TASMANIA'S PULP MILL    

On 8 Dec 2008 Mitsubishi Paper Mill commenced a tour of inspection and a series of meetings with Tasmanian stakeholders.  MPM export 200,000 bone dry metric tonnes of woodchips proceed at the Hampshire harvested from regrowth native forest and plantations in NW Tasmania.

The inspection was part of a process to gain Forest Stewardship Council, mixed source wood certification. FSC is yet to finalise country specific criteria for Australia and whilst it has issued some certificates in Victoria and WA, is yet to certify Tasmanian forests.  However 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) that is endorsed by Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes  (PEFC).

Both the PEFC and FSC promotes sustainable forest management - environmentally, socially beneficial and economically viable management of forests for present and future generations - through independent third party forest certification.

To meet the FSC controlled wood categorization MPM wanted to satisfy itself that the harvested wood wood not be:

• Illegally Harvested Wood
• Wood harvested in violation of traditional or civil rights
• Wood harvested from forest in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities
• Wood harvested from areas being converted from forests and other wooded ecosystems to plantations or non-forest uses.
• wood from forests in which genetically modified trees are planted

Prior to their visit a risk analysis confirmed that all wood was legally harvested and that it did not violate any traditional or civil rights and that GMO is banned in Tasmania. They were also aware that high conservation values are protected within Australia through the

• the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
• World Heritage Convention

The Regional Forest and Tasmanian Community Forest agreement are in accordance with these conventions and reserve 47% of Native Forest, 97% of high quality wilderness and a million hectares of old growth. This level compares to the CBD of 10%.

However they appeared unaware that these agreements also protected threatened species through a combination of reserves and management prescription. The risk assessment listed possible concerns with the wedge tailed eagle, quoll, burrowing crayfish and masked owl. Part of the inspection was to find out the details such as the massive increase in recorded wedge tailed eagle numbers since the introduction of the Forest Practice Code. There are also detailed prescriptions available from the independent Forest Practices Authority- Fauna Values Database

The second risk factor of concern was the conversion of native forests to plantations. Both Forestry Tasmania and Gunns had announced an end to this practice in July 2007  (see Forestry Tasmania  Statement). Due to recent discussion with community stakeholders, Gunns recently issued an information sheet on the issue that can be accessed here.

Even so, FSC does allow a small rate of conversion if needed to protect values. In Tasmania part of the RFA and TCFA was to provide intensive forest management of low conservation value forest including thinning and plantation establishment to establish future timber resource when timber rich areas such as Beech Creek/Counsel River, Wylds Craig, Gordon and Tiger Range, Upper Styx, Middle Weld, Middle Huon, Picton Valley, Southeast Capeand major areas of the Upper Florentine were reserved.

Incredibly, despite these reserves the recent IUCN Congress passed a motion condemning Tasmania due to these areas being threatened by logging activities.

An important article has been published  at Online Opinion  by Mark Poynter.

Mark Poynter is a professional forester with 30 years experience. He is a member of the Institute of  Foresters and the Association of Consultant Foresters, and author of the book Saving Australia’s Forests and its Implications (published in 2007).

Marks article looks at two recent publications by the Fenner School of the Australian National University.  The first by the WildCountry Hub director Professor Brendan Mackey and colleagues that colour codes carbon and speculates that there is ten times more carbon potential in forests than a world wide estimate made almost 20 years ago.

The second report critiqued is from Judith Ajani (formerly Clark) that extensively quotes the Mackey report to argue that native forests should be used as carbon stores, and existing plantations will provide all our timber needs.

Both reports appear strongly influenced by the Wilderness Society and its political ally the Greens.

The reports critiqued are in direct contrast to the carbon credentiasl of timber and paper outlined at a new web site.  Did you know  Australia’s native forests, timber plantations and wood products are net absorbers of greenhouse gases, sequestering 56.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005, reducing Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 10%.

Check the latest information at Wood Naturally Better web site.