The state-owned company at the forefront of Victoria’s timber
industry has escaped further legal sanction after complying with court orders
to rehabilitate 22 hectares of rainforest.
Despite the penalty, green groups fear the episode, along with
recent changes to forests law, could mark a more lax attitude towards the
transgressions of loggers.
As part of the sanctions, VicForests was required to upgrade
education programs for its workers. The Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE, now part of DEPI) also mandated that the company build ties
with environmental advocacy groups as penance for having cleared illegally
eight hectares of protected forest in East Gippsland last year.
Although the case tarnished its image, the
company has lived up to its part of the deal. The bond ends this month, and
both VicForests and DEPI (in eerily similar
statements) confirmed that the 12-month probationary agreement has been
complied with in full.
VicForests, a state-owned
company, oversees the contractors who harvest and replant trees. The forestry company has improved training so
contracted loggers can better recognise rainforest plants.
Also, a spokesperson from the Arthur Rylah Institute confirms that
the company has begun working with the Leadbeater’s Possum Advisory group.
VicForests' action on the final condition is less clear. VicForests claims it has replanted 22 hectares of native bush
in East Gippsland, but neither the company nor DEPI confirmed the
exact location.
According to VicForests' annual
report, the legal costs involved in such
environmental battles were the key reason for its net profit loss in
2011-2012.
The government has been making moves to assist
the failing industry. In a bold move to cut the industry’s administrative
costs, the Victorian parliament passed a series of amendments to the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act (2004) on June 28, 2013. Ms Young is concerned that will
give VicForests a carte blanche to native forest in Victoria.
Amelia Young from the Wilderness Society is concerned that the
transgression sets the stage for more disaster. Her biggest concern is how
VicForests will protect the environment given their heightened autonomy in the
recent Timber Act amendments.
“It’s putting the fox in the henhouse,” said Ms Young.
She believes that because the board is
responsible for pursuing commercial returns, they are not best placed to
consider the environmental costs of logging operations. “In fact, given their
responsibilities, it is likely they will not,” Ms Young stated. She cites the
illegally cleared hectares as a prime example of timber transgressions.
The recent amendments remove the requirement for
contractors to have an operating licence, give VicForests indefinite ownership
of transferred land, and allow VicForest’s Board to approve its own timber
harvesting plans. All three components of the plan have come under criticism.
A chip off
the old block: How new laws affect forestry regulation
Source:
Author (via Austlii)
Hansard
records confirm that members of the Victorian Government claimed cutting
requirements for harvester’s licences would reduce redundancy. Members of the
opposition voiced their concern that the government’s primary motivation was
economic, at the expense of safety.
Logging advocates are quick to
counter that the environment will be safe. Forests are still governed by
Management Plans. Harvesting has to meet the Forest Practices Code. So there
are regulations, even with the new amendments.
But the degree of freedom now awarded the industry is
unprecedented. Amendments allow VicForests to approve its own Timber Release
Plans—which contain details of where they will harvest and replant. This year’s
rainforest logging ordeal has made environmentalists wary that VicForests, if
approving its own plans, will slip again.
Even if VicForests does not harvest any more native forest,
activists question if the company’s plans for replanting would neglect to
invest in robust, bio-diverse flora. The
National Sustainability Council reported that regrowth
vegetation—which tends to be just one species—is of less ecological value than
rainforest.
Activists also have a third concern about self-regulation:
short-sighted over-harvesting. Chris Orchard, a Melbourne based volunteer with
Wilderness Society Victoria, is struck by the devastation of over-logged native
forests.
“To
describe it to someone who has never seen it before, they are like
post-apocalyptic landscapes.” –Chris Orchard, Wilderness Society Victoria. Photo: Wilderness Society
Forestry advocates counter that harvest levels
from public native forests are below the calculated ‘sustainable levels’. As
one member of the Victorian timber industry remarked, “It’s only 10 per cent of
the forests” (that’s sixteen times the size of Melbourne’s Yarra Bend Park).
Despite the “sustainable” levels,
conservationists are concerned that VicForests can now determine where and when
they will log, without any longer having to put their logging plans out for
public comment.
Source:
National Sustainability Council
Not only is the Board now in charge, but the new amendments
allow the state to allocate land to VicForests indefinitely. The time period
used to be 15 years. Kelly O'Shanassy, CEO of Environment Victoria is concerned
about the state government’s motives: “We’re worried that the brown side
[corporate profit] of the debate basically is going to completely overshadow
the green side, which is the environment protection.”
But how profitable is this venture? Premier
Denis Napthine boasts that VicForests has earned an $11.58 million net profit during
its eight-year life. But since 2007, VicForests has been attacked (most notably
by The Age) for failing to produce a consistent profit.
Source:
Author using data from VicForests annual report, 2012
The above chart shows the amount of timber the
company has produced (increasing, see green area). VicForests pulls in around
$120,000 in annual revenue. In other words, the timber is selling (black line).
Yet the company is losing money (red line).
Court costs aside, environmental activists have
latched onto the argument that there is fiscal danger in indefinite ownership.
So for both sides, as spring planting begins, the court battle may be over, but
the war continues.
This article appeared in The Citizen.
No comments:
Post a Comment