Tasmania will be a richer state when it protects its native forests – Independent Australia

Report on Native Forest Logging in Tasmania and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report assesses native forest logging practices in Tasmania, managed by the state agency Forestry Tasmania. Recent data indicates Tasmania is a primary center for such activities in Australia, following cessation or reduction in other states. An analysis of these operations through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reveals significant misalignment. Current practices result in environmental degradation, contradicting SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 13 (Climate Action); generate consistent financial losses, undermining SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth); and proceed without Indigenous consent and against public opinion, failing to meet the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). A transition toward conservation and plantation-based models, benchmarked against international examples such as New Zealand, is recommended to achieve sustainable development outcomes.

Analysis of Forestry Tasmania’s Operations against SDG Metrics

SDG 15: Life on Land – Environmental Impact Assessment

Forestry Tasmania’s operations present a direct challenge to the achievement of SDG 15, which aims to protect, restore, and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss.

• Forest Degradation: Research from the Australian Conservation Foundation shows only 34% of Australia’s mature forests remain. In Tasmania, data from Resource Watch indicates that intact native forests are now almost exclusively confined to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, with other regions experiencing significant degradation and fragmentation.
• Biodiversity and Habitat Loss: In 2020, Forestry Tasmania failed its second attempt to gain Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, considered the global standard for responsible forest management. The assessment identified ten major failures, including the logging of threatened species habitat and old-growth forests, which directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 15.
• Certification Deficiencies: Despite the FSC failure, operations are certified under the Responsible Wood scheme. This certification is maintained despite scientific evidence of habitat destruction, including for the swift parrot, raising concerns that it serves to greenwash unsustainable practices rather than ensure genuine alignment with environmental protection goals.

SDG 13: Climate Action – Carbon Emissions and Mitigation Potential

The continuation of native forest logging actively undermines efforts to meet SDG 13 by exacerbating carbon emissions and foregoing significant mitigation opportunities.

• High Carbon Emissions: A 2022 report, Tasmania’s Forest Carbon: From Emissions Disaster to Climate Solution, identified native forest logging as the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the state.
• Lost Sequestration Opportunity: The protection and regeneration of Tasmania’s carbon-dense native forests represent a critical, nature-based solution for climate mitigation. Current logging practices release stored carbon and prevent forests from fulfilling their potential as a carbon sink.

SDG 8 & 12: Economic Viability and Responsible Production

The economic model for native forest logging in Tasmania is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable economic growth (SDG 8) and responsible production patterns (SDG 12).

• Economic Unsustainability: Operations are reported to be economically unviable, requiring the use of public funds to continue. This diverts financial resources from essential public services such as housing, health, and education.
• Financial Loss Analysis: A profit and loss analysis for a 20-hectare coupe in the Dial Range, conducted by forest economist John Lawrence, projected a net cash loss of $12,000. The analysis demonstrated that proceeds of $420,000 were outweighed by costs for harvesting, roading, replanting, wages, and overheads.
• Contradiction of Responsible Production: The use of public subsidies to generate a financial loss while liquidating valuable public natural assets is fundamentally at odds with sustainable and responsible production models.

SDG 10 & 16: Social and Institutional Dimensions

The social license and institutional governance of Tasmania’s forestry industry fail to meet key targets within SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions).

• Indigenous Rights (SDG 10): Logging is conducted on the lands of the Palawa-Pakana people without their free, prior, and informed consent. This lack of consultation and permission disregards the rights of Indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and resources.
• Public Opposition and Social Sustainability (SDG 16): The industry lacks broad public support. Leaked industry research from 2018 showed that 70% of urban residents and 65% of rural residents oppose native forest logging. More recently, local government bodies like the Central Coast Council have formally voted to oppose logging operations in their municipalities.
• Institutional Accountability: The continued endorsement of these practices by the Responsible Wood certification body, despite clear evidence of environmental, economic, and social failings, points to a lack of effective, accountable, and transparent institutional oversight.

Comparative Analysis and Alternative Pathways

The New Zealand Model: A Shift Towards Sustainable Alternatives

New Zealand provides a compelling case study for a successful transition away from native forest logging. This transition aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

• Over 25 years ago, New Zealand protected its native forests and developed a thriving, plantation-based forestry industry.
• This policy allowed for the protection of significant ecosystems like the Pureora Forest Park, which has since generated substantial economic value through conservation and recreation.
• Research from the University of Waikato found that the long-term conservation value of Pureora Forest Park has proven to be far greater than the short-term revenue from timber milling.

Recommendations for Aligning with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Proposed Actions for Tasmania

To align with the SDGs and secure a more prosperous future, Tasmania should adopt a new strategy for its forests.

