Bill Kelty's peace plan not out of woods AFTER 30 years of bitter verbal - and at times physical - conflict, key protagonists in Tasmania's forestry debate this week finally agreed on a road map to peace.
You might have expected such a long-awaited and truly historic deal between greenies and loggers to have been announced amid fanfare, backslaps and jubilation. Instead, Thursday's announcement - revealed in The Australian that day - was confirmed to the world via a 28-word email and attachment from former ACTU leader Bill Kelty.
The white-haired forest peace talk facilitator is naturally taciturn, but on this occasion he was not alone.
You may think that having apparently ended the forests wars and achieved the protection of up to 572,000ha of native forests, the two green signatories may have been more effusive.
Instead, Environment Tasmania - an umbrella of local green groups - and the Australian Conservation Foundation weren't returning calls and issued a bland four-line statement. It was a long way from previous forest deals, announced by state or federal politicians in a blaze of cameras in the middle of a lush forest, generally during the heat of an election campaign.
The main reason for the lack of hoopla this time around is that the agreement is not yet a done deal. And unlike all its predecessor agreements, which have patently failed to resolve Tasmania's running sore, it does not yet have political or financial backing.
The Signatories Agreement June 22, 2011, is essentially an agreement to make an agreement. It was released by Kelty apparently by accident - attached in error to his statement announcing the breakthrough - before negotiators had time to obtain final blessings from their memberships.
To seal the deal, two vital ingredients must be conjured. Key groups on both sides, including the Wilderness Society, must get on board; and state and federal governments must find the political will and cash to implement it.
More fundamentally, no deal can work without the industry's largest player, Gunns, agreeing to surrender - in return for compensation - its rights to 210,000 cubic metres of sawlogs from native forests each year. That wood is needed to free up sufficient resource to protect the forests sought for conservation, while at the same time honouring contracts held by processors.
Gunns wants out of the contentious native forest industry, to focus on its proposed plantation-based pulp mill. However, it won't just give away that land central to the peace deal. The company wants, and is entitled to, compensation. That compensation - up to $100 million, but probably $30m to $40m - must come from the federal government.
Tasmania, facing $1.4 billion in state budget cuts, can amend the sawlog quota in line with the agreement, but does not have the cash to compensate or buy out contracts.
Gunns has increased the stakes by linking the sale of a vital woodchip mill at Triabunna on Tasmania's east coast to "satisfactory progress in the implementation of" the forest peace deal. "Satisfactory progress" is code for "satisfactory compensation" for surrender of Gunns' rights.
If Gunns does not get a signal from Canberra by Wednesday - the Triabunna mill sale completion - that it is willing to cough up sufficient compensation, the company may pull out of the mill sale. This would throw the industry into further turmoil, since Triabunna is vital to the profitability of sawmills by taking their wood waste.
The other barrier to turning this week's breakthrough into a lasting deal is the withholding of support by the Wilderness Society, which did not take part in the final stages of the negotiations. Similarly, it is possible one of the timber groups that negotiated the deal, such as Timber Communities Australia or the forestry union, may fail to get the support of their memberships.
TWS suspended its involvement in the Kelty process last month, believing there was little point continuing to talk unless state and federal governments were at the table. Since then, TWS campaign manager Vica Bayley has been encouraged by pledges of support from federal Environment Minister Tony Burke.
However, TWS retains concerns about the agreement, notably its lack of guarantee that the 572,000ha of native forests sought for conservation will be protected. Under the terms of the deal, there would be immediate interim protection in national parks of 360,000ha to 432,000ha of high-conservation-value forest.
Which final figure applies is unknown, because no one is sure how much forest can be protected while still meeting the contracts of sawmillers, the Ta Ann veneer mill south of Hobart, and special species timber products.
The fate of the further 140,000ha to 212,000ha of high-conservation-value forests sought by green groups is left open, presumably for government to determine. The deal says simply that green groups believe this extra area can be protected by allowing sawmillers other than Gunns to access contract buyouts.
It notes that industry wants any contracts surrendered by companies other than Gunns to be offered to other companies to maintain a viable sector.
This is not good enough for some conservationists, including Australian Greens leader Bob Brown. The Tasmanian senator argues that millions in compensation should not flow to logging companies unless all 572,000ha of high-conservation-value forests are protected in national parks.
Tasmanian Greens leader Nick McKim is more encouraging, saying the compromise deal offers a chance to take a "major step forward for forest protection and industry sustainability".
However, the Brown view is echoed by smaller, grassroots, activist green groups.
Such differences within the green movement are fuelling fears among sawmillers that they may sign up to a deal, only to find protests at their workplaces continue. No wonder the celebrations are on ice.
Matthew Denholm, Tasmania correspondent From: The Australian June 25, 2011 12:00AM
GNS Price at posting:
27.0¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Held
