DEAR News of the Area,
IN his letter ‘Constructive debate, not dangerous conduct’ (NOTA, 23/10/26), Steve Dobbyns wrote of the irony of activists demanding community engagement and social licence while obstructing forestry workers.
While I agree that workers should never be endangered, the reason that a small percentage of activists are pushed to more extreme forms of protest is the very lack of community engagement, and that attempts to engage with forestry corporations or governments usually go nowhere.
A couple of examples have been the decades-long fight to save the Kalang headwaters where Forestry Corporation ignored the science of highly erodible soils, and the ongoing fight to create a ‘forest bridge’ wildlife corridor at Pine Creek to protect the significant koala population there.
Bellingen council was packed last week with people wanting to protect the Never Never River from the effects of nearby clear-felling, but even appeals to Tara Moriarty, the responsible minister, were brushed off and the Indigenous community was not consulted. Where was the respect extended by industry?
A far bigger irony is that taxpayer funds helped to fund the recent Forestry Symposium in Canberra, which had a theme of improving social licence, but did not focus on the constructive debate that Mr Dobbyns says we deserve. The main themes of the program were messaging, media and advocacy sessions and creating ‘a stronger forestry
narrative’. Yet no conservation, community or environmental organisations were named on the program.
Despite the organisers’ stated principle of accountability for forestry practices, I could see no session on changing or improving them.
The community does not need more ‘narrative’ and top-down communication. Social license requires engagement with independent, unbiased science, and a process of genuine consultation with all stakeholders – even those critical of forestry practices.
Regards,
Judith Kirwood,
Valla Beach.

