GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY RESPONSES TO PESTICIDE CONCERNS IN TASMANIA



Forestry Tasmania, May 2005

On 21st May 2005 residents in North West Tasmania attended a meeting with Forestry Tasmania representative, Brenton Jansen and Emma Barker. Residents were concerned about the aerial spraying activities of Forestry Tasmania and alarmed about the proposed clearfelling of native forest beside the Calder River. At that meeting Mr Jansen was asked if Forestry Tasmania had performed any risk assessements with respect to aerial spray drift. Here is the information gleaned from Mr Jansen's response:

- no computer modelling of likely spray drift has ever been performed in Tasmania.
- no documentation is available to the public to ascertain the nature of ANY risk assessment having been done.

But Mr Jansen wanted to assure the public that spray plans drawn up by contractors did take possible aerial drift into account. This was not at all convincing in light of the fact that aerial spraying by helicopter takes place 40 - 100 feet above the ground, often on top of hills and residents 4 or more kilometres away experience contamination of their rainwater from aerial spray drift and those individuals 500 metres to 1 kilometre away are smelling the pesticide vapours.

Mr Jansen informed the residents on that day that the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority had rejected their own draft spray drift risk assessment document entitled "Operating Principles and Proposed Registration Requirements in Relation to Spray Drift Risk - Draft July 2003". The implication presented was that this document was rejected on the grounds of scientific invalidity.  I emphasised to Mr Jansen that there were plenty of other sources of information available on the Web that implicated current industry practice in terms of GUARANTEED and uncontrolled spray drift.

Before Forestry Tasmania contaminated Lorinna's water supply, 1993

"We contacted the Ombudsman and the Registrar of Pesticides; we went through all the proper channels and got told, 'Relax, it's OK.' The more they tried to make us feel secure the less secure we felt. We spent six months on the phone and gradually came to realise the system was designed to pacify and then to disempower and shut down community concerns."

And

"We were meeting with Forestry about three times a week. Sometimes down here and sometimes up on the coupe. One time we had a meeting scheduled for the Thursday at eleven o'clock and at ten o'clock they were going to start spraying up on the coupe. So we said, 'Don't bother coming to Lorrina, we are all going to be up on the coupe,' and we were. That was OK. They stopped spraying, they sent their guys away for a few days or a few weeks. Negotiations kept going. They gave us concessions. They did a ground-based operation rather than aerial, to minimise the contamination risk; they gave us extra buffers - they were supposed to be 70 metres from the stream and they increased it to 100 metres. They were going to spray amatrol and atrazine but they dropped amatrol and decided they'd use round-up instead. They said that had to have a persistent pre-emergent herbicide, which was atrazine, but they had to spray it in conjunction with a knock down herbicide. Paul Smith, the Area Forester, said to me, 'You've run a good media campaign, you've had good coverage, but that's enough' That was the red rag to the bull!

On the day Forestry Tasmanian sprayed

"..Finally it was spray-day. We trucked up and stood in front of the tractors and prevented them starting work. Alan Watson, the District Forester, called in the big guns and they came and started arresting people...

"..Forestry said publicly that if they were going to permit us to negotiate over our water catchment they would be in a position where everybody would want to negotiate over their catchment...

"..after the second day of arrests they [Forestry Tasmania] banned the media from the site ..

After they sprayed:



Forestry Tasmania:

"Forestry promised us some tests. They have a statutory obligation to test pre-spray, day of spray and then after the first significant rainfall. They tested pre-spray, they tested day of spray, and then it didn't rain. A month after spraying we had really light drizzle. Alan Watson rang me up and said there was a bit of rain up there over the weekend so he asked, the Department of the Environment - the DELM - to come up and take some samples. I said, 'It really didn't rain much Alan; it's just a bit of drizzle.' On the Thursday it absolutely pissed down and I rang him and said, 'Alan it's raining; this is real rain,' and he said, 'Annie I can't have them running up and down the State twice in one week. I just can't do that.'

