TASMANIA'S PULP MILL    

With the pulp mill commencing operations greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by approximately a net 1 - 1.3 million tonnes CO2-equivalent per annum.

This is primarily because:

• Pulp shipments will replace pulpwood shipments at a ratio of approximately 1 pulp shipment for every 4 pulpwood shipments made previously;

• The mill’s additional electrical energy that will be generated and supplied into the national grid will replace energy produced predominately from fossil fuels; and

• The forestry resource supplying the mill will be harvested under a sustainable regime and so the greenhouse gas impact of processing forest resource will be neutral.

A rally is to be held expressing concern that common law rights have been restricted by the Pulp Mill Assessment Act.  This briefing paper looks at this Act's passage through Parliament and concludes that it is both fair and democratic.

Tasmanians have been to the electoral polls many times since the Pulp mill was first proposed in December 2004.

In March 2006 Tasmanians gave a significant 49% majority vote to return Premier Paul Lennon and his government. The ALP and the Liberal party candidates combined vote was 81% of the total votes cast. The Greens Party and other anti pulp mill candidates gathered 17% of the total vote.

In October 2007 for the Tasmanian Local Government elections, one anti mill lobby group identified 48 candidates that they believed were anti mill, about three quarters of these failed to be elected. Of the 149 councillors elected only 7 were from the Greens political party.

In November 2007 the pulp mill became a significant public issue in the Federal election and over 80% of Australians supported parties that supported the pulp mill development. Anti pulp mill candidates polled poorly.

In early 2003, the green movement announced an important discovery of a ‘garden’ dug in 1792 by the French expedition led by d’Entrecastreaux, an expedition that in 1793 had a friendly and well documented encounter with the Aboriginal people. These announcements demanded that planned forestry operations on the private land be halted. When the landowners claimed that they did not believe their timber harvesting plans would have any impact on cultural or heritage values, the media blow torch was turned on the timber company Gunns.  The same company now attacked by the greens for proposing the value adding and environmentally assessed pulp mill.

Read the briefing paper that shows that scientific evidence vindicates the land owners’ plans, and exposes the campaign against the lawful and sustainable timber harvesting.

The Developer has included within the project a pipeline to deliver water to the pulp mill, and another to remove treated waste water to an ocean outfall off the coast in Bass Strait. Whilst the cost of the pipeline is included in the capital cost of the project the Tasmanian Government has recently  asked for advice on the public benefit of the pipeline to supply water to the approved pulp mill. Media reports of this request have led to public concern and allegations of subsidies being offered to the mill. The briefing paper looks at these issues.

Naomi Edwards (see Media watch) has released another paper on the financial risks of the pulp mill.  This analysis uses an average pulp price of USD$570.  This is despite the latest prices available at http://www.paperage.com/foex/pulp.html exceeding USD$800 since March 2008.

Her analysis also relies on alleged subsidies to the mill.  Opponents have released a paper by Andrew Bent on alleged subsidies. What they fail to state is that “Andrew Bent” is a Tasmanian writer, who wishes to remain anonymous, who examined the contributions to the “Tasmanian Times” with the aid of an analyst. The real Andrew Bent was a 19th century convict transported for life that became a Tasmanian journalist. This briefing paper examines the validity of the alleged subsidies and concludes that one off subsidies amounted to $5 million compared to a claims of $11 billion.

Over 50% around 2500 tonnes of atrazine per year are used in the growing of canola, with over 80,000 ha in western Victoria and over 300,000 ha in WA and about 1 million ha nationally pa. The herbicide is also used in sugar cane, cotton, sorghum and other crops. Forestry use nationally is minor, of the order of 35-45 tonnes maximum.

Yet sensational claims were made about a minor detection in the Macquarie River last year. However, there was no need for alarm, as confirmed by the article in the Australian 17 May 2008, when reporter Matthew Denholm correctly identified that "The level was far below health value levels ". In fact the health value is 20 parts per billion, the maximum detected was only 1.35 parts per billion.

Briefing papers included looks at Atrazine and the detection of the related Simazine in the Macquarie River. Access the latest advice from APVMA here.

Forest certification schemes provide a way of defining sustainable forest management as well as third party, independent verification that a timber source meets the definition of sustainability. Certification schemes include a mechanism for tracing products from the certified source forest to the end use.

Forestry Tasmania, Gunns Ltd and Forest Enterprises Australia have been externally certified as complying with the international standard for environmental management systems (ISO 14001) and have also been externally certified against the Australian Forestry Standard (AS 4708), which supports the sustainable management of forests for wood production.

Organisers of a rally against the Pulp Mill and against the ANZ bank not only ignore the fact that forestry is the practice of regenerating a forest after harvest but are using claims based on dodgy maths to motivate  protestors.

Opponents to the Mill claim that the mill would rely on 80% native forest meaning 200,000 ha would be ‘destroyed’ over the life of the mill.  Yet documents quoted by some of these groups in formal submissions show less than half that percentage (36%). This briefing paper checks the validity of the maths.

Nor do the figures compare with current approved harvest of over 32,000 ha in Forest Practices Plans lodged with the Forest Practices Authority.  The current harvest is to meet legislated requirements for sustainable saw log production and current market demands. The Government has accepted that the pulp mill, when built, will not result in any intesification of the planned forest harvest 

Pulp Mills need Water.  Fresh water is a major advantage of siting the mill in Tasmania as the State has 14% of Australia's fresh water.

This briefing note details water use and availability for the approved pulp mill. Read also a letter to the Editor from Hydro Tasmania clarifying media reports on the water supply.