While supportive of the initiatives of FSC certification, Hancock Watch
feels that certification of the Hancock estate at this time could be
premature. There are a host of issues that need clarifying before the
company should be awarded FSC certification.
To whom it may concern,
We are writing to you because it has come to our attention that John
Hancock (Hancock Victorian Plantations - a subsidiary of Hancock Timber
Resource Group) is pursuing independent, third party forest management
certification in the United States and may be considering a similar
step for its plantations in Australia.
We would like to cautiously welcome Hancock for having made this decision,
which will mean some major changes to the management of its assets in
Australia. For your information, we are aware that a broad range of
environmental NGOs from around the country are currently developing
a statement on certification in Australia. This is the first step in
the development of management guidelines that can form the basis for
certification domestically.
In view of this process we believe it is premature for Hancock to be
engaged in any preliminary scoping that may be required for certification
in Australia. As the local ENGO's that would be involved in any discussions
regarding certification of Hancock's plantation management we would
be most concerned to see any assesment occuring prior to the development
of NGO management guidelines. As an act of courtesy, and sensitivity
to local conditions, we are asking that you suspend any proposed assessments
until NGOs have finalised their own discussions. We believe this will
be in the best interests of Hancock. It would reflect very poorly on
both Hancock and the certifier if they are seen to be overriding an
exisiting domestic initiative.
We will consider participation in any future scoping processes that
may take place. However, we must make it quite clear that Hancock's
bid for certification will not produce results unless the following
issues are
addressed in advance:
1) Full independent ecological audit of all of Hancock's Eucalypt/native
forest landholdings prior to harvesting.
2) Clear definition of native vegetation and plantation.
3) Clear delineation of native vegetation and plantations on all coupes
plans (Including cool temperate rainforest, riparian vegetation and
sites of cultural and environmental significance ).
4) Enter into dialogue with traditional Aboriginal custodians of lands
now managed by Hancock Victorian Plantations.
5) No logging of Koala habitat, habitat for arboreal mammals and forest
birds.
6) No logging of hollow bearing trees (including stags).
7). No logging of any old growth/old regrowth and regenerating native
vegetation.
8) No logging within 100 metres of Cool Temperate Rainforest.
9) Clear definition of Cool Temperate Rainforest.
10) Development of conservation strategies which may include reserves/corridors/buffers
to conserve the biodiversity values of the area/region.
11) Development of conservation strategies in regard to whole catchment
management. Especially the impact of logging/roading on domestic town
water supplies and the impacts of logging on freshwater ecology particulary
macroinvertebrate and fish populations.
12) Expertise required to fulfill these requirements; Environmental
Consultant/s, Cultural Officer, Ecologist, Hydrologist, Independent
Forester, Civil Engineer (for roading), Soil Scientist.
13) Land Capability Assessment (soil, slope, topography, climate analyses).
14) All the above will set the framework for specific conditions relating
to Local Prescriptions as per the Code of Forest Practices.
15) Investigations into the use of mixed species plantings in plantations
to restore the ecological values of the lands in question.
16) Detailed information regarding Hancock's use of pesticides/herbicides/insecticides
in plantation management.
17) Details of the use of fertilisers in plantation management.
18) Allow for full party access to documents concerning sustainable
yield figures in all forest/plantation areas managed by Hancock Victorian
Plantations.
19) Review current sustainable yield calculations for Hancock holdings
throughout Victoria.
20) Monitoring to be carried out by NGO's.
Furthermore, considering that Hancock have vast landholdings in the
Strzelecki Ranges of both plantations and native forest we would like
to give you some local perspectives and concerns about timber management
in the Strzelecki's.
We fear that certification may mean more troubled days ahead for the
Strzelecki Ranges and locals are deeply concerned about loss of environmental
values through land uses such as forestry. We also feel
that we need further consideration and discussion at all levels as
proposed certification covers an all too familiar approach by the industry
as it struggles to achieve credibility in the environment.
The process is nothing new! You may not know about the recent attempt
by the forest industry for recognition of "Accredited Foresters". This
was a first step initiative. Under that proposal, as a second step,
"Accredited Foresters" could certify coupe plans which would reduce
the need for the "Responsible Authority" to scrutinise forestry operations.
The Responsible Authority (local council) was duped into believing
in the process and was manoeuvred into a position from where it was
impossible to disassociate itself from the process. It took many months
and considerable community energy to reverse the Authority's thinking.
Finally the Authority provided an "out" by conceding to a
2-year review.
Meantime, the industry is employing all measures of "band aid" procedures
so that it can present a case that supports increased compliance to
various aspects of the Code at the conclusion of the review period.
However, their entire range of temporary fixes is inadequate and local
conservationsists have spent a considerable amount of time noting evidence
of these shortcomings!
