The following was a background paper prepared as part of a series of articles on Regional Forest Agreements by Gregg Borschmann published by The Guardian. An overview can be found HERE.
The Guardian asked the Tasmanian minister responsible for forestry a series of questions about the RFA. The questions and the Minister's responses are included at the end of this blog.
The Guardian asked the Tasmanian minister responsible for forestry a series of questions about the RFA. The questions and the Minister's responses are included at the end of this blog.
The
Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) signed in 1997, was supposed to
provide a framework for the sustainable management of Tasmania’s forests.
If
financial sustainability was the aim, the outcome has been a complete failure.
Since 1997 the state-owned Forestry Tasmania (FT) has suffered cash operating losses
of $94 million. In simple terms it was selling timber far too cheaply.
But
the overall picture is even worse. Capital spending of $368 million on plant and
equipment, roads and plantations, most sourced from government funds, failed to
add anything to FT’s asset base. FT’s
total operating cash loss over 20 years was therefore $454 million.
That’s just the cash losses.
Not only did new capital spending fail
to increase FT’s asset base, there were huge non-cash losses as forests under
its trusteeship
lost $750 million or 90 per cent of their value.