“Branching Out”, the latest report on the NSW native forestry by the Blueprint Institute, was released on 26 April and put into the media with the subeditorial line “Report outlines economic benefit of ending native forest logging’.
The CEO David Cross at the launch of the Report said Blueprint was the only ‘think tank’ in Australia with a Liberal philosophical stance. He is a former Chief of Staff to the Minister for Education.
The panel dialogue set the tone for the background to the Report.
David Cross (Blueprint CEO) – “I have never seen an industry that is so environmentally damaging, but is also loss making”, and “People in forestry have outdated and romanticised views”. Then, “Foresters are morally bankrupt individuals”.
Rob Stokes, former NSW Minister for Education, Environment and Planning and Public Spaces said: “There is a clear disconnect between what most people would like to see happening, and what is happening”, and “There is no economic impact, but a major environmental impact”.
The word ‘deconstruct’ was used twice in the commentary about the Report. It was stated that we all lived in a ‘deconstructing’ world. The comment was made that forestry was one of the ‘masculine extractive industries’ that had to have its myths and legends altered to save the environment.
Prof Danielle Celermajor from the University of Sydney astonishingly managed to draw links between forestry and child sex trafficking, and the romanticising of forestry with males who drink drive … and received applause for such mind-boggling statements!
Certainly, an insight as to how some under 40’s view the world, but there was some old fashioned thinking for the way forward. Incredibly, Jenny Gardiner, former General Secretary of the NSW Nationals and former member of the Legislative Council was in the audience supporting the Institute – and she is on their advisory board.
Mark Ouliaris (Blueprint Senior Researcher) acknowledged that the forest wars were hindering, not helping the forestry industry move forward. He acknowledged that the views of regional communities need to be respected, and he suggested that we need to find inclusive ways forward.
The Report
The Report has two key points. The first is the annual reports of Forestry Corporation of NSW reveal that the hardwood division does not make a profit and therefore should be closed given the number of people engaged in the division; that closure is warranted as more money can be made from carbon sequestration. The second point was that the ‘new’, and the way of the future, carbon markets made it more profitable not to harvest hardwood.
The simplicity of this approach is just astounding, especially from an institute that presents itself as a smart, intellectually based powerful think tank of the millennium future. If they looked at more than the last two reports which covered the 2019/20 wildfires and the 2021/22 major floods, then they would recognise that those catastrophic events were unusual and required additional government funding to undertake massive repairs on a grand scale. They might recognise in that context that income would have been cut dramatically as it was not possible to supply softwood or hardwood in the quantities required.
The simplicity of the approach was compounded by the former NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces stating early in the commentary that forestry was a very complex issue: which it is.
The Report is silent on the economic and environmental impacts of product substitution.
The employment figures for the NSW native forest industry were set at just under 600. Yet, when asked if the 2023 Ernest and Young Report had been seen which included surveys which stated that there were 8,900 full time employees, the economist for the group replied they had seen it; but the EY report was unbelievable. The Report is silent on any of this.
The Blueprint Institute CEO said that the working models were not in the Report. One must ponder why there was not an explanation of the modelling.
The bold thought bubble of native forest plantations is prompted without any analysis. A position that follows the Greens and environmental NGO’s mantra.
The Report should be marked ‘draft’ given its deficiencies – and that is being generous.
Economic and environmental impacts of product substitution.
The blueprint for what happens when you close a native forest industry is right there now in Western Australia and Victoria. The substitution product is coming from New South Wales or Tasmania. The CEO of the Blueprint Institute said that their next report on native forestry was to be published in Tasmania.
What is the alternative supply for Australia’s needs for hardwood timber? The overseas source is currently South-East Asia. What is the environmental and carbon cost of obtaining timber from unregulated deforestation engaging industries? None of the environmental high priests will answer this. It is as if Australia is in its own environmental silo called planet Australia.
The Australian native forest industry has supplied railway sleepers and utility poles, apart from construction industry needs. These railway sleepers and utility poles will need to be made from concrete or other manufactured components. What is the carbon cost of such products? How does this carbon cost compare to replacement products that capture carbon? The Report is silent. What carbon commentary is made is of carbon in a financial context. Not an environmentally sustainable approach that compares natural carbon capture products with manufactured items. But is this not the issue? The Report does not indicate that a full comparative carbon cycle analysis was undertaken.
The solution is not native forest plantations
The Report lauds native forest plantations as the future. A great idea and originally promoted in the 1970’s in the Australian Liberal Party. It did not fly then for the same reason it is not an option in 2023. The first question that needs to be answered is where is the land that will fit the growing conditions for Australian native forests? The answer is that land is already growing native forests or is in agricultural use. For current native forests – is the solution to clear-fell current native forests to establish hardwood plantations which will have a 40-60 year growth cycle before harvest? None of the supporters of native forests suggests this but it seems the environmental warriors of under 40 years of age do!
The private sector is not going to lock up agricultural land for 60 years with no return. The income tax system of Australia does not contemplate 60 year cropping as it operates on an annual calendar. Without an annual income a tree grower cannot gain annual deductions for expenses. You can in New Zealand but not Australia. The Report is silent on any of this. But to be fair, all other reports on this issue ignore these issues when native forests are lauded.
The Chairman of the Blueprint Institute, Kevin McCann, is a former Chairman of Macquarie Bank. One wonders if a Report with such gaping omissions would have passed muster at the millionaire’s factory.
There was one revealing comment made from the former Minister for the Environment and Planning. When asked if he thought the environmental movement operated on ‘fads’, he replied with an emphatic ‘yes’. He said he saw the environment not as a series of silos but one all-encompassing subject. This is where the Blueprint Institutes Report ‘Branching Out’ truly fails. It fails to survey the full picture to reach its conclusions. The impression was left that the Report was a desk audit and not one of its authors, certainly not the CEO, had ever walked into a working native forest or a sawmill or a utility company.
But then city ‘Suits’ don’t do that, do they!
Gordon Wilson writes for the Australian Rural and Regional News
You can download the report here.