The argument here is that the industry has initiated a process whereby
continual pressure is applied in some direction in order to convince
some influencing body that they should accept implied acceptable
standards, when in fact, few existing standards comply with minimum
legal requirements.
The industry always attempts to gain recognition by "employing" a third
party to give a sense of credibility. Eg. Presently Gippsland Farm Plantation
Inc. has persuaded West Gippsland Catchment Management
Authority to endorse a move for the development of "Regional Interpretations"
relating to the Code of Forest Practice for Timber Production (the Code).
This attempt at credibility is a meaningless exercise that, at its completion,
will have no legislative impact.
Briefly, the actual requirement is that the Responsible Authorities
must develop local prescriptions that take into account, and protect,
local environmental values in areas where timber harvesting occur.
Local prescriptions are incorporated into planning schemes and are
enforceable. The legislation makes no accommodation for "Regional Interpretations".
Again, if the process is allowed to gain official recognition it will
be at the expense of the environment.
The above initiatives were separate events which when combined would
allow the industry to
i) Bestow accreditation to its foresters
ii) Employ self-regulation of the industry
iii) Water down minimum state standards prescribed in the Code by applying
non-enforceable Regional Interpretations.
The process that Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP) is seeking to
achieve with Smartwood reminds us of similar duplicity.
Our groups are also concerned that the proposed scoping agreement does
nothing to ease our minds about
how the Certification process will develop in Australia. eg
*Q: Who will assist with information? A: Not sure.
*Q: Where and how will they look at HVP's operations? A: Not sure.
*Q: Who will Smartwood even contact? A: Not sure.
*Q: What will they find and where will it lead? A: Not sure.
Concern is based on living experience and we have learned to be extremely
cautious and now apply some fairly strict rules in consideration of
any issues as they arise, such as:
Don't trust anyone from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
They were ready not long ago to allow APP (a subsidiary of Amcor) the
clearing of 2000ha of the native bush when scientific studies
instigated by Friends of Gippsland Bush (FOGB) lead to the retention
of 85% of that land for its environmental values.
Do not innitiate a process from which there is no return – It is very
easy to become involved for all the right reasons only to discover that
you've been conned.
Be wary of government (local, state and federal) -for (politely stated)
they know not what they do!
HVP are presently under investigations that will decide if the Local
Authority for LaTrobe Shire, as the Responsible Authority responsible
for the administration of the Code at local level, will proceed with
prosecution against HVP on allegations that HVP failed to comply with
minimum Local and State legal requirements in harvesting operations.
This is a strong incentive for the company to gain credibility from
a
third party. In any case, this should demonstrate that all is far from
good in relation to HVP and their harvesting of the Strzelecki Ranges.
We would like to address another issue.
HVP purchased the lease for harvesting what was formerly crown or public
forests. These formerly State owned forests are now a protected resource
for the timber industry through the Victorian Plantation
Corporation Act 1993, Amendment Bill 1996. Through this Act, the entire
public forested regions of the Strzelecki Ranges were transferred to
"private" forests managed by HVP through a licence granted
in
perpetuity. There are community concerns over whether the land should
be in Hancock's 'ownership' in the first place. There is an ongoing
dispute about the actual vesting of the land in question.
Recent developments in the Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement (RFA)
(A Federal and State initiative) have lead to the exclusion of the Strzelecki
Ranges from any due process. This has placed the biodiversity values
of the Strzelecki Ranges in a perilous position.
The decision to exclude the Strzeleckis emanates from: (a) The State
Governments refusal to accept a biological meaningful definition of
native vegetation and plantations in the Strzeleckis. Despite
recommendations warning of the serious consequences continued clearing
of native vegetation would have on this bioregion there is no effective
mechanism that protects the important ecological assets of this region.
(b) The limitation of the RFA to include only public land for consideration
of protection for environmental values unless the private land holder
agrees to the voluntary inclusion of the agreement.
Map 1 of the RFA entitled "Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement,
Land Use" indicates that ALL of the previous State forests is now
an area consisting of "land leased or licensed for plantation purposes."
Much
of this land contains Native vegetation that has not been delineated
from existing plantations.
The native vegetation consists of remnant ecosystems having some unique
flora and fauna values.
The Strzelecki Ranges provide an environment for possibly the only
known endemic Koala colony remaining in Australia. DNA testing has established
that Strzelecki Koalas have been isolated from the affects of translocation
programs employed throughout other regions of Australia. These animals
therefore constitute a separate management unit (Moritz 1994) and are
significant in terms of management of biodiversity on regional and State
basis. With low levels of gene flow throughout the general species range
elsewhere in Australia, the Strzelecki Ranges population is internationally
significant as well.
