Jan Davis, CEO of the Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association (TFGA) doesn’t mince words when it comes to describing the fallout from the drawn out forestry peace talks/deal in Tasmania. Source: Timberbiz
“We don’t learn from past experience in this State,” she said. “The main thing that got up everybody’s nose with the Gunn’s pulp mill episode was that due process was not followed. And here we go again.
“The original premise was that an agreement about the future of our State forests would be developed between representatives of some timber industry and environmental groups.
“The much-vaunted Statement of Principles was supposed to deliver a durable agreement that would end the ‘forest wars’ for once and for all. And the rest of us, outside the room, were supposed to go along with whatever these unelected and unaccountable groups delivered.
From the outset, we said we could not understand this process.”
According to the TFGA the Regional Forest Agreement was meant to deliver durability – with outcomes including timber supply enshrined in legislation.
The people in the room could not bind groups outside the room in the event of an agreed outcome.
“And now we are told we have a deal – and everything we said would happen has come to pass.
“We strive to be positive and part of the solution, rather than negative and part of the problem. We look to the future, not the past. Our farmers have been committing their own money, time and effort to delivering conservation outcomes for generations,” said Davis.
“The fact that this is the only deal on the table is not a good enough reason to be bullied into accepting it.”
IGA participants took two years behind closed doors to come up with the deal.
“Surely our MLCs should have some time to consider the outcomes carefully before casting their votes? There has been no engagement with the broader community to test the reactions to this deal.
“Surely we should all have an opportunity to test what has been put on the table? Let’s have a scientific and economic evaluation of the proposed outcomes; and let’s give some serious and informed consideration as to how it might be improved.
“No effort at all has been put into investigating other options. Imagine what we may have been able to come up with if even a small proportion of the money spent on getting to this point had been committed to exploring the shape of a revived and sustainable forestry industry?
“Just because somebody has promised a bucket of money if a deal is done before Christmas isn’t a reason to accept a dud outcome,” she said.
“Decisions of this magnitude need to be assessed on the basis of triple bottom line outcomes – economic, social and environmental. We’re told this ‘deal’ delivers environmental outcomes, despite the fact that more and more research shows that lock-up-and-leave approaches actually result in decreased biodiversity outcomes.
“We urge the members of the Legislative Council to reject it.”
