News 
 Local News 
 News 
 Business 
 Study rates forestry's value highly - Better returns than tourism 

Study rates forestry's value highly - Better returns than tourism

15 Jun, 2009 07:26 AM
AN EIGHT-MONTH study released yesterday should dispel the myth once and for all that Tasmania's forest industry is heavily subsidised, says forestry chief Hans Drielsma.

The Forestry Tasmania executive general manager said that the report showed that tourism and agriculture were way ahead of forestry and timber processing when it came to government assistance and returned less for the dollar investment.

Dr Drielsma was speaking at the release of the report prepared by Tasmanian economist Bruce Felmingham and IMC-Link.

"It is clear from the report that all sectors studied delivered significant benefits to the community," Dr Drielsma said.

"Discussion of subsidies rarely considers the economic benefits generated - this report clearly shows that subsidies benefit consumers as well as producers and generate jobs and income for Tasmanians."

Dr Felmingham looked at five major industry areas - tourism (holiday makers only), tourism (all visitors), agriculture, forestry and timber processing, energy and mining and minerals processing.

He spent about eight months analysing federal and state data to determine the level of subsidy then at the contribution of each sector. He established a subsidy intensity index to work out the "bang for buck" governments received for each dollar of assistance.

The report showed that the forest industry generated $56 for every dollar received in government subsidies compared to $15 for the tourism industry.

Forestry Industries Association of Tasmania chief executive Terry Edwards said that the economic return was not the only proof of success.

"You have to read all the figures - tourism might show a slow return for the dollar invested but it has social infrastructure benefits," Mr Edwards said.

Forestry sat in the middle of the five industries looked at in terms of return for investment. It came after tourism and agriculture which returned $24 for every $1 and before energy, on $150 for every dollar and mining and minerals processing, on a $167 return for every dollar invested.

Dr Felmingham said that all five industries subsidised benefited the growth and development of the state's economy.

"Subsidisation has had a positive economic effect in the past and will do so in the future if well targeted," he said.

Mr Edwards said that the report had been commissioned to get accurate information on the level of government subsidisation.

The findings will be presented to the State Government today.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If this study has shown that all industries benefit to some extent from government subsidies, why then are the greens so obsessed with subsidies directed towards the forest industries? Why don't we see them attacking the heavily subsidized tourism industry for example, or agriculture or mining or energy sectors? Another example of the narrow, anti forestry policies of the greens and more importantly - their outright hypocrisy.
Posted by Thommo, 15/06/2009 8:20:03 AM
Bang on Thommo. It's the same moral relativism the green eco-weenies bring to every issue. Quite simply, they think that the cessation of human activity in native forests will salve their moral quandry, whereby their very existence disturbs the Earth's feng shui.
Posted by Hugoagogo, 15/06/2009 10:18:46 AM
Mmmmm! Interesting report, which was funded by Forestry Tasmania... I'm sure there wasn't any bias - NOT!!! lets do a quick calculation... For every $1 government subsidy, FT returned $56. But FT made a loss of $58.5Million, not a profit in excess of $2billion... Somehow this report doesn't add up!!! My recommendation would be to have an independent study done, and consequently overhaul FT into a more sustainable value adding business for all Tasmanians.
Posted by Henk of Launceston, 15/06/2009 10:35:26 AM
It all comes down to how one defines "subsidy" in the end. According to the Murkury article Felmingham defines them as "direct payment[s] to a company". Pretty narrow definition - what about all the indirect subsidies provided by taxpayers, such as infrastructure etc. etc.?
Posted by kate, 15/06/2009 12:21:37 PM
A couple of years ago Paul Lennon claimed that Tourism generated $2.2 billion per year when he was justifying the purchase of Spirit of Tasmania III. What has happened since? Forestry, on the other hand, has the benefit of not having to pay for their timber, but has not returned anything to the State coffers for nearly 10 years and has regularly been 'forgiven' their debts. So where has all this money gone that Dr F. identified. Could it be into private hands, as it certainly hasn't appeared on the State balance sheets?
Posted by Gerry Mander, 15/06/2009 5:48:37 PM
Right, so the forest workers ,truck drivers,machinery operators,foresters and mill hands all work for nothing do they?Like wise the earth moving contractors who build the aforementioned infrastructure and I bet the greenies don't use anything as invasive as a forest access road.If you want to talk about vested interest,what is bob brown without an environmental drum to beat? Not much.
Posted by bruce, 15/06/2009 5:52:42 PM
You know you "greenie bashers" should really open your eyes and have a good look at what is really going on... Forestry has its place, but not over and above everything else in Tasmania. To chop down a tree and chip it doesn't value add in the slightest, but take that same tree and morph it into something beautiful and long lasting has a far greater value and is food for the soul!!! FT has been subsidised for too long, and if it cannot stand on its own two feet it needs to be shut down!!! Lets work with what we got... a unique standing forest which is billions worth as a carbon sink, and will bring billions into our state... I mean, that is what makes Tasmania stand out from the rest of the world!!!
Posted by Henk of Launceston, 15/06/2009 11:22:36 PM
Sorry but I still believe that the greens should have backed sustainable forestry instead of the massively polluting alternatives like concrete ,steel ,plastic etc.There are some within your movement who still claim that hemp grown on cleared farms is an alternative to a healthy functionig forest.In spite of recent events, the anti-hazard reduction campaign is still ongoing.Who needs to open their eyes?If 90% of the old growth is already in reserves ,why is this last little patch so inportant ,are you worried it will affect biodiversity or worried that it wont?
Posted by bruce, 17/06/2009 5:28:27 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles

Stevenson Prestiges
1) Apple iPhone 4 32GB44 plans 12%
2) Apple iPhone 4 16GB44 plans 14%
3) Motorola Quench7 plans 3%
4) HTC Desire4 plans 1%
5) Apple iPhone 3GS 8GB33 plans 2%

Mobile Phones | Broadband Plans

Get the best deal at Fairfax Digital - Rural Press



Membership: login | join

Most Popular


The Examiner Newspaper







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Navigate

Classifieds

More Ways to Read

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2010. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...