Despite this, HVP continues clearing unprotected koala habitat, damaging/destroying
Cool Temperate Rainforests and other irreplaceable ecological treasures
of the Strzelecki Ranges. We have recently learnt
that the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) will be employed by Hancock
(starting this October) to satellite monitor the Strzelecki's concerning
habitat requirements for the Strzelecki and South Gippsland Koala. Our
groups see this move as antagonistic as the conservation movement has
little faith in the work of the AKF. Many in the Australian conservation
movement see the AKF as an industry front group and see
their upcoming involvement in the Strzelecki's as leading to further
confrontation and possible sullying of Hancock's name.
The Hancock experience in the Strzelecki's has been closely followed
by conservationists since its inception. Since 1997, FOGB have had direct
contact with Hancock management as well as that of the
responsible authorities. All attempts to negotiate a responsible environmental
outcome have lead to stalling and evasive actions by the company. That
has led has to a level of bewilderment and mistrust by locals concerning
anything to do with Hancock. We need to stress that people from outside
this region who wish to deal with the issues need to come and look at
what is being done, and that when they do come, to allow themselves
plenty of time to speak to us and to absorb the full significance of
this disaster to date! Hancock under its current management in the Strzelecki's
is destroying what little remains of our native vegetation. Current
management by Hancock is working against the very spirit of forest certification
as we see it. How can conservationists endorse plantation management
when many of those plantations are currently being mis-managed by Hancock?
How can we support the certification of plantation timber when remnant
native
vegetation has been wilfully destroyed to establish and expand those
very same plantations? As recently as yesterday locals are reporting
destruction of non-plantation trees, regenerated native bush and habitat
trees by Hancock in the Strzelecki's.
In an area as depleted as the Strzelecki's, any remnant ecological
systems are of extreme significance.
Further, many locals have sought to resolve these issues through existing
legislation. This process has failed to date and is far too slow to
have any significant affect for the near future. The current Victorian
Minister for the Environment apparently cannot find time to respond
to concerns although constant attempts have been instigated.
An agreement between Australian Paper Plantations (APP) and FOGB provides
the only framework for Ecological Sustainable Forest Management Practices
in the Strzelecki Ranges for private forestry operations. The agreement
provides for careful compilation of coupe plans developed using Environmental
Care Principles as prescribed in the Code of Forest Practice for Timber
Production. This provides a model for ecological sustainable forest
management in the Strzeleckis.
Regards
Theo Morsink - Friends of Gippsland Bush.
Anthony Amis - Friends of the Earth.
Leonie Van Der Maesen Research Assistant Utrecht University - Friends
of the Earth, Australia - Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere.
BOSTON, December 9, 1999 - The Hancock Timber Resource Group (HTRG)
said its 39,364-acre timberland near McCloud, Calif., has received the
Forest Stewardship Council's certification for environmentally sound,
sustainable forest management.
HTRG, the world's leading timberland investment management organization,
with $3 billion and 3 million acres under management in North America
and Australia, becomes the first such organization to receive certification
for one of its properties. "This is a proud achievement," said John
Davis, HTRG's western regional manager. "Stewardship certification underscores
our basic commitment to forestry that is socially acceptable, economically
viable and environmentally responsible.
It also enables us to strongly support a valued customer -- Columbia
Forest Products of Portland, Oregon -- in bringing certified wood products
to the marketplace."
HTRG's McCloud timberland is a large supplier to Columbia's mill in
Klamath Falls, Ore., which earlier this year became the first Columbia
facility to produce certified products. Columbia is North America's
largest hardwood plywood and veneer manufacturer.
Ed Woods, Columbia's director of marketing, said, There is an increasing
demand for certified plywood from cabinet, furniture and other manufacturers,
as well as from do-it-yourself woodworkers. They care about the environment,
and they want some independent verification that their wood comes from
sustainable forests.
"Thanks to HTRG," he said, "we have a large, dependable supply of certified
timber from a trusted business partner with a great stewardship reputation."
To gain certification for the McCloud property, an independent team
evaluated the property's management, using guidelines accredited by
the Forest Stewardship Council. The four-person team of experts was
brought together by SmartWood, an organization that certifies timberlands
and forest products manufacturers.
The team spent several days on the property, examining HTRG's forestry,
environmental and sustainable harvest practices, as well as the firm's
relationships with its surrounding community. What HTRG is doing is
unique and exemplary," said Steve Gretzinger,team leader and certification
director at The Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy in Ashland,
Ore., a SmartWood affiliate.
The Forest Stewardship Council is an independent, not-for-profit organization
that sets standards and accredits SmartWood and other certifiers of
"well managed forests" and "chain-of-custody" -- both necessary
to get the FSC ecolabel on certified forest products. "Well managed
forest" certification applies to a specific timberland such as HTRG's
McCloud property. "Chain-of-custody" certification, like that held by
Columbia, verifies that a manufactured product is made of wood from
an FSC-certified forest.
