For those seeking figures from other countries that compete with Australia a telling observation is by a leading European forest expert. Dr Jari Parviainen director of the Joensuu unit of the Finnish Forest Research Institute in an article http://www.nordicforestry.org/article.asp?Data_ID_Article=1691&Data_ID_Channel=34 in one of Finland largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on 10 February 2006, said of Swedish forest management:

”The protected part of total forest area has almost tripled in thirty years. The part of strictly protected forest in the whole of Finland is big, 4.1 % of the whole forest area.”

This is a big number for Europe. Others include: Denmark 1%, France 5%and Czech Republic at around 3%.

Countries in other regions include Argentina at 8%, Brazil 6% and Chile 27%.

One difficulty of comparisons between countries is none of the so called International Environmental groups publish statistics on forest within protected areas, it is left to the UNEP WCMC linked to in the article to publish figures and the more current 'version 3.1' country-level statistics are not provided on the web site. 1997 figures are available at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/data/cdrom2/index.html

For Taz, seeking clarification of the map of the SFM report, it shows reserved land and old growth within these reserves prior to the TCFA, it does not show all old growth or all native forest. If Taz turns to page 7 of the brochure, the figure of 1.25 million ha is shown for the total amount of old growth today. The TCFA as stated in the article reserved a total of 1 million ha, an amount that cannot be dismissed as a token reservation.

Taz is right about how deceptive a lack of knowledge can be about previous forest practices by ANM (the N stands for Newsprint) in their concession area. The Styx is in the middle of this former concession and for the last 5 years has been held up as high conservation forest that must be “saved” Taz’s photos could show how ill informed the Bristish MP was on his visit to Tasmania.

Cinders seems to have overlooked the detail in my opening statement “The actual area of oldgrowth forest within reserves remains pitifully small including the 120500 ha extra from 2005” small and extra = not much of the state when considering the total area the state and Australia. Also, a lot of oldgrowth in tall forests = a lot of carbon locked up as we wait for regrowth to catch up.

Cinders; can you discuss the current sawlog cut over within the old APPM pulpwood concession as well as ANM? Are we in front or behind the good old days when it comes to chipping quality timber? Also what happened to the Yank from Kauri that had me watching the coastal rail log trains or the private miller near the Teirs who was battling a buttress delivered from guess who with a chain saw after he was told that was his share of the forest pickings in that region?

Perhaps I have lost touch meantime.

However Timberjack can tell us who he works for while I do my best in retirement on the main island in harassing both major parties for a better deal in cleaning up the industry back home.

This brings me to another point in political point scoring, your man hassling the dear old ABC gardener as he tried to block the concept of some one developing another stinking pulp mill.
Folks; I can say after working in several of these places on both islands they do stink. No one has handled more technology in these plants at their worst than me. What’s changed since, Gunn’s R&D?

BTW timberjack; I’m traditionally big on value adding down stream and minding the detail. What’s your background?

Chivers,

The percentages are here, scroll down a bit: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001210.html

Taz, when I read your statement that you have been involved with a number of pulp mills, I can only assume that you must have spent your time with your head in a paper bag. You continue with the green propaganda that woodchip for paper production is not 'value adding' when the total value adding from raw product to finished goods is just as good as any other forest product. The only adverse aspect of the woodchip value chain is that the greens have been very successful in limiting the amount of paper that is actually produced here in Australia.

I don't have the latest costings but lets take a closer look at this. A sawlog has a stumpage price of $60 to $80 a cubic metre and when sawn will produce half a cubic metre of boards worth about $500 retail.

A chiplog (ie a bent one, or a thin one that is restricting the growth of a better tree beside it) has a stumpage price of about $15/m3 which after chipping, drying, pulping, washing etc will produce about a third of a tonne of newsprint (circa $1000/tonne) worth $350 wholesale to the newsprinter. The value of a tonne of end product is about the same when comparing paper with board. Some boards are priced higher but some papers are too.

But the actual percentage of value adding for the woodchip value chain is higher than the sawlog value chain because the chiplog starts from a lower initial value. So if there is any complaining to be done about any local lack of value adding, the greens who have opposed any form of on-going investment, should be the last to open their mouths. (fat chance)

So what we appear to be left with, Taz, is an exile who has blown his own credibility in Tasmania because he chose to view his own community through the eyes of ignorant strangers, and now takes pot shots from untouched wilds of Canberra. I wonder how much untouched reserve forest the ACT has left?

Taz
If you wish to be better informed about the outstanding reservation of forest in Tasmania, a quick look at the actual document of the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement might be helpful.

This is available at http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/190505.html ,
if you go to pages 16 and 17 you will find reservation levels for tree communities and for old growth. This table clearly shows that for our Tall (wet) E. obliqua old growth forests, 63% is reserved. That's an incredible 52,840 ha of a standing area of 83,490 ha.

These figures clearly demonstrate the outstanding conservation achievements and the effectiveness of Tasmania's sustainable forest management practices.

This is fascinating to me as a New Zealander.
This is an absolute rerun of the Green attack on our own West Coast Forest Accord.

We had one of the worlds leading sustainable management programmes.

But the Government decided the urban greens had the votes and they closed the Forests down and sacked the CEO (a world leader in sustainable management) for daring to protect his forests from these uninformed assaults.
The Labour Government won the election.

The same players. The same gangs.