So the perennial issue of protecting old growth forests has arisen yet again. In 2001, the Gallop Labor government was elected with a policy of stopping the logging of old growth forests in WA. True to their word, they immediately protected the remaining old growth that was outside existing reserves but, sad to say, that's virtually been the end of their commitments. Now we have a serious problem of under-resourcing the forest management agencies who are supposed to protect and enhance the values provided by old growth forests.
Sure, we're had millions of dollars thrown at tourist roads and other tourism-related activities, so now Perth people can drive through south west forests in their airconditioned cars and think everything's OK. But the reality is different: feral pigs are widely spread throughout the forest reserves and doing significant damage, including the spread of jarrah dieback disease; illegal firewood removal is widespread; forest close to urban areas is being damaged by trail bikes, rock removal for domestic gardens, rubbish dumping, dogs, cats, etc; and areas of previously logged but poorly rehabilitated forest that now require silvicultural management to allow forest to regrow are being ignored.
I don't know Tasmania's forests well but anyone who talks only about protecting old growth forests without also demanding tens of millions of dollars needed for subsequent forest management is selling our forest short.

Demos
as not sure if you where talking to me, but

Lest the people laughing at me, well that is ok as this does really say what the people deserve.

Our forests should be national parks, and is there not enough space to grow more trees in other areas.
About cleaning up afterwoods, well the greenies are there to make sure that if it falls it stays or goes back into the ground. With this we do lose jobs from being able to recycle the waste into another product, but hey lets just add more pollution into the air.

I will keep fighting and standing up even there are those here that have just given up to get the right thing done.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

The article seems totally out of touch with the situation in Tasmania, and locked into the glory day’s of the 2004 Federal Election when ALP leader foolishly adopted the forest policy of the ACF and Wilderness Society. A policy that not only was overwhelmingly rejected, but according to most commentators cost the ALP it’s election victory.

It gives the impression that its “Open season on Tasmania’s old growth forests” yet fails to state that it is the policy of both major parties to protect one million hectares of old growth in that State. Perhaps a check of Tasmania’s Sustainable Forest Management report (available from the Forestry Tasmania Web site) to find out some facts.

There is also gobbledygook claims about high conservation value forest, (despite failing to define HCVF) like the Blue Tier, an old mining site that had the HCV bits reserved ten years ago, and now it’s a dispute about regrowth!

The article then goes on to attack the proposed pulp mill. This is despite the fact that no logs from old growth forests will be used as feed stock.

It fails to acknowledge that the proposed pulp mill will use an Elemental Chlorine Free bleaching that even the World Bank agrees that “the levels of dioxins discharged are below the level of scientific significance”.

The claims on the scallop industry ignore the fact that scallops are not caught any where near the effluent outfall. A map of this year’s commercial catch shows that the catch is off the North East Corner of Tasmania over a hundred kilometers from the outfall in block 5F2C, the map is available from the DPIW Commercial scallop fishing web site.

Tasmania does highly value its old growth forests and has created a balance between production and conservation. It is using innovative techniques to manage and harvest these old growth forests (less than 770 ha was clear felled on State forest in 2005/06) and to value add the timber produced from its old growth forests

Cinders

I understand that in other developed countries, pulp mills are operating under a totally chlorine free (TCF) method.

TCF methods could alleviate the concerns of Taswegians over the release of organochlorines and since Gunns purports to be environmentally "friendly", why haven't they adopted the TCF method?

ECF's do reduce the formation of dioxins and furans - they do not entirely eliminate them.

The fact that this plant will release its pollutants to air, sea and land is not comforting, particularly when the pollutants have the potential to affect marine life in Bass Strait.

The proposed disposal of 24 thousand million litres/pa of effluent into Bass Strait justifies Taswegian's concerns over contamination particularly when dioxins and furans (no matter how minute) are bioaccumulative and transboundary in nature.

In addition, Nox emissions will not meet the environmental guidelines.

From memory, Gunns need only submit emissions' reports to the EPA on a six monthly basis. What happened to the obligation where most states until recently, instructed industries to report every three months?

Governments and their Departments' of Environment in Australia have been effectively captured by the industries they are employed to regulate.

An example is the documented evidence from the DOE in Brisbane where between 1995-1996, the DOE and local government departments received 4,481 complaints on pollution. Authorised officers numbered 503 and a mere 2 prosecutions resulted. Has anything changed?

Communities throughout Australia are now vigorously objecting to governments, (who,in their quest for "economic progress")are wilfully permitting the destruction of eco-systems and human health. Surely not all these communities can be wrong? Taswegians have every right to be concerned!

The rank and file of he Labor Party are furious with Kevin Rudd in supporting the raping of the old growth forests. What is the point of subsidising Malaysia and Indonesia financially so that they do not cut down thir old growth forests and then condone Gunns in logging in Tasmania. Rudd is electable and argues for the wrong policies such as logging old growth forests, expanding uranium mining, funding private schools to the detriment of Government Schools supports negative gearing while the negative gearing investors are queueing up to bid for housing before the homeowner can make a bid and the wealth is going to the Wealthier in tax concessions. When will we ever have a Democratic Socialist Government.

The pulp mill will not have any impact on the management of the Tasmanian forests, the actions of Governments over the last 15 years means that the forests are managed according to the National Forest Policy Statement, the Janis criteria, the Regional Forest Agreement and Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.

This means that 1,465,000 ha of native forest is reserved. The reserve system also includes 97% of all high quality wilderness. The comprehensive reserve system and the forest management practices due to the policy of both major parties means that natural and cultural values are maintained regardless whether Tasmania exports woodchips or value adds them by turning them into pulp.

The factory to do this value adding is being assessed by both the Federal Government and the State Parliament, there are a whole range of reports available from the Developer and the State Government (www.justice.tas.gov.au/justice/pulpmillassessment) that deal with issues related to factory emissions, transport, raw materials, smell and social and economic benefit.

Issues of concern raised are addressed by these reports, yet some critics choose to ignore the evidence within the reports, take for example the 2004 report of the Resource Planning Development Commission.

Section B.14 of the Recommended environmental emission limit guidelines for any new bleached eucalypt kraft pulp mill in Tasmania states:

“Pulping processes using elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching and totally chlorine free (TCF) bleaching are both considered [Accepted Modern Technology] AMT (Beca AMEC Ltd 2004). Studies have shown that releases of dioxins and furans are non-detectable or very low in TCF bleach plant effluents and are of the same order of magnitude as in ECF bleach plant effluents. Pulp produced using ECF bleaching has 75% of the world market share of total bleached kraft pulp production; pulp produced using TCF bleaching has 5% of the world market share.”

Thus the Tasmanian guidelines as well as the World Bank consider TCF and ECF to equal in environmental performance.

The bottom line is that Tasmania can have a strong economy with a modern and safe pulp mill and maintain our unique environment and quality of life.