forestry
and the community
should forestry
planning be democratic?
Bob Graham
President, Tasmanian Conservation Trust
The
nature of the planning process.
Planning
in Australia is a means of transferring development rights from the public
domain to individuals who own or control land.Under
the system of Australian land tenure some residual rights over land held
in private ownership have been retained by the Crown. The establishment
of planning and related approval systems has seen this fact formalised
over the past 150 years.Legislation
and associated processes have been put in place to allow an orderly transfer
of those rights to individuals when they undertake development.
This
means that no person has the right to use or develop land unless that right
has been granted in legislation or through a planning approval.This
is despite assumptions and perceptions to the contrary where landholders
often believe that it is their inalienable right to do what they want with
their property.
The
system exists because the granting of these rights is usually associated
with a potential for development to have an effect on adjoining land or
on matters of broader public concern, such as traffic, environmental impact,
infrastructure provision, community health or safety or similar matters.
Thus the granting of rights carries with it the concept of a wider responsibility
– not to pollute, not to destroy the environment or to pay for public services
required for the development.It
is a system of both rights and responsibilities, although the latter is
often ignored.
In
Tasmania, planning schemes set the rules under which rights are granted
and responsibilities allocated.These
schemes are part of the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS)
and operate in accordance with the land Use Planning and Approvals Act
(LUPAA).The RMPS has as its primary
objective the achieving of sustainable development.
Procedures
for setting and applying the rules are largely open and transparent and
are made through a public process with an independent body, the Resource
Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), having the power to decide
what rules shall apply.Planning
authorities (usually Councils) then make decisions on the basis of those
rules.Where Councils make decisions
which require a variation of those rules, third parties have a right of
appeal and may seek an independent decision on the matter.
Unlike
other States the Tasmanian system is tenure neutral and requires all State
agencies to operate in accordance with the requirements of LUPAA.This
means that the decisions about the use and development of State-owned land
is subject to the same rules as those applying to private landowners. The
imminent incorporation of all development on land under the Parks and Wildlife
Act into the system will leave only Forestry, Mining and Marine Farming
outside LUPAA.
Community
Input
The operation of this
system allows a significant degree of community input.That
input can occur at several points in the process:
Plan
preparation by Councils
Plan
finalisation by the RPDC
Council
decision-making on particular developments
Appeals
against Council decisions
Despite
its many weaknesses, the system does have a level of robustness because
of the capacity for community groups and individuals to participate in
the process at all levels, (whether these opportunities are taken up is
another matter).
There
are some good examples of community action effectively managing to change
the outcomes of development as a result (Ocean Port, Southwood, Battery
Point, to name a few). These outcomes have generally been beneficial, particularly
in protecting the public interest. I am firmly of the view that the quality
of decision- making and of development outcomes is enhanced through these
processes.
It
is an important component of a liberal democracy that not only should we
get to choose between marginally different groups of aspiring leaders every
so often, but that the mechanisms set up by Government should operate democratically.
Unfortunately, this is something that often does not happen. Governments
throughout Australia have established non democratic systems to allow them
to transfer public development rights and assets to individuals and corporations.
A
protection against corruption
A
significant advantage of having a transparent and open process with an
explicit and effective community role is that it is a protection against
corruption.Development rights are
frequently associated with a capacity to make a lot of money.This
is very much the case in resource development and exploitation.The
rights to cut down a forest, dig up minerals or exploit marine resources
bestow enormous economic advantage on the recipient.
The rules under which
those benefits are transferred and the conditions that apply to the exploitation
of the resource are a critical issue for public policy in Australia.The
rights to use and develop those resources are public property and the public
should benefit from the giving them away.Any
system of transferring community assets to private individuals must be
open to public scrutiny and the public should be able to participate effectively
in the process.The public should
also be made aware of the conditions of transfer (notwithstanding the usual
nonsense abut “commercial in confidence”) and what benefits will accrue
and how the costs (environmental, social and economic) will be allocated.
Of
course having such system scares the living daylights out of most governments
andresource managers.I
am always suspicious of systems that are not open and transparent and do
not have the checks and balances the exist under the RMPS.It
is always worth asking “why” when there is resistance to having a system
that allows public scrutiny and participation.
It
is worth noting that the strongest opposition to operating within the RMPS
has come from within the Government – Forestry, Fisheries, Primary Industry
(most recently dams and land clearing), Parks and Wildlife and Roads.The
State has also established specific systems that are not open or transparent
to deal with what are perceived to be difficult issues – the best example
being the totally unjustifiable and undemocratic shack sites allocation
process.
The
corruption associated with these systems takes many forms.It
can involve “kickbacks” but this is rare in resource development approval
systems. Corruption associated with these systems more often involves the
giving away of rights at below their real value, or through a transfer
of costs to the public domain (in the form of environmental damage, reductions
in opportunity costs or public subsidy of resource extraction operations).The
quid pro quo for the resource managers is usually power.Governments
gain kudos and credibility, and public resource managers extend their power
and influence.It is no accident
that the only employment sector in the forest industries that increased
employment between 1986 and 1996 was the managerial sector. (Bureau of
Census and Statistics – 1986 and 1996 census reports).
