Dear Senator Colbeck
I write to urge you to reconsider your comments on the
Tasmanian World Heritage Area extensions posted on your website (http://www.richardcolbeck.com.au/featured_stories/the_tasmanian_wilderness_world_heritage_area_scam)
. I appreciate your concern with this issue, but it would be helpful if you
became better acquainted with the facts and background of this matter before
‘rushing to print’.
What your helicopter tour showed you was logging roads and
coups deep in world heritage value forests. This happens with dispersed logging
strategies and is standard forestry practice. It is the reason there has been a
rather bitter conflict in Tasmania for four decades. What you saw was world
heritage forests being whittled away. Including some logged areas in the new
boundaries will allow those areas to recover ecologically and preserve the
integrity of the reserves as a whole. Saying that the area is undeserving of
protection because of logging is akin to saying that the Egyptian sphinx is
unworthy or preservation because its nose is damaged.
Removing the logged areas from reserve areas is one option
but it does not require a wholesale roll back of the world heritage area which
is what your government is proposing (74,000 ha). Curiously this proposed role
back includes the glacial lakes of the Mt Field National Park. Obviously this
is simply cover for gifting old growth world heritage value forests to the
logging industry. It reduces your credibility to pretend otherwise.
I understand your concerns about special species timbers.
This issue was addressed comprehensively by Tasmania’s Legislative Council
whose select committee was chaired by, and largely made up of, conservative
members. It was widely expected that their changes to the Forest Agreement areas would spell the end of the
agreement. However the Environmental NGOs accepted the changes and allowed
further areas into production. This was a substantial compromise which deserves
acknowledgement. I encourage you to get across the detail and talk to the ENGOs
before passing judgement.
I was particularly surprised by your statement that this
process was political. In the four decade history of this conflict this was the
only time an agreement has been reached rather than imposed. It was industry
that approached the conservation movement seeking an outcome. The conservation
movement obliged despite there being no moratorium on logging during
negotiations. Political parties were kept at arms-length. The only political
interference was by the Legislative Council which watered down the conservation
outcomes in order to allow a greater supply of special species timbers.
I have spent a lot of time in Tasmania’s forests – logged
and unlogged. The simple fact is that a 60-80 year rotational logging regime
cannot conserve the ecological values of the forest. I discuss this in more
detail in my blog post here: http://www.findinghomebookspace.blogspot.com.au/2013_04_01_archive.html
Please talk to more than one interest group on this issue.
The Tasmanian Forest Agreement is a complex negotiated document representing
trade-offs between diverse groups. I am not an expert in the agreement but I
know that there is no such thing as a ‘forestry vs conservation’ position on
this. Different industry groups have different interests. Unsurprisingly some of them did not get
everything they wanted. Such is public life.
I will post this letter on my blogspot, and with your
permission, will post any reply.
Yours sincerely