DELM (The then Tasmanian Department of Environment and Land Management)

"..We rang the emergency number at the DELM and we said, 'We need this testing to take place, it's pissing with rain and the Forestry Commission won't do it.' So they sent somebody out. ..We went out with our bottles from the Launceston Environment Centre and took some samples. DELM came out 45 minutes after us and took samples in exactly the same spot. We were there to meet them and they didn't know we had taken samples. We sent ours to Melbourne. They sent theirs back to Hobart and had them analysed. Ours came back 0.2 parts per billion and theirs came back 0.1 part per billion. We jumped up and down; ours were twice as high; the laboratory in Hobart was not certified to test for atrazine whereas the Melbourne laboratory was."

"..because the atrazine was definitely there and there was a discrepancy, after the next rain a week or so later DELM authorised a dual sample. They took samples from a number of sites and sent one of each to Melbourne and Hobart laboratories. Forestry wanted to show how responsible t hey were and genuinely wanted to look at it and get it right. Paul Smith had used this 0.2 parts per billion benchmark and the next result was way over. It was 9.3 parts per billion; nearly five times the World Health Organisation allowable limit.

After high levels of contamination confirmed:


Forestry Tasmania:
"..So they said it's OK [Atrazine] for short term exposure."

"..Meantime, practically on a daily basis, I'd be ringing them (DELM) to ask for results of analysis. When they first tested they refused to give them to us until they had the complete result, and when we had these huge levels, we couldn't get any results out of them.

"We had rung and rung and they passed us on one time too many. I said to whoever it was on the other end of the phone, I don't actually need to speak to Brian, I just need the results of these tests sitting on his desk, and the Forestry staff member read them to me. So I informed the media without Forestry having officially released the figures!

When ongoing contamination confirmed:


Forestry Tasmania:

The following agreement was made between Lorinna Community and the Forestry Commission on Future Management of Gads Hill Eucalypt Plantations. It was dated February 1994 -

'In response to the concerns of the community the Forestry Commission will not use 1080 poison, herbicides, fertilisers or synthetic pyrethrum based on chemicals in the catchments that supply water to the community. Biological control agents (Bacillus) may be used to control leaf eating beetles if growth of the plantations is threatened by defoliation.

The Eucalypt plantation, Gads Hill, has been established to grow sawlog. Thinning and pruning of selected trees will be required to promote sawlog growth.

..In the event that full funding for non-commercial thinning is not available, the Lorinna Community have offered to non-commercially thin the plantation within the catchments that supply the water to the community. That being the case, the Forestry Commission will facilitate training to enable residents of Lorinna to gain appropriate accreditation to carry out the operation . . .' As for our water supply, Forestry installed activated carbon filter cylinders that required back flushing twice a day. For the first three weeks they reduced the level of atrazine. DELM tested the water pre-filter and post-filter every 10 days. After three weeks about 60% of the atrazine present in the water was coming through the activated carbon filters which were the only commercial filters which claimed to remove atrazine. After they were showing 60% we didn't want one anymore.

Public 'consultation' after both Derby and Lorinna contaminated by atrazine, 1993

"..As early as May 1993 Forestry put out a call for public submissions on alternatives to chemical sprays but it was only after the Derby campaign that they employed Paul Dredge to look into alternatives. Meanwhile they had a moratorium on atrazine. The PR was getting bad. They have gone public saying they have ceased the use of atrazine and that it cost them only 10% extra to reduce their level of chemicals by 90%. They are still using Round-up, simazine and hexazinone. These chemicals are just as bad but don't have the negative profile."

"..As far as Forestry Tasmania is concerned they did change what they were doing. They said to us we don't want to poison any more water; but then they did it again in Scamander and then Waratah, with aerial spraying and no concessions."

Reference: The Atrazine Campaign, 'For the Forests' by Helen Gee. Story courtesy of Annie Willock and Bart Wisse, residents of Lorinna in Tasmania.
http://www.hancock.forests.org.au/docs/adelaide.html#TAG8
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1