Boycott Woodchipping Campaign

THE CAMPAIGN

Why a Woodchip Boycott

The native forest logging industry, based as it is around woodchipping, is a social and environmental disaster.

A social disaster, because of the many costs borne by the community, both in indirect subsidies paid to the industry, and in the labour injustices that woodchipping brings. In Victoria, Dr Andrew Dragun of Latrobe University has estimated that anywhere between 50 and 385 million dollars is spent subsidising the native forest logging industry.(1) Resource economist John Dargavel estimates that nationally, over 20,000 jobs have gone from the industry since 1975, while increased logging is exceeding sustained yields.(1) The use of predominantly contracted, non union labour has created a workforce "on the edge", which has been led to believe that environmental protection has brought the industry to its knees. This has been compounded by the native forest logging industry which has encouraged the growth of so-called "front" groups, which have fostered this perception. Many foresters will privately talk of their concerns that the resource is being overcut, but are too intimidated to state this publicly.

Industrial forestry may replace some of the trees it has consumed, but it cannot replace ecosystems. Few would deny that fire is an important component of ecosystem maintenance, but the complete removal of forest vegetation via clearfell and burn does not mimic nature; natural fires leave most of a forest's standing trees. The continued use of chemicals rejected by the international community is also unacceptable. The widespread use in Tasmania of the wildlife poison 1080 leads to the cruel death of tens of thousands of wallabies and other non-target, and sometimes endangered species. The broadscale application of herbicides such as Atrazine and Simazine known as xenoestrogens or "gender benders", has led to the contamination of once pristine catchments. The introduction of weeds and diseases such as die back on logging equiptment, as well as soil compaction, erosion and sheet wash are only a few of the side effects of native forest logging.

Public opinion is firmly against the continued desecration of our native forests. In a recent internal report commissioned by the peak native forest logging group the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI), (which was leaked to The Australian, 80% of those interviewed expressed a mistrust of the industry, while 30% believed that forest management should be given over to environmental groups.

Putting aside such "emotional" arguments, there are a number of false assumptions by government and industry that have entrenched the industry in native forests and which continue to ignore the very real alternative of sourcing timber demands from Australia's less contentious plantation estate.

False Assumption no. 1: Industry will continue to rely heavily on native forests.
Plantation timber dominates the domestic shelter market for wood-based panels at around 60%. Native sawntimber use is declining by almost 2% per. annum, while softwood use - now accounting for over 50% of timber used by the construction industry - is rising annually by 5%. In the areas of packaging, communication and personal care products, native-forest based pulp accounts for less than 30% of the material input into Australia's paper industry.2

False Assumption no. 2: There is not enough plantation timber to support an economically sustainable industry.
Australia has about 1.1 million hectares of plantations, including 136,000 hectares of eucalypts. In 1994, these supplied 9.6 million cubic metres of wood, 80% of which was processed in Australia. By comparison, native forests supplied 10.3 million cubic metres, 50% of which was exported as woodchips. By the year 2000, plantations will supply 16 million m3, including 1.6 million m3 of eucalypts. Plantation companies are envisaging investment of approximately 1 billion dollars throughout the 1990s, with a further 15,000 jobs being added to a total of 45,000.2 These jobs will be created in Australia, not Japan, unlike the export woodchip industry.

If these two major assumptions are incorrect, then why are we continuing to log our native forests? The assumption that they are being logged to provide hardwood timber requirements is not matched by reality.

In addition to softwood substitution, there is the issue of dwindling resource. In Southeast NSW, in the case of forests devoted to sawlogs, annual allowable cuts were sharply reduced a decade ago when it was recognised that the resource could not maintain such levels.1 In Tasmania a recent Complete Forest Inventory has necessitated a re-evaluation of available sawlogs.3 Currently a convenient administrative mechanism provides "resource security" via a mandatory 300,000 m3 of timber which must be made available to the sawlog industry.

