Int. J. Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2005 203 Old growth logging: does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs? Robert Gale Institute of Environmental Studies University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper examines the assertion that ‘environmental protection costs jobs’, a point that is thematic in the Australian state of Tasmania where banning clear felling of old-growth forests is vigorously resisted because of associated job losses. The debate between ‘jobs’ and ‘environment’ protagonists often originates in disagreements about political power, economic growth, distributional impacts, and the valuation of the environment. Although the loss of jobs due to environmental protection initiatives is typically portrayed as unreasonable by affected parties such as industry workers, unions, businesses, and some governments, the conclusion drawn in this paper is that these job losses are no less legitimate than losses attributed to technological change or shifting consumer demand. What needs to be emphasised is that we would normally expect jobs to be created and lost in a dynamic economy. The real jobs argument is about making the transition now when there are still options to consider about forestry jobs. A key policy problem is the development of transitional strategies to aid community and individual adjustment. Keywords: environmental protection; jobs; Tasmania; forest policy; preelection politics; transition strategies. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Gale, R. (2005) ‘Old growth logging: does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs?’, Int. J. Environment, Workplace and Employment, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.203–220. Biographical notes: Robert Gale is Senior Lecturer in Environmental Management with the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney. His research and teaching interests are in the theory and practice of sustainability, environmental decision making, ecological economics, corporate sustainability reporting, sustainable tourism, and sustainable development in China. Dr. Gale is also a Faculty Associate at Royal Roads University in Victoria, Canada where he has taught Sustainability to MBA students, and designed and delivered many online courses. He is the Treasurer of the NSW Division of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand. Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. 204 R. Gale 1 Introduction The question ‘Does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs?’ is explored with reference to the Australian federal election of 9 October 2004. One argument is that there is an objective trade-off between forestry jobs and environmental regulations – the tougher the environmental regulations, the fewer the forestry jobs. Another argument is that in practice the jobs and environment polarisation is a myth – that lost jobs are replaced by other forestry or non-forestry jobs because tougher environmental regulations stimulate diversity in the economy and hence more jobs. Yet another argument is that the outcome of environmental protection measures on jobs is more complex than either of the two preceding arguments suggests because the outcome depends on a range of considerations that have to be negotiated in a specific context. The objective of this examination of the question ‘Does it matter if environmental protection costs jobs?’ is to review the policy options concerning forestry jobs in the Australian state of Tasmania proposed at the time of the 2004 election, the reception of these options by interested parties, the ways the options played out in the election, the election result and the interpretation of the result in terms of forestry job issues. 2 The preelection politics of the Tasmanian forest industry In 2004, Tasmanian forest policy continued to be governed by the 1997 Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), a 20-year arrangement that was designed to provide assurance to industry of the timber supply available so that it would have a framework within which to make investment decisions [1]. While the RFA was a satisfactory arrangement for the Tasmanian Government and industry, the fact that old-growth logging continued at a rapid rate concerned a number of environmental groups, politicians, and private citizens. Although the RFA was an attempt to end the controversy and conflict between environmentalists and loggers, the guarantee to industry of 300,000 cubic metres of sawlogs each year was bound to lead to renewed protest in forests with high conservation values. The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Green Party leader, Senator Bob Brown, among others, drew attention to the potential loss of iconic trees in the Styx Valley and the Tarkine Rainforest that could still be logged under the RFA. This, in turn, led to various campaigns to stop old-growth logging. For example, in July 2003, about 4000 protesters rallied in the Styx Valley objecting to old-growth logging practices. On 13 March 2004, an estimated 15,000 people in Hobart called for “Federal intervention to protect Tasmania’s forests” [2], and on 26 June, World Environment Day, thousands of people joined widespread gatherings across Australia to “stand tall for Tasmania’s forests” [3]. In 2004, efforts to change forestry policy included detailed proposals from several Environmental Nongovernment Organisations (ENGOs). WWF Australia announced its policy in July. This was followed a month later by a joint initiative of The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation in cooperation with Greenpeace. Details of the separate policy initiatives are reviewed in the following sections. Old growth logging 205 2.1 WWF Australia’s forest policy proposal Regarding the first of these two proposals, WWF Australia published a ‘Blueprint’ report with a four-part solution to forestry issues in Tasmania [4,pp.1–3]: 1 An end to clearing (‘land clearing’ or ‘conversion’) of existing native vegetation for other uses. 2 An improved forest management system. 3 The creation of one of the world’s best reserve systems. 4 Improved governance in the forest industry. WWF Australia was concerned that existing and proposed regulations permit or would permit about 100,000 hectares of forests on public land, about 200,000 hectares of forests on private land and any amount of nonforest vegetation to be cleared and converted. In proposing its four-part solution WWF Australia made the following statement [4,p.1]: “We recognise that this solution will impact on industry, so we have committed to providing workable and costed proposals to ensure that industry is put on a sure footing to secure a vibrant future with no net job losses. These proposals fall into four categories: 1 An improved and secure timber resource suited to downstream processing. 2 Investment in job-intensive downstream processing facilities. 3 Improvements in logging practices. 4 Investment in community-sponsored tourism proposals, especially around the improved reserve system.” The solution included an implementation provision of $274 million from the Federal Government over ten years of which $35 million would be used to “compensate affected landholders other than Forestry Tasmania”; $27 million would be used to “cease logging in the Tarkine Wilderness Area, compensate affected timber industry participants, and implement a forest industry restructure package for the northwest of Tasmania”; and $10 million would be used for tourism development. The WWF Australia Blueprint report received qualified support from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust insofar as “the State’s environmental movement will benefit from having the WWF involved, regardless of whether all the environmental groups agree with its views” [5]. Apart from this, the report has been extremely controversial in environmental circles with 13 of the Tasmanian conservation groups writing to WWF’s head office in Switzerland asking WWF to leave Tasmania [6]. Overall, there has been a great deal of criticism from The Wilderness Society and Greenpeace [5–8]. The Wilderness Society’s chief objections to the proposal are that it would [7–8]: • Allow the continuation of logging in high conservation value forests. • Allow the continuation of woodchipping in high conservation value forests. • Permit logging of forests which are hundreds of years old. • Not protect significant areas of Tasmania’s old-growth forests. • Significantly expand forestry plantations. 206 R. Gale TWS Tasmanian Campaign Coordinator Geoff Law made the following damning comment [7]: “It is more of an industry blueprint than a conservation document – offering a lifeline to Forestry Tasmania and Gunns to continue woodchipping Tasmania’s old-growth forest. It has been developed without the support of community and environmental groups in Tasmania, the people that have to live with the consequences of the document.” Virginia Young, TWS National WildCountry Campaigner, also faulted the document [7]: “This plan will sustain the export woodchip industry in Tasmania’s native forests, but will not protect areas of world heritage value such as the Styx Valley. No national conservation body can agree to such a plan and Tasmanian regional groups yesterday met and condemned it. They also condemned WWF’s failure to take the views of, and solutions proposed by, the Tasmanian conservation movement into account.” The point about the Styx Valley was particularly alienating for Greenpeace whose campaign manager Danny Kennedy stated that “The most