A MAJOR row is brewing between King Island farmers and the Forest Practices Authority. The King Island farming community say they have been under intense scrutiny by the FPA in recent years. They say this has interfered with practical farm management and has proved stressful through real or threatened financial impost. The farmers say this has created a lack of trust between FPA officers and landowners.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has held several meetings with affected parties including the King Island Council and has made representations to the FPA executive. Several issues were raised at the meetings including that advice sought from the FPA officers or website cannot be relied upon and comes with the disclaimer that the document should not be relied upon as legal advice and suggests seeking professional legal advice. Independent advice from a forest practices consultant is often disputed leading to consultants regarding King Island as a “no go area”.
The issue that permits and advice are not delivered in a timely manner leaving farmers in limbo was raised at meetings. “FPA and its operations is unprofessional, adversarial, and procedural fairness is tenuous,” a source who did not wish to be named told the meetings. “For example, if there is an area of concern identified by the FPA you receive a threatening legal letter requiring a response. Any information supplied can be used against you if a court case eventuates. Your evidence is presented to the FPA board by an FPA officer. “You have no knowledge of what they present, nor do you have representation. In some cases you do not know when it will be presented. The effect is that you are guilty, now prove your innocence.”
Farmers have told the meetings that infrastructure management on farm is contentious and requires practical solutions. “According to the Act ‘a reasonable buffer zone’ is allowed for the protection of infrastructure and vehicular access. Infrastructure includes boundary and internal fences, drainage, fire management, livestock exclusion zones and laneways.
“The FPA usually has a narrow interpretation of a ‘reasonable buffer’ ranging from two to five metres. Independent advice suggests the potential height of a tree constitutes a reasonable buffer.
“This narrow interpretation by the FPA has practical implications for the farmer. Vehicular access to fences is vital for repair and movement of herds of cattle requires extra space. “Clearing under power lines and boundaries is essential for public safety and fire protection. “Fire management is also difficult to implement. The FPA requires the fire authority to provide a plan for your property. The Fire authority response was we do not have the resources or the time to come to King Island. “All responsibility rests on the farmer not the FPA.
“Farm management or safety is not their primary concern.” The claimed overreach by the FPA was illustrated at the most recent meeting. A producer recounted how he received a legal letter accusing him of land clearing when it was clearly a weather-related event.
“FPA claims to have state-of-the-art satellite imagery that surely could have been used to clarify their accusations. “Surely the first point of call would be to contact the farmer and discuss. The farmer contacted the FPA the next morning and when pointed out that it would be almost impossible for machinery to access the contentious area the FPA officer concluded with words to the effect that ‘we send letters like that out to scare you into not planning any further land clearing’,” the meeting was told.
“This was unnecessary and unprofessional. Legal letters caused unnecessary stress and anxiety. “Farmers regard the system as unworkable and impractical. “The system is broken, it appears to be designed for the logging community and not the farming community. “Producers require some form of independent advice that can trusted without the threat of prosecution and the suspicion that FPA officers gathering further information. “Trust in the advice is essential whether from the FPA or independent advisors.”
A suggested organisational setup like Safe Farming would be appropriate. “This organisational model is a collaboration of Work Safe Tasmania and the Department of NRE and industry stakeholders,” meetings were told.
“This model separates compliance and investigation from advice and education. “Independent advisors provide accurate information from a trustworthy source that can be relied upon. “They educate their clients about compliance according to the Act.”
Meetings were told that most livestock producers were farm managers first, not environmental vandals.