Logging coupe in Tasmania's north west where today's action took place

Ta Ann Tasmania has been put in the spotlight over these past few days, for the role in the continued destruction of Tasmania’s high conservation value forests. Yesterday 25 conservationists entered the Ta Ann veneer mill in the Huon Valley, halting operations and drawing attention to the ancient forest destruction that is occurring to supply wood to this company.  Jenny Weber, from the Huon Valley Environment Centre was the spokesperson for the action and stated that “The Tasmanian Government’s own reports show Ta Ann is the major driver for logging in old-growth and HCV forests,”

The concern around Ta Ann’s practises is growing, with more actions occurring today.  In Tasmania’s south and also in the north west, actions took place in logging coupes that should have been protected by the Intergovernmental Agreement, yet are now being felled to feed Ta Ann’s mills.

‘The forests we are protesting in today are key targets for Ta Ann’s wood supply. Ta Ann is misleading Japanese customers and the public by peddling misinformation that they receive timber from regrowth and plantation areas in Tasmania only.  The Southern protest in the Picton Valley forest is within 2km of a cave system that has indigenous and environmental values of international significance. These forests have never been logged before and conservationists have identified celery top pines that were 150 years old that have been felled,’ Jenny Weber said.

‘The conservation agreement signed on the 13th of January by the State and Federal governments does absolutely nothing to protect Tasmania’s globally unique forests including areas such as these in the North West of the state. It is still business as usual in the forests, with old growth and high conservation value forests tracts still being lost despite being promised protection by the Federal Government in August last year.” said spokesperson for Code Green Jared Irwin. ‘Code Green are committed to ongoing action until Tasmania’s irreplaceable wild forests receive true protection.’

Tasmania devil seen in the area that is now being logged to supply wood to Ta Ann

In addition, Ta Ann was the focus today for environmental NGO Markets For Change (MFC), who publically released a letter they sent to Forestry Tasmania, calling for an admission that Ta Ann is in fact receiving timber from high conservation native forests, contrary to the misleading claims currently being made by Ta Ann. MFC noted that in the annual report of Ta Ann Holding it is cited that Ta Ann Tasmania uses ‘plantation eucalypt.”  This is also reiterated on the website of Ta Ann shareholder company Sumisho & Mitsuibussan Kenzai Co Ltd (SMKC) on a page devoted to their Tasmanian product, which states that “We produce there veneer from high-quality eucalyptus plantations…” (http://www.smkc.co.jp/eco/participation.html). Yet this is simply incorrect, as MFC pointed out Ta Ann Tasmania itself admitted that it requires native forest timber, in their submission to a House of Representatives Committee and in evidence under oath to a Legislative Council Committee.

Markets For Change have called on Forestry Tasmania to make a public statement clarifying the fact that Ta Ann is receiving wood from native forests. The letter states

“While the content of its Annual Report it is obviously the responsibility of TAHB, we believe that it is the responsibility of Forestry Tasmania, as the principal supplier of wood to TAT, to be clear and explicit with respect to the source of such wood so that TAHB can be confident of the veracity of statements it makes to shareholders, regulatory authorities, customers and the general public.”

“In the context of current forest conservation debate, the distinction between planted forest (plantation) and naturally regenerated forest (native forest) is highly significant. We believe that TAHB have made a mistake in how they have characterised sources of wood used by TAT mills in Tasmania and that this mistake may have significant market implications.”

It does indeed have market implications.  Consumers are likely to believe the product is sustainable if it is labeled “eco” and claimed to be from plantations. Yet, here I am at the top of a tree that is centuries old, in the middle of a spectacular ancient forest that is due to be logged in order to supply Ta Ann with this so called “eco ply.”  It is an absolute disgrace that they can place the word “eco” in front of a product that is driving the ongoing destruction of endangered species habitat! These past few days have been inspiring with so many conservationists speaking out against Ta Ann. Please help out by adding your voice at our upcoming Global 24 hours of action on Feb 14-15.