That
all levels of government continue to establish and operate such systems
has to be a matter of serious concern.It
demonstrates that they have not heard the lessons from the Fitzgerald inquiry
into corruption in Queensland during the 1980s. This inquiry established
that the most serious area of corruption in that State was associated with
the transfer of development rights (particularly to allow subdivision and
development of coastal land in the South East of the State).These
findings were reiterated by Fitzgerald in the Fraser Island Inquiry which
boiled down to an issue of the conditions under which rights to exploit
the Island’s beautiful forests were being transferred to sawmillers and
forest companies.These transfers
were accompanied by significant public subsidy and environmental degradation.
What
are the features of undemocratic systems?
It
is common practice in Australia for Governments and industry to collude
to put undemocratic planning processes in place.These
processes are meant to give the appearance of being fair, reasonable and
open when they are anything but. In Tasmania we have an undemocratic system
for the allocation of rights to exploit publicly owned forests.
Throughout
Australia such systems have a number of common characteristics. These
are:
They
have all the trappings of more democratic systems – application procedures,
public notification, formalised approval procedures, issue of permits.
They
do not allow effective public input.
They
are not open to scrutiny or judicial review by independent bodies.
They
are frequently justified on spurious grounds (“science”, lack of public
knowledge or expertise, not in the public interest or “commercial in confidence”).
They
allow decisions about development to be made in isolation from the rest
of the economy and society.
The
wider consequences (environmental impact, social disruption, increased
infrastructure costs) are usually treated as consequences to be managed
rather than as matters of central concern.However,
other consequences (improved economic outcomes, jobs, good forest management
etc.) are used as justification for decisions.
There
is usually an efficient and effective public relations operation in place
to calm public fears and concerns.
Justification
for the operation of these systems usually comes in the form of the need
to protect industry from unreasonable delays or interference, the lack
of expertise that exists in the wider community to participate in the process
and the need to protect jobs and promote economic growth.
A
sham planning and approval process is established which can operate without
outside interference and which can provide “certainty” or “security” to
industry.This process gives away
publicly owned assets and resources under conditions that do not allow
the owners of those resources a say in where, how and under what conditions
the transfer of rights is to occur.
The
main public input is usually by means of campaigns by specific groups with
a focus on particular forms of development or specific localities.It
is highly adversary and is characterised by the trading of claims and counter
claims by both sides.It is worth
noting that such campaigns can be highly effective in particular cases
(the preservation of forests of high environmental value in Tasmania, the
preservation of rainforests in Northern NSW, the Fraser Island Inquiry,
and the Wet Tropics Rainforests in North Queensland).
However,
such forms of participation often have adverse consequences – communities
are divided, the underlying issues of resource allocation and development
are not addressed and the bulk of the public is left out in the cold. The
operation of these adversarial systems also intimidate the majority of
the population and work against effective public involvement.
Creating
a democratic system for resource allocation
There
is widespread evidence that undemocratic systems produce bad outcomes.
For example:
In
1999-2002 the Auditor General valued the total equity of Forestry Tasmania
at$758.7 million with a return for
that year of less than $8million.This,
(a 1% on equity for our public forests), is socially unacceptable and economically
irresponsible.
Many
local communities throughout the State feel threatened by forestry practices
- clear felling, effects on habitats, loss of water quality, visual impact,
loss of alternative economic opportunities, poisoning of wildlife, regeneration
burning, wildfire escapes, etc.Whatever
the truth of these issues – public unease and disquiet is an issue in itself.
Loss
of alternative economic opportunities.The
small community of Bruny Island is playing host to what must be the most
ridiculous forestry operation imaginable.It
involves clear felling, movement of log trucks on inadequate roads (Kingborough
Council and DIER is constantly trying to keep these roads in trafficable
condition – at ratepayers and taxpayer expense), regeneration burning and
the permanent employment of 4 people.Meanwhile,
the tourism industry which employs over 100 individuals on the Island is
placed at risk.
A
rate of land clearance that is second only to Queensland’s and which contributes
to Australia’s pariah status among developed nations as an environmentally
irresponsible.
If
forestry were subject to an open and democratic approval process it is
highly likely that these outcomes would be different.This
is, of course a great fear to the forest industry as evidenced by the many
mechanisms that exist to deny the public a right to have a say – separate
legislation that specifically excludes the public, codes of practice that
is drawn up by internal “experts’, monitoring and enforcement of the code
by resource developers, Private Timber reserves that allow private landowners
to clear land without scrutiny under planning schemes, and a well oiled
PR machine that is used to quiet public unease.
To
change this situation there is only one answer.All
resource exploitation activities, including forestry, must be subject to
an open, transparent and democratic process.This
must be a process which;
allows
the public to have a say in defining the operational rules,
requires
the resource exploiters to justify their case for transfer of development
rights,
requires
a demonstration that operations are in accordance with publicly acceptable
rules
clearly
identifies the costs and benefits of any particular proposal,
allows
a serious consideration of alternative resource uses, and
provides
for independent judicial dispute resolution.
Such
a system exists.It is the Resource
Management and Planning System.If
we live in a truly democratic society forestry along with all other forms
of development should be able to operate within such a system.To
continue to operate outside the system will perpetuate undemocratic and
potentially corrupt practices which produce outcomes that serve the short
term interests of only a few.