The conclusion reached by most within the conservation movement is that forests continue to be logged mainly for woodchips and that this is the most lucrative area of the native forest-based logging industry. Despite the claims of Tasmanian industry being "sawlog-driven", the Chief Commissioner for Forests Evan Rolley recently admitted that in some instances eight out of ten trees felled end up as pulp logs. In other areas, such as the bio-diverse, dry forests of Reedy Marsh, northern Tasmania, the ratio translates into a percentage of over 96%.4 Woodchipping is encouraging access to forested areas that previously would have been economically unviable for sawlog production alone. Woodchips have become more valuable than sawlogs, the quality of which continues to decline. The assertion that woodchips are big business is certainly backed up by an examination of the profits of the major companies involved. North Forest Products, part of the mining giant North Ltd, contributed 222 million dollars to the company's sales for 1994-95, (and in terms of profit is North's second largest earner at 47 million dollars).5 In essence, Tasmania's native forests have become a 'mineable resource', no different from iron ore or uranium.

Very few within the native forest logging industry now deny that woodchipping is the economic powerhouse of the industry. This has been backed up by a recent series of advertising campaigns, that have received backing from the main woodchipping companies, along with the Forest Protection Society. These propaganda exercises make it quite clear that the timber industry would collapse without woodchipping.

That the native forest logging industry has become woodchip-driven has been clear to the conservation movement for a number of years. In July 1994 conservation groups from a wide perspective of ideologies came together under a newly-established "National Forest Summit" process. Four main areas were identified as representing national consensus and became the basis for campaigning:

1. End export woodchipping of native forests
2. Protect all high conservation value forests
3. Accelerate the transition of the industry into plantations
4. Develop company strategies targeting the major players.6

This set of agreements was a major achievement and was responsible for the concerted campaigning that led to Resources Minister David Beddall's woodchip licence fiasco of December 1994 receiving widespread media coverage.

One of the first initiatives to develop company strategies was the production of a factual and legally watertight document, The Who's Who of Export Woodchipping. Associated companies, international connections, economic details, misdemeanours and alternatives were there for all to see. Launched through a series of actions at woodchip mills and in capital cities, the Who's Who was soon taken up as an electronic document and distributed widely through the "information superhighway". The information was also made available to investment companies concerned at the economic instability of woodchipping. CS First Boston for instance, requested information from the Native Forest Network about Boral's activities in Tasmania. Coincidentally, analysts had indicated that Wesfarmers, which derives 10% of total profit from woodchipping via Bunnings Forest Products, could lose up to 5% of net profits if this instability continued.7 As a result of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust's successful challenge of Gunn's woodchip licence early in 1995, the Trust was in turn approached by Swiss Bank for further information.8 In short, the national environment groups had finally seen the value of targeting companies as well as governments. Corporate forest activism had become a reality.

Key Players in Woodchipping

Some of the key players in the woodchipping scene were identified as being Amcor, North, Boral and Bunnings. While Amcor is not directly associated with the export woodchip market, it dominates the domestic market, controlling almost 80% of the Australian paper and packaging production and distribution network. Despite having sufficient plantation resources to supply its production needs, it continues to use native forest woodchips from Victoria's Central Highlands and northern Tasmania.9 Other major woodchip exporters include Harris Daishowa Australia and Midway Forest Products.

An article in The Australian (24/5/95) "Singleton to Front Woodchip Campaign", announced that North, Boral, Bunnings, Daishowa and Midway Forest Products would be funding a 2 million dollar pro-woodchipping campaign. Spokesperson Chris Oldfield, one of North's most adept public relations operatives, commented that "the campaign was the first to focus solely on woodchipping" and that he "expected the 'extreme' segments of the green movement to object".

In the public relations stakes, it is clear that conservation groups have already achieved many of their objectives. To create long term change however, there needs to be more than a simple war of words. Many Australians are outraged at woodchipping, as has been demonstrated by the tens of thousands that have marched in the streets, but they have not been able to make the link between feelings and actions. This is changing. Many of the woodchipping companies have other divisions with outlets for timber or fibre-related products, and these are vulnerable to consumer pressure. Others are involved in equally infamous activities. North for instance exported 6% of the uranium produced at its Ranger mine to France in 1994,10 and has been the subject of a 60 Minutes report over the cyanide poisoning of at least 2,000 waterbirds at its Northparkes mine. Many of these companies' activities are inter-related. North Forest Products supplies Amcor's Burnie and Wesley Vale mills with native forest woodchips, that ultimately end up in the latter's "Reflex" brand of copy paper. Boral Ltd, while difficult to target directly through its export woodchipping operations, has a wide range of products that consumers can avoid, including liquid petroleum gas, cement, bricks, pavers and hardware products. Bunnings has a number of hardware stores.

Why a Boycott Campaign?