I tried to block out the thought as soon as it entered my mind. I didn’t want to think about it. But it kept creeping back to me. I imagined that one day someone else would be sleeping in this tree. Not like I have been every night for the past six weeks, looking out across the mist covered mountains and the Tyenna Valley. No, not out here in the middle of this forest. But in this tree non-the-less; after it has been hacked into pieces, shipped across the world to China and back, sold at a Harvey Norman store as a “Tasmanian Oak” bed, finally ending up in the bedroom of someone out there who lays down to sleep, perhaps unknowingly, in The Observer Tree. No, I don’t want to think about that, it is too horrible.

I remember when I first walked into a Harvey Norman store with new eyes, full of a new found awareness of where each table, chair and bedframe had come from. In July 2011 Markets for Change (MFC) released a report entitled No Harvey No. It mapped out the chain of custody of native forests logged in Tasmania, Victoria and WA, as it is shipped to China, made into furniture and shipped back to Australia. It took a year for MFC to track the complicated journey that the timber takes once it is taken from our forests. For example, one chain of custody involves Chinese company E­-JEYIK which buys the wood from Auswest, Britton Timber, and Gunns Ltd, turns it into furniture sends it to wholesaler Dixie Cummings, who then sells it on to Harvey Norman.

“Many of these retailers like Harvey Norman have very large advertising budgets. Every time their advertising lead to the sale of a timber product from a native forest it directly contributes to the logging of these forests. Yet many companies such as Harvey Norman, have no publicly available procurement policies”  It states in the MFC report.

This is why I was walking through a Harvey Norman store, looking in detail at each label. No, I wasn’t looking to buy a new bed; I just wanted to see for myself. And there it was “Tasmanian Oak” written on labels on beds, tables, cabinets. I ran my hand along the top of a table. Taking in each grove, each marking in the wood. It suddenly occurred to me that anyone of these could be Front Sit.  In the past I had imagined trees I’d come to love, being split into a million pieces, turned into woodchips, spread in a million directs, lost amongst tiny pieces of other trees, other forests. Finally ending up scattered across the globe, as tiny specs in a piece of paper in America, a tissue in Japan, cardboard packaging in France, some toilet paper in China. It was almost like scattering the ashes of a loved one into the wind, watching them blow away. But as I stood in front of this solid table, it somehow made the heart ache feel more real.  The reality that an Australian family out there somewhere might be eating their dinner off the corpse of Front Sit tonight. I gently touched each table, each bed, the back of each chair. “Victorian Ash,” “wormy chestnut” and “Tasmanian oak” – imagining the trees, the forests from which they had come. Taking a moment to honour the life that they had been, because I figured that whoever bought them would never know the truth.

The sadness I felt inside the store gave way to other emotions. For the first time in a long time I felt a renewed sense of enthusiasm and excitement for the forest campaign. I had just about had it with the forest negotiations going nowhere and the government bowing down to companies instead of listening to its constituency.  I just didn’t know what to do or how to change things. I really wanted to see these forests saved but I was out of ideas and I just felt like we were getting nowhere. And then it happened. If this was a cartoon the No Harvey No report would be like a light bulb suddenly appearing above my head! Armed with the new realisation that the government was not the only ones that controlled the fate of the forests and not the only ones who could change it, I couldn’t wait to start putting the heat on Harvey Norman, and seeing if we could get Gerry to change their procurement policy. If Harvey Norman stopped sourcing wood from Tasmania and other native forests, then that would have a major impact on the industry. Adding the extra pressure needed to force the whole forest industry to change.

Like MFC said in their report: “As Australia’s largest retailer of furniture and electronics in Australia, Harvey Norman, its management and its shareholders have a special responsibility to source products in an environmentally responsible way.”

