Production/Conservation in Tasmanian Forests
Readers of network items would have noticed a comment by Dr.C.Dean
regarding what he considered to be inappropriate clearfelling in forests in
the State of Tasmania, Australia. I suppose most if not all would have
realised that the issue is a controversial one and that Dr. Dean presented
only one of the many arguments for and against production forestry in that
state. A collegue of mine at the Australian National University (Forestry
Department) who has spent some time studying these issues comments as
follows.
"One might understand Dr Dean's concern that public forest is being
harvested close to his rural property. However this has to be seen in the
context of the progress made in Tasmania in recent years in developing a
socially acceptable balance between the production and conservation
functions of the forests.
For example the Federal Government's Helsham Inquiry resulted in 1988 in
the nomination within one region of 275 000 ha of forest to the World
Heritage list - removing it from wood production. Subsequently the States
"Forest and Forest Industy Strategy (1990)" again adjusted the production-
conservation balance in favour of conservation. This strategy was based on
wide cooperation between governmental agencies, the wood-based industries,
environmental groups (in the early stages), woodcraft people and many other
interest groups. There was also broader input from the general public
through regional committees and public meetings. While Dr. Dean is
certainly entitled to remain dissatisfied, he must have recognised, at
least, the desire of the Tasmanian people to maintain a strong forestry
industry sector, the outstanding level of public input to policy
formulation in that State and the continuing process of landuse review
where forest has not yet been allocated to either "secure conservation" or
"secure wood production". Dr. R Florence (Reader, Forestry Dept. ANU)
I agree with the subscribers to this network that take the view that
allocation of forest to its many uses and the principles and methods by
which that is done is a legitimate subject for network discussion. I also
take the personal view that the submission by Dr. Dean, while obviously
heartfelt by him, did not constitute a contribution that could advance the
cause of rational forest allocation. My view is that we are on the network
to discuss forest management and learn from each others sucesses and
failures and that the network should not become a medium for people to
"push" their cause, no matter how genuine their feelings are.
Ryde James, Senior Lecturer, Forestry Department ANU.
___________________________________________________________________________
Ryde James | Forestry/Science
Tel: (61+6)249-4330 | Australian National University
Fax: (61+6)249-0746 | Canberra, ACT 0200
|
___________________________________________________________________________
email: Ryde.james@anu.edu.au
___________________________________________________________________________
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0