It has become clear to conservation groups that neither of the major political parties will act decisively to stop the destruction of Australia's forests by the woodchipping industry.

The annual charade of the issuing of licences to export woodchips has become increasingly controversial and embarrassing for the Federal Government. It has also placed the industry under unwanted scrutiny from the media and the public.

In 1992, the native forest logging industry unsuccessfully lobbied to short circuit the licencing process via "resource security" legislation that would guarantee unhampered access to forests. Instead, the Federal Government developed an alternative strategy itself, known as the National Forest Policy (NFP). While the NFP seeks to establish a "Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System", it also plans to do away with export licences for woodchips and replace them with "Regional Forest Agreements" (RFAs). The RFA process will entrench woodchipping by establishing which areas can be clearfelled and which can be protected. Once the RFAs are signed, those forests not protected will be doomed, as the export woodchip licence process will be scrapped in favour of chipping as much as market forces dictate.

The Australian public has already had a foretaste of how few areas will be protected: under the so-called "logging moratorium clause" of the NFP, 1300 logging areas identified nationally for interim protection in February 1995 were whittled down to 264 by industry pressure. In Tasmania over 600 forest areas on Crown land will be logged for woodchips in the current "Three Year Plan". This excludes the further areas which will be logged on private land. Under the "Deferred Forest Areas" process, the Commonwealth and State Governments have agreed to set aside thirteen forest areas on Crown land from logging. Once the RFAs are determined, unreserved forests will be locked up for woodchipping, making it very hard to add them to the conservation estate.

The Howard Government has already pre-empted the outcome of the RFA process by increasing woodchip exports by another one million tonnes, and lifting all export restrictions on the woodchipping of "degraded" forest for plantation establishment. So much for genuine consultation!

The conservation movement has been forced to radically rethink its methods of campaigning. The general public, unlike politicians, remains unswayed by industry advertising. Eighty percent of Australians oppose woodchipping. The conservation movement believes that consumers, investors and the public at large are supportive of the anti-woodchipping message. And the message is: "Boycott Woodchipping!" The power to stop woodchipping now rests with the public in terms of what products it buys and where it invests its money.

Will a Boycott Woodchipping Campaign Work?

A number of overseas forest groups have developed boycott strategies with some success. The Taiga Rescue Network, a Non Government Organsation (NGO) concentrating on boreal (or Taiga) forest issues, has run a "Beware the Taiga Terminators" campaign11 targeting publishing houses and urging them to use "clearcut free" paper. Greenpeace Germany has succeeded in persuading the publishers Gruener & Jahr and Springer Verlag to adopt this paper sourcing policy.12

Another well-publicised boycott has been organised by the Lubicon Lake Cree in Alberta, Canada, who have run a two-year campaign against the Daishowa paper bag mill at Peace River. The Daishowa forest concession is on unceded Lubicon land and the company refuses to negotiate with the original owners on timber rights. Over 1600 stores in Canada dropped Daishowa's bags, including major companies such as Woolworths.12 This campaign has had such an impact on Daishowa's sales in Canada that the Tokyo-based company has commenced a Supreme Court challenge to gag the Lubicon.

Due to pressure from the Clayoquot Rainforest Coalition, The New York Times has cancelled its paper buying contracts with another Canadian forest giant, MacMillan Bloedel, infamous for its clearcutting of pristine old growth temperate rainforest in Clayoquot Sound on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

The most successful campaign to date has been the Rainforest Action Network's "Boycott Mitsubishi Campaign".13 Based in the US, this international campaign highlights Mitsubishi Corporation's involvement in rainforest destruction and has targeted motor dealerships, electrical appliance stores and associated companies and banks.

Here is brief run down of some of the results of the Boycott Mitsubishi Campaign:

• Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America and Mitsubishi Electric America, with the approval of their parent companies in Tokyo, tried to persuade Mitsubishi Corporation to negotiate an end to the boycott. When MC backed out of discussions, MMSA and MEA took action independently. They funded creation of the prestigious Systems Group on Forests and the Future 500 through Amory Lovin's Rocky Mountain Institute and Global Futures Foundation;
  
• Over the last year MC has taken numerous steps to explore the feasibility of greening its operations. They range from contacting the Earth Island Institute to learn more about kenaf, an alternative fibre, to exploring timber certification with Rainforest Alliance;
  