Since the campaign was launched less than a year ago, there have been loads of actions right across the country and even across the world, targeting Harvey. Yet, the company hasn’t changed their policies. I guess we have to keep at it!! Every time someone walks into a Harvey Norman store and asks about the policies, every time their company name is mentioned in the media in relation to forest destruction, every banner drop, every poster, every e-petition: they add up and bit by bit they no doubt worry Gerry Harvey, that his brand name is being damaged. His brand name is now associated with forest destruction. And eventually, if we keep this pressure up, he will have no choice but to listen to the people and change his policies. 

Recently Get Up! had a campaign where everyone could take a copy of the petition that was signed by nearly 50,000 people, and hand it directly to the manager or franchisee at your local store.  I went along with my Mum to her local store in Capalaba, Queensland. As soon as we took out the petition the manager saw it out of the corner of her eye and she knew what it was straight away…it was quiet clear that she had been waiting and expecting this moment. Possibly we weren’t the only ones dropping the message into that store. The fact that she knew all about it was an inspiring sign. It shows that the company is definitely feeling the pressure. 

I’d like to say to Gerry Harvey: Despite what the Tasmanian Government may have tried to tell you, the forest issue in Tasmania is not ‘getting sorted.’ Logging of high conservation value forests continues as rapidly as ever, fueled by companies like yours. So long as Ta Ann and you, Mr Harvey, continue to buy and sell these products made from our native forests, there will be no “peace in the forests.”  And there will be no peace in the show rooms either, because more and more people are realising where these products come from. And how many people really want to sleep a bed made from the corpse of a 400 year old tree?

Check out the films below of actions targeting Harvey Norman.There’s lots of great ones choose from, so I’ve just picked a couple. I hope it inspires you to get out there or get online and take action!

Click here to sign the online petition.

Shame Julia Gillard Shame!

I cannot believe that the Australian government has put its name to a document (that it has the gall to call a “conservation” agreement) which will see more and more of our precious forests devastated. This document is in direct contradiction to the promise that was made by the government when Julia and Lara signed the Intergovernmental Agreement five months ago.

This World Heritage Area bordering forest in the Weld Valley is already gone, are we about to lose more just like it?

The most horrific part of it all is that while this conservation agreement condemns 40 coupes to be logged, Tony Burke has called it a “landmark conservation agreement signed to protect Tasmania’s native forests.”  It is amazing how they can spin the truth and turn it into lies! He claims that the agreement protects 99.5% of the area. With “a small number of coupes” to still be logged.

Firstly, I don’t know how Davina the devil or any other animals living in the 2000 hectares to be felled would feel about their forest being trivialized in such away. Secondly considering the little amount of old growth actually left I think 2000 hectares is a very significant amount. Thirdly, it is directly going against the promise that was made that all of the 430,000 hectares would be protected by the conservation agreement.

Tony Burke stated: “In accordance with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement, which commits to honouring all existing wood supply contracts, these coupes have been excluded from the Conservation Agreement:”

The excuse of contracts  for wood supply (to Ta Ann) is really getting a bit old now – how many times do we need to keep reminding them that clause 27 states clearly that any contracts that can’t be met outside the 430,000 would be honored by way of compensation – not access to the forests for logging.

It is misleading to claim that 99.5% is now protected. The fact is that 100% of what was threatened by logging is still going to be logged. Basically what they have done is a tricky maneuver. Everything that wasn’t scheduled for logging is protected by the conservation agreement (i.e.: they are not going to be logging the areas they had not intended to log) and everything that was scheduled for logging, plus even a little bit more, is excluded from the agreement (i.e.: they are going to log what they had always intended to log).  Not one single hectare of forest that was scheduled for logging has been protected. So what has this agreement done for the forests? Nothing, except to take away the fast-fading hope that Julia Gillard would actually live up to her word.

This “conservation agreement” (it just feels so wrong to call it that) will see this coupe here Tn44B logged.  Pristine areas of forest in the Weld, Butlers Gorge, Styx, Picton…. all have been put on death row by this agreement.  Today’s announcement is a bitter blow to all of those who care about these forests. It is even more a bitter blow to the credibility of Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

I do not think that the general public will fall for the green-washing that is occurring here. No matter how many words like “conservation” they want to throw into the agreement, the evidence will speak for itself. This very Monday when logging resumes again here and in coupes all around the state, the evidence will speak for itself.

