Forestry pretenders on a gravy train

So how was Temma Farm selected? The remnant vegetation is swamp paperbarks and stunted eucalypts. Ground water is abundant in winter. The land exhibits none of the traits of land which grow our tall eucalypt forests. Locals and others with knowledge of forestry matters are amazed at such a site selection. And being so far away from chipping and port facilities meant that harvest costs would be at least 1/3rd higher.

But it was a case of grab any land that became available. Don’t worry too much about future yields. The disappointing growth rates of the 1994 and 1995 crops (harvested in 2006 and 2007 at 123 tonnes per ha and 166 tonnes per ha respectively) didn’t deter the independent forester from giving the thumbs up to Temma.

He was certainly fearless. He even gave investors his assessment (in the PDS) of the outlook for the global market in woodchips. His expertise had no bounds.

The independent forester inspected Temma in April 2006 (at planting) and again in July 2006, Nov/Dec 2006 and Aug/Sept 2007. Apart from some comments about weed control there were no reported problems.

Many interested locals too have monitored the property. Photos taken in March 2007 show a plantation with poor weed control, unlikely to yield a profitable crop in 10 years. At this stage claiming that a business of afforestation was being conducted was stretching things a little. By June 30, 2008 it was impossible to argue a forestry business was being conducted.

Inspections in August and September 2008 revealed a complete absence of the original seedlings in some areas that were being enthusiastically grazed by cattle (and even two horses). Where trees had survived they were of substandard form. The site is an unmitigated disaster as the attached photos testify.

There may only be $3 million of public funds by way of tax subsidies provided in the case of Temma. But how many other Temmas are there?