1. Cease Native Forest Logging: End the logging of public native forests to meet critical targets under SDG 15 and SDG 13, following the precedent set by Western Australia, Victoria, and New Zealand.
2. Invest in a Conservation and Restoration Economy: Reallocate public funds from loss-making logging to support job-rich sectors including forest tourism, ecosystem restoration, conservation science, and big tree tourism, thereby fostering inclusive and sustainable economic growth under SDG 8. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area already generates nearly $1 billion annually, demonstrating the economic power of preservation.
3. Uphold Indigenous Rights: In line with the principles of SDG 10, begin a formal process to return the public forest estate to its rightful owners, the Palawa-Pakana people.
4. Strengthen Institutional Governance: Reform forestry governance to ensure that management and certification bodies operate with transparency and are accountable to scientific, social, and economic standards, as mandated by SDG 16.

Conclusion

The current model of native forest logging in Tasmania is fundamentally incompatible with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It actively undermines goals related to terrestrial ecosystems, climate action, sustainable economic growth, and social equity. A strategic transition towards a conservation-based economy, centered on the protection and restoration of native forests, offers a viable and evidence-based pathway to achieving a more sustainable and prosperous future for the state.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article’s central theme is the destruction of native forests in Tasmania. It discusses deforestation (“Australia has destroyed most of its forests”), degradation of ecosystems (“Tasmania’s forests are degraded, fragmented”), logging of old-growth forests, and the destruction of habitat for threatened species like the swift parrot. These issues are directly related to protecting, restoring, and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article explicitly links logging to climate change by citing a report that identifies logging as “Tasmania’s number-one source of CO2 emissions.” This connects the issue to the urgent need to combat climate change and its impacts by addressing major sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article critiques the economic viability of the logging industry, describing it as “wasting public money to make a financial loss.” It presents a profit and loss analysis showing a net cash loss. Conversely, it promotes sustainable alternatives like forest tourism, conservation, and regeneration as a “job-rich future,” directly addressing the goal of promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article challenges the sustainability claims of the logging industry, particularly the certifications provided by “Responsible Wood,” which it labels as “greenwash.” It discusses the inefficient use of public funds and natural resources to produce a “small amount of product,” which directly relates to achieving sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article questions the accountability and transparency of Forestry Tasmania, referring to its practices as “PR, greenwash and deception.” It also highlights a lack of inclusive and representative decision-making by noting that the indigenous Palawa-Pakana people “haven’t given their permission” for logging and that a majority of the public opposes it. This relates to the development of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.2: “By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.” The article directly challenges the claim of “sustainable forest management” by Forestry Tasmania and highlights ongoing deforestation and forest degradation.
   • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.” The article mentions “logging threatened species habitat” and the destruction of “globally-significant native forests,” which aligns with this target.
2. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article’s point that logging is the state’s largest source of CO2 emissions implies that climate change measures have not been effectively integrated into Tasmania’s forestry policies.
3. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.4: “Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation…” The article describes an industry that is economically inefficient (losing money) and directly causing severe environmental degradation, showing a failure to meet this target.
   • Target 8.9: “By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.” The article advocates for this exact alternative, citing the economic success of New Zealand’s protected forests and the billion-dollar revenue from the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area as examples of sustainable tourism.
4. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Target 12.2: “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” The article argues that logging in Tasmania is the opposite of sustainable management, citing its failure to gain FSC certification and its financial losses as evidence of inefficient resource use.
5. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The critique of Forestry Tasmania and its use of “PR, greenwash and deception” points to a lack of accountability and transparency.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The article indicates this target is not being met by highlighting that the indigenous Palawa-Pakana people’s permission was not sought and that public opposition is high (65-70%).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Indicator for Forest Cover (Target 15.2): The article states that “Only 34% of the continent’s mature forests now remain” and that in Tasmania, intact forests only exist within the World Heritage Area. This percentage serves as a direct indicator of forest loss.
   • Indicator for Biodiversity (Target 15.5): The mention of “logging threatened species habitat” (specifically the swift parrot) implies that the area of habitat for endangered species could be used as an indicator to measure the impact of logging on biodiversity.
2. For SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Indicator for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Target 13.2): The statement that “logging is Tasmania’s number-one source of CO2 emissions” is a direct qualitative indicator. A quantitative measure would be the total CO2 emissions from the forestry sector annually.
3. For SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Indicator for Economic Viability (Target 8.4): The profit and loss analysis for the Dial Range coupe showing a “Cash Loss, minus $12,000” is a specific financial indicator of the industry’s inefficiency and failure to decouple economic activity from environmental degradation.
   • Indicator for Sustainable Tourism (Target 8.9): The article mentions that the “Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area generates close to a billion dollars annually.” This figure serves as an indicator of the economic contribution of protected areas and sustainable tourism.
4. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Indicator for Public Opinion (Target 16.7): The statistic that “65% of people in rural areas and 70% in urban areas oppose logging” is a clear indicator of the lack of public support and the non-representative nature of the current policy.
   • Indicator for Indigenous Rights (Target 16.7): The fact that the Palawa-Pakana people “haven’t given their permission for their forests… to be logged” serves as a crucial indicator of non-inclusive decision-making regarding indigenous peoples’ rights and lands.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: independentaustralia.net