It is like I said in an earlier blog – it is ridiculous to log the forest prior to reserving it. It is like smashing something before buying it. This is exactly what they seem hell bent on doing. Fragmenting and damaging the area ear-marked for protection.

The government must be held accountable to the Australian public, and to the promises they have made to us. Yet the only ones they seem to be listening to are Ta Ann. All of these logging coupes excluded from the conservation agreement are to feed Ta Ann’s insatiable appetite for Tasmania’s native forest.

Yesterday morning at 6am I woke up to see a media release by the Huon Valley Environment Centre. Conservationists were conducting a peaceful demonstration at the Hobart wharf, where a Ta Ann ship was loading veneer made from Tasmania’s native forests. ‘Conservationists are today protesting about the ongoing logging in Tasmania’s high conservation value forests for Ta Ann, a Malaysian logging company. Ta Ann is receiving timber from old growth and high conservation value forests and they are exporting these forests to Japan to be sold under the false brand of eco-friendly flooring,’ Huon Valley Environment Centre’s Jenny Weber said, spokesperson at yesterday’s action.

Unfortunately the government don’t seem to be listening to the Australian public and today’s announcement is a clear demonstration that their loyalties lie with the profits of Ta Ann over and above the promises made to the Australian community.

As Peg Putt (Markets for Change) said today “It’s a black Friday for Tasmania’s forests, and one of severe disappointment to those who hoped for a breakthrough for conservation and an end to the conflict in Tasmania’s forest, in what has now become a deceptive and discredited process”

My offer still stands to Julia. Come and visit the ObserverTree this weekend while you are in Tasmania. Come and see for yourself the forest that you have now condemned to destruction.

In the spirit of yesterdays’ action by the Huon Valley Environment Centre, now is the time to get active. With so many of our precious wild forests on death row there is an urgency with which we must spread the word about what is going on here. It is time to get the word to the Japanese customers of Ta Ann, to the Australian and Tasmanian governments, to Harvey Norman and to Ta Ann that enough is enough. It is time to protect Tasmania’s ancient forests.

For more information check out some of today’s great media releases:

Senator Bob Brown

Markets for Change 

The Wilderness Society, ACF and Environment Tasmania

Huon Valley Enviornment Centre

 She looked at me in disbelief. “But, surely” she said “the forest will grow back?”  I was talking forestry politics with a woman who was giving me a lift. She couldn’t believe what I was telling her about the destruction of old growth forest here in Tasmania. She desperately wanted to believe the Forestry Tasmania propaganda, it was easier that way. But the facts, sadly, tell a different story.

I was remembering this conversation after writing Day 24’s blog, in which I talked about the cycle of life and death in the forest. I talked about how all these trees will grow old, rot and fall over eventually. But they will live on in the ecosystem.  I wanted to address this question of ‘regrowth’ in relation to that idea.

There is a big difference between a tree falling in the forest and the entire forest being felled and burnt. Forestry Tasmania claims that the fire regeneration regime replicates the natural processes of the forest. This is a bit of a long stretch of the imagination! The reality is that yes, fire does play a crucial role in these landscapes – but the clear-fell, burn and sow routine can hardly be compared to the usual processes of this forest.

Firstly industrial forestry operations come into these forests – it is not one tree that falls, it is every single tree, plant, fungi, bryophyte, animal, animal dens, waterway and even the soil itself that is killed. Then to top it all off, napalm like substance is dropped from helicopters and whatever managed to survive the machines and chainsaws in obliterated in a high intensity burn.