• MC has taken some symbolic steps. It sold Daiya Malaysia, its controversial logging operation in Sarawak. It created a commission to study its proposed salt mine in Baja Sur, Mexico. It publicised an environmental credo in The New York Times that reflected elements of the Campaign's demands;
  
• MC claims its imports of tropical timber have declined 50% since the beginning of the boycott;
  
• Newspaper database scans allowed the Campaign to work with local groups successfully to block over $180 million in contracts.14
  

Australia's own woodchipping industry has a number of international connections. North Forest Products, the world's largest exporter of hardwood woodchips, is a major supplier of woodchips to Mitsubishi Corporation for use by Mitsubishi Paper Mills and has just entered into an arrangement with the Corporation to clear 27,000 ha of native forest in Tasmania which will be replaced by plantations for woodchips.15

The Alternatives to Woodchipping

It is not enough to promote an "anti-company campaign" these days. The public rightly wants to know the alternative products available. A key platform to any advocacy campaign is the readily available plantation alternative, as outlined above. While the environment movement has some very genuine concerns over Australian plantations, it certainly sees the plantation industry as an important interim step in the phase out of industrial forestry from native forests. Similarly there are other alternatives including the nascent "eco-labelling" schemes. Some of these are native-forest based and have a long way to go before they will be endorsed by Australia's major conservation groups, but they are certainly a preferable option for the consumer, as are recycled timbers and other non-wood building techniques such a mud brick. This Manual contains information and opinion on some of these options.

Ethical Investment: A Chance to Make a Real Difference

Another important component of any boycott campaign is to move the general public's investment away from companies associated with woodchippin and into more ethical alternatives. Many people are unaware that they have shares invested in these companies at all. This is a particular problem with "Award"-based superannuation funds. Similarly, it is not always possible to target major fund managers such as ANZ or AMP which have considerable interests in woodchipping companies, as they often manage funds already invested by other companies. Once again, it is up to the individual. The ethical investment market is currently very small in Australia, but is on the increase. One company, Australian Ethical Investment, (featured in this manual), is a positive example of what can be achieved. There is a common misconception that ethical investment is charity in disguise, but AEI has paid out over one million dollars to unitholders since 1989 and its Equities Trust, launched in November 1994, has posted a gain of 8.26% in past quarters. Ethical investment can be lucrative for the investor as well as providing socially responsible security. Australian Ethical's Charter specifically avoids "investment in repressive regimes, militarism, uranium mining, tobacco and alcohol production, rainforest and old growth logging, woodchipping or animal exploitation." The company also has a growing superannuation scheme, with funds now reaching $2 million. 16 For those interested in simply running their daily money matters away from large banks which manage woodchipping investments, the most outstanding is the Maleny Credit Union, which now has 7 million dollars in deposits.17

It is clear that Australia's precious native forests should be protected from woodchipping. This manual has been prepared to provide information, alternatives and actions for anybody who is prepared to help. Action can range from avoiding particular products, to reinvesting money ethically. Australia's forests need all the help they can get. Please support this campaign.

Bibliography

1. Hamilton, Clive, 1995. Assessment of the Commonwealth's "Wood and Paper Strategy". The Australia Institute, Canberra, 16pp.
2. Clark, Judy, 1995. Australia's Plantations: Industry, Employment
3. Forestry Tasmania - Devenport, David Brown, pers. comm.
4. Reedy Marsh Forest Conservation Group, Andrew Ricketts, pers. comm.
5. North Ltd, 1995. Annual Report. Melbourne, 77pp
6. National Foest Summit, Minutes, 16-17/67/94
7. Native Forest Network, "Who's Who of Ezport Woodchipping", Issue 2, March 1995
8. Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Suzy Mannigan, pers. comm.
9. Environment Victoria, et al. 1994. Guidelines for Commonwealth Purchases of Environmentally Preferred Paper Products: A position paper of the environment groups of Australia, Melbourne, 77pp.
10. Taiga Rescue Network, "The Taiga Trade"' Jokkmokk, 1994
11. Native Forest Network, "Native Forest News", Issue 6
12. Rainforest Action Network, 1995. Boycott Mitsubishi: International Campaign Manual. San Francisco, 47 pp.
13. Boycott Mitsubishi Campaign "Update", December 1995
14. North Ltd, Media Release, 22/9/95
15. Australian Ethical Investments. Media Backgrounder, 7/9/95
16. Rosen, Robert, letter 3/9/95