When: 7.30pm Thursday 31 March 2011

Where: Beaconsfield Community Function Room at the rear of the sports centre on Weld Street, Beaconsfield.

What: Senators Christine Milne and Kerry O’Brien plus Members of the Tasmanian Parliament Tim Morris, Kim Booth, Rene Hidding and Kerry Finch will all be attending.

Why? Don’t miss your chance to have your say and tell them how Gunns’ proposed pulp mill continues to adversely affect your family, your business and your community. Tell them of your hopes for an alternative more prosperous future.

This is the third in a series of public meetings but the first to draw six politicians together to hear community concerns. A gold coin donation is welcome to help defray costs.

For further information call John Day 0400 079 339.

Note: the next regular general TAP meeting will be held in two weeks time (7.30pm, Thursday 14 April) at the Riverside Community Centre, West Tamar Highway. 

This is a briefing paper on the current debate over the future of Tasmanian forestry and Gunns’ planned pulp mill prepared by TAP Into A Better Tasmania, November 2010. A pdf is available for downloading from below.

http://tapvision.info/sites/default/files/Briefing Paper for public release - Forestry and pulp mill - why the community is not buying the big sell.pdf

Introduction

A stalled proposal for a world scale pulp mill, the slow motion collapse of the forest industry, the astonishing alignment of environmental groups behind industry for a plantation-based pulp mill and the prospect of big money changing hands marks an extraordinary period in a small island’s history.

So how did all this happen? It’s time to examine the causes in detail because to misdiagnose the causes invites the wrong solution. One solution being proposed, for example, involves ‘compensating’ the forest industry to the tune of over a billion dollars. But that in turn carries its own serious consequences eg. lack of funding for public hospitals.

The interpretation of the causes presented here provides a big picture perspective from a hitherto ignored community view, the one that the special interest groups involved don’t want to hear.

So how did we arrive at the point where the aims of some environment groups now mesh with industry, where conservationists signed up to support a plantation industry and a pulp mill in Tasmania, and the community was sidelined?

The story started decades ago.

Introduction

CEO of Gunns Ltd, Greg L’Estrange told ABC Stateline (25.10.10) that Gunns would work “with the community so they understood what the pulp mill facility planned for the Tamar Valley is”.

We don’t feel confident that he will explain why his pulp mill will stink as do all others of this type around the world. So TAP Into A Better Tasmania has followed the foul odour trail through leaked letters, restricted terms of reference and incomplete reports to produce this Odour Advisory. It tells the story that Greg L’Estrange won’t and why it is a significant risk for business and health of the 100 000 people who live in the Tamar Valley.

The assessment of this issue carried out to date has looked only at odour from the stack, and not at odour which after about twelve months starts to leak from thousands of pipe seals and other leakage points. These fugitive emissions pose the biggest threat to your business, as they make up 98% of the odour escaping from pulp mills, including the most modern ones.

The Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), which was initially given the task of assessing Gunns’ proposal, determined that the odour zone would have a radius of 55k around the Long Reach site. This odour will affect all wineries, tourist operators and other businesses in the zone; Tamar Ridge is of course only 5km from the site and will be one of the businesses worst affected.

This poses serious political, financial and project risks for potential joint venture partners and business investors alike. If a financial backer can be found, only one more regulatory hurdle (permit for marine discharge into Commonwealth waters in Bass Strait) has to be cleared before construction may begin.

The history of the failed assessment of odour is summarised in the next few paragraphs.

First published on Tasmanian Times

The Truth and Reconciliation Roadshow continued last week with a presentation by Gunns’ CEO to a conference run by investment bank UBS, coincidentally a Gunns’ shareholder.

The changes from the presentation which accompanied the release of Gunns’ preliminary 2010 financials in mid August were subtle and revealing of the future chosen path.

John Gay’s business model was then described as being “a conglomerate of long life low yielding assets…..(consisting of) many businesses….. excessive levels of encumbered assets .....excessive debt levels to earnings,..... (where) potential investors do not understand the business.”

The latest presentation includes further criticisms of the old model. Mr L’Estrange confirmed that Gunns was “cash negative” and was bedevilled by “aging inefficient assets”.

Cash negativity is a fairly serious condition. If it persists disaster usually awaits. Aging inefficient assets make the problem worse. Forget about a social license. Gunns needs cash and a more ‘efficient’ portfolio of assets.

In August the new look Gunns was to comprise a division devoted to ‘hardwood and softwood’ sawmilling.

This has now been revised to ‘softwood processing’ only. No mention of hardwood sawmilling. Literally, this means an exit from all hardwood sawmilling not just native forest sawmilling.

Normally a CEO when spruiking his Company will attempt to explain and justify the latest P&L Statement. UBS has been critical in the past of the book entries of Dickensian proportions that have been used to prepare Gunns’ financial accounts. Hence Greg didn’t dwell on Gunns’ appalling 2010 results. He was on a hiding to nothing. He simply said “if your investment focus is purely about this year’s trading, GNS is not your stock”.

Never a truer word has been uttered.

TAP supports promotion of Talent, Innovation, Diversity and Environment (TIDE) and a shift in government policies towards promoting more diversified resilient sustainable development based on Tasmania’s unique clean island qualities, niche markets and favourable climate. But Gunns' proposed pulp mill is damaging to TIDE and displaces opportunities for community and regional growth.

Adapted from the Cool Cities program, Michigan, USA, the acronym TIDE represents four conditions that are holistic and systemic rather than causal. Each one is necessary but by itself is insufficient for generating long term prosperity. To attract creative people, generate innovation and stimulate economic growth, there must be substantial, balanced performance across all four.

In TAP’s assessment, Gunns’ proposed pulp mill has a negative effect on Talent, Innovation, Diversity and Environment and therefore scores a fail on each condition.

Gunns' AGM is set for Thursday 25 November, at 10.30am, at the Boat House 55a Lindsay Street, Launceston. 

Tappers will be in action. Watch this space for details as to how you can join in the fun.

By Metternich
Reproduced from Tasmanian Times

31.08.10

On the morning of Friday August 27th, pulp and paper analyst Robert Eastment was interviewed live on ABC936 by talkback host Tim Cox about the forestry roundtable talks, and Gunns proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill.

During his interview Mr Eastment claimed that there are pulp mills now being built in the middle of cities in Europe and nobody cares because they’re quite comfortable with it; er, you know, the technology is such that you can put this sort of manufacturing facility in the middle of large areas, um, that sort of understanding is still not widespread in Tasmania.

Mr Eastment’s claim that there are pulp mills now being built in the middle of cities in Europe and nobody cares, was immediately challenged by Greens Senate candidate and Tamar Valley resident Peter Whish-Wilson. Whish-Wilson said the only new pulp mill he knew of that had been built recently anywhere near a European city was the Stendal mill in East Germany, a mill that has had more than its fair share of problems, and is well-known as the source of foul odours that impact badly on surrounding residents. Whish-Wilson called on Eastment to clarify his claim and point to pulp mills that are being built now in the middle of cities in Europe.

Robert Eastment responded Monday morning, August 30th, by providing ABC936 with a list of the pulp mills that he was referring to last Friday.

Unfortunately for Mr Eastment, there is a major problem with his list

By Dr David Leaman

Reproduced from Tasmanian Times

30.08.10

Someone at the current round table (forest industry peace meeting) formed to “solve” the forest debate is unhappy – otherwise we would not be able to read a leaked draft document. And, rightly so, since it appears that the same old errors are being made by much the same people.

The panelists lack some key players.

This is stupid blunder number 1 for there must be full inclusion of interested and affected parties – including farmers and land owners.

There also seems to have been no consideration of the future and the planning of resources and community needs but then I would not expect this of groups who cannot see beyond trees.

In the third edition of my book, WATER-facts, issues, problems and solutions (2007) I included two essays as appendices THE REAL ISSUE IN TASMANIA’S FORESTS, THE CONSERVATION ERROR IN TASMANIA’S FOREST DEBATE (pages 156, 159). The content remains as valid, if long ignored, as when written several years earlier.  Supporting information and science is in the book plus a 2008 addendum and a reviewed summation listed as (Leaman, D. E., 2008. Comparative Assessment of Catchments in Eastern Tasmania – issues for Management. WATER DOWN UNDER 2008. Proceedings 4th International Conference on Water Resources and Environment Research, Adelaide, April. Pages 542-554. Engineers Australia).

The issues go much wider than narrow definitions of native or old-growth forests. Any trade off involving plantations and pulp mills must include the interests of people affected and the wider environment.

By Tim Thorne, with John Biggs, Max Bound, Stuart Godfrey, Austra Maddox. For Now We The People Tas.

Reproduced from Tasmanian Times

30.08.10

Although at the time of writing we have no clear idea as to who will form the next Australian Government, it is certain from the results of the 21 August election that there is a growing recognition of the need for important changes in policy directions.

In conditions of climate change, addressing the issues of economic, social and ecological sustainability requires transparency in government and long-term visions for the future.  Open discussions, democratic procedures, social inclusion and economic equity,  as we develop new ways to live with our physical environment, need to be both real and important in the new directions that we seek to pursue.

It is clear that many Tasmanians who are concerned about environmental, social and economic matters want an open and inclusive discussion of the issues surrounding the production of paper pulp from our forests, both native and plantation.

Both before and since the call on Tasmanian Times (July 1) by Dr David Obendorf for such a discussion(1), there have been a number of articles written on this subject.

This paper notes some previous contributions and suggests possible ways to involve more people in working to end the widely perceived corruption in forestry.  It advocates open discussion of the issues rather than talks that are, as advocated by Minister Bryan Green, “out of the public spotlight.”  We hope to start such a discussion and to go beyond discussion to action in the interests of a more sustainable, healthier, more prosperous and more genuinely democratic Tasmania. 

Sunday 1 August 2010. TAP media release
 
"Internal polling of the northern Tasmanian 63 telephone district shows a clear majority of the electorate is less likely to vote for a political party that intends to support Gunns proposed pulp mill with taxpayer funds," said TAP Into A Better Tasmania spokesman, Rod Hutchins.
 

Dear Premier,
Following your impromptu meeting with TAP members at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery on Friday 2 July, we wish to explain further our concerns and what we believe is required to fix the turmoil created by your predecessor over Gunns’ proposed pulp mill.

Members of TAP want to protect the community’s health, lifestyles and investments from the proposed pulp mill. TAP is also concerned by the failure of political ‘representatives’ to represent our interests. The level of anger and frustration towards the pulp mill and the government is reflected in the two thirds of Tasmanians consistently opposed to Gunns’ project, and by a large membership of 1000, and in meetings attended by up to 100 TAP members every two weeks for the last five years. TAP Into A Better Tasmania (TAP) does not support any particular political party.

The community has a long list of serious concerns over Gunns’ proposed pulp mill and its wood supply which cannot be brushed aside. They know their health will be affected by pulp mill smell in a valley prone to inversions. Some angry members have been directly sprayed with pesticides near plantations. They know that roads are made unsafe by more heavy vehicles and that tourism jobs will be lost when the tourists stop coming. They know from direct experience that streams and springs are drying up from thirsty young trees in plantations.  They are worried by the effluent impacting fishing and by the damage to Tasmania’s clean image. Fishermen say it takes only one contaminated scallop to lose an export industry.

The community knows that the government is not doing its job of protecting the people, the environment and businesses from the harm this pulp mill would cause.

They also know that the talks between loggers and environmentalists over forestry exclude consideration of the harmful impacts of plantations.

Under the old RPDC guidelines a large project proposal was to have addressed “all potential environmental, social, community and economic impacts of the construction and operation” of the pulp mill. Instead, the Lennon Labor government delivered a limited benefits-only study by manufacturers of pulp mill technology, Sweco Pic.

It is clear that Gunns are in no hurry. Given the foreshortened assessment by RPDC to supposedly avoid severe economic losses, that Gunns’ project information was “critically deficient”, and the ongoing rejection by banks and possible partners, the proposal should be axed or be resubmitted to the planning system for a complete assessment at Gunns’ expense.

TAP would accept the verdict of a planning process that:
1. did not harm the health of the community;
2. did not prevent those who are adversely affected from seeking adequate compensation for harm or financial loss;
3. protected existing businesses that depend upon a clean green Tasmania;
4. protected the air, water and land environment upon which we all depend;
5. did not rely upon ongoing subsidies (including the wood supply) which should be better spent on services such as hospitals and schools; and
6. did not compromise the capacity of Tasmania to withstand future challenges from climate change, population growth, forest diseases and fire among others.

In addition, the planning process must:
7. review the proposal with all its inputs (including wood supply) and outputs:
8. include independent and scientific assessment;
9. accept public input; and,
10. include an assessment of alternative uses of our resources including water and land use.

If you set in place a good governance process to deliver results against the ten criteria above, it gives you some chance of getting the community to back a revised pulp mill proposal and to back your government.

Our members have been telling us that they would never accept Gunns’ pulp mill as proposed. Many of the costs that would be imposed upon the public including damage to health, lost jobs, water losses and road damage were never considered in the Government’s benefits-only study.

We trust that you will in good faith consider the ten crucial criteria above in order to heal community divisions for the long term benefit of all. We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely
Ross Story, President TAP Into A Better Tasmania

The 15 page forest policy of Environment Tasmania (ET) can be downloaded from below.

Note, TAP as a community organisation does not necessarily endorse the content of ET's  policy but provides access to the document here to facilitate discussion on the Round Table meetings between environmental and forestry groups.

Initial Response to the George River Water Quality Panel
Dr Marcus Scammell & Dr Alison Bleaney, 1 July, 2010
The Panel has come to the conclusion that the toxin or toxins present in the
George River are within acceptable limits, and therefore pose no threat to the
ecosystem or the community.
This is despite recognition that there have been oyster mortality events and
apparent other anomalies within the catchment. It was these mortality events
and anomalous ill-thrift that led to our investigations.

An impromptu meeting between Premier Bartlett and members of TAP Into A Better Tasmania took place on July 5 at the Queen Victora Museum, Launceston. The Premiers key question was "Is there any, can I ask you a question, is there any circumstances under which a pulp mill, you know, if you think about it, if it was totally, um, chlorine free, if it was closed loop, if it was in another place, I’m just saying, I’m trying to ask you, is there a scenario and it was obviously all plantation fed and accredited by FSC, is there a circumstance under which you would say No, that’s a reasonable project? Would you object or not?". Read the full transcript at Tasmanian Times.com

Premier David Bartlett's minder checking for 'dangerous' community members. Tappers - Estelle Ross, Susie Clarke and Buck Emberg. Photo Garry Stannus.

By  Mike Bolan. Published 22 June 2010 on www.tasmaniantimes.com

If someone wanted to damage you, your property, your lifestyle, your future and/or your business how would you feel about it if they also expected you to pay them to cause the damage?

Unenthusiastic? Hostile?

That’s basically why so many Tasmanians oppose forestry as it’s conducted here.

Overall it seems that the shift of focus of Tasmania’s timber industry from valued timbers to woodchips has fuelled a range of dysfunctional results, including huge losses to the industry involving multiple bankruptcies (e.g. Great Southern, TimberCorp, FEA) and lost profits for Gunns. The ongoing efforts to shoehorn the idea of turning trees into their lowest common denominator of fibre, has corrupted our political system and threatens a massive community revolt.

The forestry story has previously been focused on environmental objections versus forestry interests that decry objections as “green” (and therefore presumably irrelevant). Without paid representatives and professional media spokespeople, the stories of communities and ordinary individuals have been swamped by paid spinmeisters.

I will try to tell the story simply - complex and extensive though it is - and to go beyond the name calling, accusations and assumptions of entitlement that are usually contained in forestry’s self-interested narrative.

The island …

… of Tasmania is about 63,000 sq km, much of which is inaccessible. Overall, it offers one of the few remaining places on the planet where some natural wilderness still exists along with low population densities that promise rural lifestyles that could be enjoyed in peace and tranquillity.

Because there are still some natural forest areas that remain beautiful and offer peace and tranquillity, the island offers the opportunity for relaxed lifestyles, intimate relations with nature and innovative industries (for example, self sustaining retirement centres) except for …

The forest industry

… which dominates Tasmania’s landscape, resources, infrastructures and governments and enjoys multiple exemptions from the laws that apply to, and protect, the rest of us; that judges public grievances against it and finds itself blameless; that depletes the landscape and our water catchments at our expense; and that constantly expects more money and more resources from us in order to feed global fibre markets and line the pockets of a few.

Astute readers will note that trying to compete in a global low margin/high volume commodities market from a small island with relatively high costs was always a very dubious proposition. It seems to fit a 19th century “big is good” mentality but doesn’t fit Tasmania.