certification. They have also stepped up their pressure on Japanese buyers of forest products, and have recently sent a letter to Nippon Paper Company requesting that it close the Eden woodchip mill in NSW upon completion of the proposed Daishowa merger.

The Bigger Picture For a forest campaign to work effectively to conserve ecosystems around the Pacific Rim from the predations of free trade a campaign needs to address the following components:

1) Trade
International trade agreements, such as the recent forest industry attempt to develop a "Global Free Logging Agreement" clearly demonstrates that corporations want to work in a world where national boundaries have no meaning and the market rules supreme.  A forest campaign around the Pacific Rim needs to look at the role trade is playing in the devastation of forests around the region. From Australia to Argentina, logging is expected to intensify as the next round of trade negotiations proceeds – in Australia by up to 11% , according to the US Trade representative. 

2) Investment 
As companies lay waste the forests in their traditional areas of activity, they are casting around for new places to invest their profits. This is leading to a frenzy of investment in unsustainable forestry enterprises, such as the current push to clear native forests for plantation establishment in Australia. There are common trends in many of these current schemes. A Pacific Rim campaign needs to track these proposed and existing investments, and where possible halt them before they get off the ground. If this is not possible, it is vital that the countries affected use their common concerns as a basis for influencing investment decision making at the shareholder level. Great gains can be made by working co-operatively with sympathetic elements within these companies.

3) Corporate 
At the heart of the Pacific Rim's environmental problems lie the multinational corporations. These companies are no longer chewing up the forests of single countries and moving on, they are now spreading their potential exposure to "sovereign risk" across a range of countries. The region has become one big "tree farm" to fill the global "wood basket". Pacific Rim forest campaigners need to follow these companies wherever they go, providing local people with information on their activities elsewhere, and facilitating development of appropriate local responses.

4) Consumption 
The underlying problem is the continued demand for wood around the world, particularly in places like Europe where there is high usage of forest products These markets will continue to expand as populations grow. The key to an effective campaign to protect the forests of the Pacific Rim is to provide acceptable alternatives to the "business as usual" approach and divert consumer "buying power" into environmentally preferred products.

To conclude, the Australia faces problems similar to many countries around the Pacific Rim. Therefore, an integrated campaign approach is required that takes all these interacting factors into account. Tim Cadman MA Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere Error: Unable to read footer file.