Forestry Tasmania - What's in a Name?

This was originally written in response to an article by Ted Mead published in the Tasmania Times this week.

We’ve had a swag of name changes and attempted changes lately.  State Forest became Permanent Timber Production Zone.  Future Reserves changed to Future Potential Production Forest.  The proposed change from Future Potential Production Forest to simply Production Forest was thwarted by most unlikely of conservation champions the Legislative Council.

We no longer Clearfell native forests in Tasmania.  Instead we engage in Aggregated/Dispersed Retention or Stripfell.  When I stand in the wide swathes of flattened forest produced by these new methods it sure feels like good ol’ Clearfelling to me.  These are simply more name changes.

It’s therefore no surprise that Forestry Tasmania should undergo a name change to try and make a silk purse from a sows ear.

So…  What’s in a name?

Let’s consider a name that didn’t change.  After the 1972 drowning of that precious gem, Lake Pedder, the ultimate insult to injury was conveyed.  The broadly destructive Huon Serpentine Impoundment was given the same name as the original lake.  Tragedy!

In the timber industry we have done a similar thing to what we did to Lake Pedder.  We use the word “forest” to describe biodiverse, multi-aged, natural ecosystems.  Tasmania is lucky enough to still have quite a bit of true native forest.  However we also use the word “forest” to describe an artificially established plant community which is bereft of biodiversity and dominated by trees of a single age.  To add insult to injury, the industry responsible for that conversion is called “forestry.”  Anti-forest-ry would be more appropriate.

A name change is needed but practices need to change as well.  I don’t have a problem with Sustainable Timber Tasmania if that is what they truly become.  They need to immediately cease native forest conversions and focus 100% on the regrowth and plantation resources available outside the reserve system.

The recent proposal to allow commercial logging in Regional Reserves and Conservation Areas is abhorrent.  Most of these were set up in conjunction with the Federal Government under the Regional Forest Agreement and Community Forest Agreement when John Howard was PM.

(Tassie Liberal politicians will have you believe it was Labor and the Greens that set up these new reserves.  Not true.  It was John Howard.  Not that I want to portray Mr Howard as a leftist greenie!)

Surely we have reached a point where we no longer need to cut down trees which take hundreds of years to grow.  What can’t we do with trees which have been planted by us and grown in our lifetime.  Special species make the news from time to time.  Blackwood and silver wattle grow quickly.  No need for native forest there.  Slow-growing myrtles, celery tops and sassafras should be highly valued and go the way of huon pine by only being available from strictly regulated salvage operations.  These species should not be an excuse to turn more precious forest over to production demand forecasting.

Labor and the Greens had the balance right with their recent forest peace deal as it became known.  The industry knew an end to native forest logging was the only way to stay afloat.  Unions knew a good deal when they saw one.  Conservationists would have been placated when the word “Future” was removed to allow establishment of the new “Reserves.”  Behind the scenes I believe even our friends at Sustainable Timber Tasmania know the peace deal was the only way forward.

We have the name change.  Politicians now need to allow industry practice to match what the name preaches.