The giant scary face: will it work?
Swedish pulp giant Sodra was to have advised Australian timber giant Gunns Ltd whether it would come on board as a joint venture partner in the latter’s proposed $2 billion pulp mill by the end of last month.

News of Sodra’s potential involvement only became public some two weeks earlier, but the reactions were quicker than a bar stampede after “last drinks” cries. Green groups protested outside Canberra’s Swedish embassy, and online anti-mill campaigns ramped up.

But the protests were also international.

On the back of Australian lobby group Get Up! placing a $7,500 ad in the UK’s Financial Times newspaper in April warning Europe’s banks they’d be “pulping their profits” by funding the mill, the latest protests were more physical. And probably more creative.

Perhaps the most noted protest was by Greenpeace and ECA Watch Austria, against Andrtiz’s involvement in the proposed mill (ECA-Watch is a global platform, opposing what it sees as “irresponsible export projects”). Activists turned Andrtiz’s main entrance into a “tree-eating monster”. The Wilderness Society says the protest pointed to Andrtiz’s potential “significant role in destroying some of the world’s last high-conservation-value forests”.

Will making a giant face – albeit a scary one – on a building dissuade Andrtiz from its decision to supply Gunns’ proposed pulp mill with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment? Like up to $800 million worth?

And who is Andrtiz anyway?
In the seemingly constant questioning about where Gunns will source funding for its $2 billion (or $2.2 billion, as it’s also been reported) mill, the Austrian company building the mill’s machinery rates nary a mention.

Robert Eastment, a Hobart-based pulp and paper analyst, told ABC Radio’s “The World Today” programme that many people had forgotten a big chunk of the mill’s finance would be via equipment finance and export credits from Andritz.

Line up the “up to $800 million worth” figure for equipment from Andrtiz, and an amount expected from a mill partner of between $300 million and $500 million, as reported in The Australian, and Andritz would indeed be “a major partner”.

According to BankWatch, Andrtiz’s involvement includes supplying core equipment, having the erection management contract, commissioning the mill and offering technical support, plus having production guarantees. Interestingly, BankWatch also says over and above that listing, Andritz has not ruled out becoming a joint venture partner with Gunns in owning and operating the pulp mill project; neither has Andrtiz’s banker, Bank Austria Creditanstalt, ruled out funding the project.

Like watching scratchy paint dry
Only script writers on day-time soaps could surely have dragged out the process any longer. It seems the announcement of Sodra’s connection refreshed persuasion efforts by both sides.

The “for” side arced up picketing activities – with lobbyists targeting offices of The Wilderness Society, members of parliament, and the ANZ (which is still Gunns’ banker), demanding the mill goes ahead (don’t forget, it has a construction permit, but not an operating one).

Michael O’Connor, national forestry division secretary of the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU), had previously told ABC Radio he had asked forestry unions in Europe to lobby European banks to finance the mill.

Keine Andritz Zellstofffabrik
As mentioned above, online anti-mill campaigns have also been ramped up. On the same day Greenpeace and ECA Watch Austria made the “monster face” on Andritz’s building, members of Tasmanian activist group TAP sent an image of decimated old growth forests with a lone Tassie devil, and two forlorn people on the ruins of a giant tree, to some 50 Andritz email addresses.

The German copy read, “No Andritz pulp mill in Tasmania Australia. Andritz and Gunns should not destroy Tasmania. An Andritz pulp mill will make the Tasmanian Devil extinct. Sad but true!” (“Keine Andritz Zellstofffabrik” translates as “no Andritz pulp mill”.)

TAP’s campaign against the proposed mill has been strong, and interest is not waning: the group generally attracts between 80 and100 people to fortnightly campaign meetings.

Face off
The anti-mill lobby is also on Facebook, with a cause entitled “Say ‘No’ to Gunns Ltd Pulp-Mill!” that had racked up 13,400 members as of late last month.

The Wilderness Society is behind the Facebook site; it is also driving a campaign on its own website. However, despite impressive numbers, the Facebook cause had raised a total of $95 by late June – perhaps potential donors were pushing their bucks to Senator Bob Brown, who managed to stave off bankruptcy with a flood of donations enabling him to pay Forestry Tasmania’s $240,000 legal fees by June 29, after a court case to stop logging in the Wielangta Forest.

Or it might just be the “anti” side has bombarded campaigns by GetUp! and The Wilderness Society, which have raised thousands of dollars for anti-mill ads in newspapers here, Asia and Europe. (As a result, according to Green Left Online, more than 15 major international corporations have now confirmed to The Wilderness Society they will not be financing the mill.)

Paper tiger
How affected are businesspeople by protests such as the tree-eating monster face on Andrtiz’s facade?

Certainly it would appear the ANZ Bank pulled the pin as a result of public outcry after an active green campaign. And less than a week after the news of Sodra’s potential involvement became public – and before Sodra signed on any dotted lines – the world’s third largest pulp maker had stated its supply of the folding stuff was contingent on timber being “100 per cent plantation based”, and a “totally chlorine-free pulping process”. The latter, at least, “preferably”.

For Gunns’ proposed mill to meet these conditions, it would need a drastic change from current plans. Considering Gunns launched its mill proposal in December 2004, it would seem silly to think such a redraw could be done quickly.

As of last month, the Environmental Protection Authority had begun assessing a design report for the mill to ensure it complied with Commonwealth permits. EPA director Warren Jones has been reported as saying the report “is complex and will take time to digest”.

Of course. But surely that just gives more time for scary faces to be draped around buildings?

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.  

Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter