Impacts of plantations for the proposed pulp mill

The expanding area of plantations intended to feed the proposed pulp mill, is already having a major impact on the state.

Water

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.

For further information please contact media spokesman Robert McMahon on 0448 547 290 or email bob@orielstudio.com.au

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.

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.

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.

The expanding area of plantations intended to feed the proposed pulp mill, is already having a major impact on the state.

Water

Plantations lock in water shortages. Over 40 of Tasmania’s 48 water catchments are affected by thirsty plantation trees drawing water out of the ground and lowering the water table. Consumption of water by expanding plantations in the headwaters affects everyone downstream. When plantations exceed 8% of the catchment area, river flow audits show declining water levels particularly during dry summer months as evaporation rates increase (D. Leaman).

Plantations compete for water with irrigators, farmers, domestic consumers and the environmental flows needed to sustain river health. Changes in land use to plantations lock in patterns of water consumption for decades, at a time of declining rainfall from climate disruption. Tax subsidised plantations are taking water that could be used to make Tasmania the food bowl of Australia.

Here is the online copy of the first edition [Summer 09/2010] of TAP's newspaper. You can download a pdf of the four A3 sized pages at the bottom and print off copies.

Its purpose is to detail in newspaper format how the proposed pulp mill, the fourth-largest kraft pulp mill in the world, threatens the health, jobs, lifestyle and investments of the community.

Introduction - Why jobs?

Creation of new jobs is the central pillar in the case for winning the hearts and minds of Tasmanians for Gunns’ proposed pulp mill. Gunns’ CEO John Gay said the “mill would create jobs and long-term job security for a significant part of Tasmania's workforce” [1]. This position is echoed by the Forest Industry Association of Tasmania chairman, CFMEU forestry division, Timber Communities Australia, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and both Liberal and Labor parties, as well as some northern council mayors.

The promise of thousands of new jobs helped ex-Premier Paul Lennon justify rescuing the ‘critically non compliant’ Gunns pulp mill in 2007 with a special act of Parliament, the Pulp Mill Assessment Act (PMAA). The other main pillar of support for quickly passing the PMAA, the urgency of Gunns’ commercial needs, has now been discredited. However, the creation of new jobs remains as the central justification for the project by Liberal and Labor. Labor is positioning itself for the 2010 March election as the pro-jobs party and the Greens as anti-jobs.

What we are asked to believe

There are several competing stories around the pulp mill proposal that we are asked to believe. We can choose to believe Gunns’ PR man Matt Horan, who says it will create 2000 construction jobs [2], or we can believe Gunns’ secret advice to the George Town Council engineer that only 1250 building workers are needed [3]. We can choose to believe Horan that the pulp mill will create “about 16,000 jobs in the future," [4] or we can believe consultant ITS Global that it will create only 292 direct long term jobs [5].

We can believe Gunns’ stated wishes that underskilled Tasmanians with no experience in pulp mills will get preference over skilled outsiders from interstate or the thousands of overseas experienced pulp workers who have been made redundant in the global downturn. Further, we can believe that the fourth largest kraft chemical pulp mill in the world will happily co-exist with fishing, tourism and nature-based activities, boutique wineries, organic food producers and farming [6].

We are also asked to believe the Liberal and Labor story that Tasmania as a provider of undifferentiated bulk commodities is better than one based on the State’s distinctive and unique attributes that give businesses in tourism, fishing, wineries, organic foods, and others a competitive edge.

The consequences of choosing to believe the wrong story are serious. So what are the job facts and which story stands up?

Tony Burke, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has misled Parliament and should be relieved of his portfolio.

“It’s time for the Prime Minister to cut Burke loose. Not only is Burke a plagiarist, a shameless proponent of vested interest and incompetent in his portfolio, but most seriously of all, he has misled Parliament,” stated TAP spokesperson Bob McMahon. 

“Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke is looking very foolish today having relied on partial and biased advice from Gunns and the CFMEU to endorse Gunns’ planned pulp mill,” said TAP Into a Better Tasmania spokesman, Bob McMahon.

“Tony Burke should know better than to rely on those with a conflict of interest for advice to get behind a project that has failed to analyse the risks and failed to make a proper business case,” Mr McMahon said.