The decision this week by the Bracks government to further reduce timber harvests is a cruel blow to workers in rural Victoria.
The decision will result in the loss of up to 1,500 jobs and the closure of mills -- some of which have recently invested millions in new equipment on the basis of commitments from successive state governments. It will lead to further flight from rural towns and will condemn many forestry workers to the dole queue for the remainder of their lives.
The Government has promised to cushion the impact with a $80 million adjustment package. Such Government hand-outs are an affront to the dignity of the workers and will fail to fully compensate them, their firms and their communities.
The Bracks Government faces a very real problem. The regional forestry agreements (RFAs) which give binding commitments to forestry industry about the amount of timber that can be harvested, are not sustainable. According to a recent expert report, the agreements systematically overestimate the sustainable harvest from the allowable land by as much as 80 per cent and by an average of 30 per cent across all areas.
How did this happen? First inadequate resources were allocated to the vital task of mapping forests and estimating yields. Given the millions spent on RFAs, money per se was not the problem. Second, bureaucrats and politicians systematically avoided the tough decisions. When greens demanded another buffer zone or more possum habitat be protected, they gave in pretending that it had no effect on the amount of timber that could be sustainable harvested. Third, when the industry expressed concerns about the over estimation of sustainable harvest or about excessive quarantining of additional land -- which they did throughout the process -- they were ignored.
The result is that only 15 per cent of state forest are actually open to logging, rather than the 21 per cent envisaged by the RFAs. In short not enough land has been allocated to meet the agreed harvest rates.
The Government could still meet its commitments to the industry without jeopardising the conservation value of the forests. First, it could re-assess the kaleidoscope of set-asides that have eaten away at the original agreement. Given that these were made with inaccurate data, such a re-examination would seem necessary. Second, it could replace the newly quarantined areas with areas from the Special Protection Zones that are current quarantined from the industry. Given that parts SPZs have similar timber resource to the areas covered by the RFAs and are in need of thinning to minimise the threat of fire, the substitution could improve the conservation value of the forest. Third, it could review the grading system to ensure that wood suitable for sawlogs is not shunted to pulp production. Fourth, it could provide funding to rehabilitate the thousands of hectares of forest degraded by the old sleeper cutting and other selective logging.
Instead the Government has decided to renege on its agreement with the forestry industry. On top this the Government decided to reduce the length of logging contracts from 15 years to 10 years and to increase royalty rates.
While Bracks Government claims to be committed to helping rural workers and, its actions indicate that its real commitment is urban greens.
ADVERTISEMENT