When trees fall naturally in the forest, they are left behind to form important roles in the ecosystem as they decompose. Providing shelter for animals and insects, storing carbon and giving nutrients to the soil for future generations of trees. When an area is clear-felled all those trees are removed from the area to be taken to mills, made into veneer and furniture and shipped around the world. Instead of providing a home for a spot-tail quoll, they become somebody’s Harvey Norman coffee table.

This is what is so disturbing about standing in a smoldering clear fell. Something is greatly out of balance. There is nothing natural about it. The cycle of life and death has been obscured and perverted. The living forest is converted into a machine, churning out furniture and flooring. Leaving behind an apocalyptic dead landscape.

When the smoke fades and the ash settles, the forest starts its slow process of regrowing. But things have changed. The diversity of the forest has been manipulated into a virtual monoculture forest. This is particularly true for these types of forests here. The forest I am in is called ‘mixed forest’ – a unique interplay between eucalypts and rainforest. When they are felled and burnt they are changed forever. Rainforest species generally don’t like fire. That is what makes rainforests the way they are. Eucalypts on the other hand love to regenerate after fire. This is why fire is such a tool used by the forest industry to create eucalypt dominated regrowth that suits their logging desires. Meanwhile, the rainforest species such as sassafras, myrtle, leatherwood, celery top pine…. they are few and far between in these new regrowth forests.  Once areas of rainforest are burnt, they may take hundreds of years to recover (Kirkpatrick & Dickson 1984).

When fires go through these forests naturally they are very different from the high intensity burn offs of industrial forestry. There is interplay between fire and the landscape in which some vegetation types rely on fire to regenerate and they also provide the right environment to encourage fire. Fire is likely to stop along the boundaries of rainforest areas, because these species provide less flammable material. In this way the vegetation ensures its own survival through maintaining the correct fire regime. Button grass regenerates well if it burns every 5-10 years. Dry eucalypt forest generally have a higher fire frequency than wet forests and rainforest species are not that keen on fire. And if an area like this with eucalypts and rainforest has no future fire disturbance then eventually it will transition to pure rainforest.

This area of forest here is the perfect example of this complex balance. There has been a fire go through this area in the past. Possibly a very long time ago. Evidence of it remains in the landscape like a map of the past. You can see the big old Eucy’s scared black. Some hollow on the inside, the fire burning up through their guts. But they lived on. Around them young eucalypts grow, their seeds given a chance at life from the fire. This is what a natural fire disturbance looks like in the forest. Old trees that survived the fire grow beside the young ones. The gullies of pure rainforest that escaped the impact of the fire and the areas of young rainforest that has begun to grow since the young eucalypts enclosed the canopy creating the right conditions.

Go from here and walk down the logging road there, take a walk through the regrowth forest. It doesn’t take a scientist to see the difference. It is blatantly obvious. The trees grow together densely; they are all the same age. They compete for space and suck up water from the ground as they all struggle to consume the limited resource at once. They are all the same species. Or at best a few different types of eucalypt might grow together. Some tree ferns may have survived. But there is not much else. Invasive weed species are likely to have taken the opportunity to spread into the open area that was previously impenetrable.

So, when they say the forest regrows, I guess in a way they are right. But what they don’t tell you is that it regrows as a different forest, an anthropogenically changed forest that is incomparable to the ecosystem which it has replaced. The loss of our forests as they are naturally is a real injustice. It is the loss of life itself and an abrupt end to the cycle of life and death that has existed here since the beginning of time.

This is not to say that logged areas can never be regenerated. They can if we do it right, with conservation in mind not future logging operations. And with enough time. Given 500 years those clear-fells I can see down there in the valley may begin to look the way they used to a year ago before the chainsaws moved in. Forestry doesn’t really want to give them 500 years of course, they prefer 80 year rotations, and it’s more profitable I guess! That is why this area so desperately needs protection. So that these areas that are left can remain intact and those that have been disturbed can be given the chance to slowly regain a sense of what they once were.

(Photo of TN048A, a logged coupe at the base of Mount Mueller, just over the ridge behind me. Photographer:  Peter Maarseveen).