THE fact that trees may regrow
does not make native-forest logging industry sustainable.
Dorset Mayor Greg Howard was reported (Mercury, February 2) as slamming people who do not accept his reality that because forests regenerate, forestry is one of the only truly sustainable industries.
It’s a non sequitur that is
easily shown to be such by a close examination of Sustainable Timber Tasmania’s
financial statements.
Over the past 20 years net
contributions by governments to STT have been about $500 million.
Over that period the value of
STT’s forest estate has plummeted by 75 per cent.
The latest financials show the
estate is worth $186 million.
Despite all the assistance, it
still lost most of its value. Ipso facto STT is financially unsustainable. No
other conclusion is possible.
If that sounds bad, the
reality is worse.
STT’s forest estate is based
on expected future net proceeds. That is, future harvest revenue less future
expected costs. But STT only values standing timber. The costs of regenerating
the forest are ignored.
“All coupes regenerate,”
claimed Mr Howard. Maybe, but if regeneration costs are not counted when
valuing forests, how can Mr Howard claim they are sustainably managed? This is
the fundamental flaw in arguments peddled by the native-forest harvest lobby.
Were regeneration costs
included when calculating future expected proceeds, almost all native forests
would have a negative value.
Standing timber may have a
value. Most native forests don’t, if one includes the mandatory regeneration
costs when calculating future net harvest proceeds.
It gets even worse if one
attributes a value to all the other non-timber losses that occur when forests
are harvested and which bean counters preparing financial statements overlook.
There are habitat, water
catchment and carbon losses and, in the case of Blue Derby Mountain Bike
Trails, clear spillover costs that affect tourism.
Harvesting trees generates
cash, but that does not make it sustainable.
(published in The Mercury 5th
Feb 2022)
If we had rational government of integrity, yes it would stop of course.
ReplyDeleteUntil donations related to the election of representatives to parliament are stopped, cash is always going to trump reason.