Towards Nonviolence In Ravenshoe Some Recent History Ravenshoe is a small timber (?) town on the Atherton Tablelands in North Queensland, Australia. It is a fabulous place to live - for climate, forests, neighbours and lifestyle. But it does have some problems. One reason Ravenshoe is so nice is that it sits on the Western edge of a belt of wet tropical rainforest. Extending out even further west are beautiful dry eucalypt forests. There are heaps of rivers flowing through the district and its altitude provides a natural air-conditioning in the tropic sunshine. The wet tropical rainforests were nominated for world heritage listing in 1987 by the federal government as part of its electoral strategy that year to win 'green' votes and preferences. Tropical rainforests have been a 'hot' conservation issue since 1983-84 when NVDA blockades of the Cape Tribulation - Bloomfield road had drawn attention to a development onslaught against the last remaining coastal rainforest. By 1987, the campaign had been taken from local networks, or even Queensland based groups and was in the hands of a technocratic conservation elite based in Hobart, Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney.1 Ravenshoe 'locals' (some 200 kms by road south of Daintree) were fearful of the closure of rainforests to logging. Timber was the last remaining big employer in the town. These fears were fed by a cynical alliance of industry owners, property developers, and state and shire politicians - between them seeking financial compensation and/or political leverage. During the early life of the world heritage issue, Ravenshoe became (unjustly) famous throughout Australia as a town of 'violent rednecks'. National media attention focussed on a five second grab of federal environment minister Richardson being jostled by an angry crowd when he visited the town. Local conservationists also reported intimidation and threats. After world heritage listing went through, the federal government, as its only form of assistance to the shire (Herberton shire is based in Ravenshoe) pumped millions of dollars into the town's sawmill - to retool it for different timber stock and keep it operating. Two years later the mill collapsed anyway, with money flowing first to a head office in NSW, and to secured creditors. Local suppliers and contractors were left unpaid, with substantial debt. Now there is fifty percent unemployment in the district, and people are waiting to see if anyone can buy the mill and operate it again. Three or four deals have fallen through in the last year. Even with a promised federal subsidy, talks with a new prospective buyer are 'continuing'. The coming dilemma In town rhetoric, if not quite in reality, there is a sharp divide between 'locals' (people born in the district) and 'greenies' (sometimes new settlers, but more often still living in Brisbane, 1800 kms south). This division seems set to continue in future, because the town is vitally involved in another 'conservation versus development' confrontation over the proposed Tully-Millstream Hydro-Electricity Scheme. If the scheme proceeds, Ravenshoe will be the major service town for construction. The scheme has been approved twice by successive state governments. Local government, business and development interests all strongly support the scheme, citing 700 jobs for seven years, and a $550 million investment flowing into a depressed area. A series of housing developments called Millstream Estates has already been opened up and is attracting mainly young families hoping to finance building by finding work with the scheme. Local media is universally supportive. Conservation organizations have opposed the scheme since its conception. Five years of hard lobbying and publicity, mainly from a base in Brisbane, have given the scheme a national profile, and made it a focus of energy and conservation policy at state and federal levels. A joint federal-state working party will report in December this year. Within what looks to be a sharpening national confrontation between 'green politics' and 'big business/economic rationalism', Ravenshoe could well provide a flashpoint which escalates into open violence. If government decides to proceed with the scheme, conservation groups are publicly committed to a campaign of NVDA to stop it. Anger from within the district towards such a campaign will be intense. If government decides to not proceed, 'locals' will feel betrayed once again by remote political operators, and powerless to influence their personal or community future. Believing that powerlessness and alienation are root causes of violent behaviour, I would expect to see an increase in low-level violence in the district - domestic violence, racism, intolerance - to follow such a decision. Personal position I am not a neutral bystander in this situation. My primary orientation is towards preserving as much native forest as possible. I am convinced the scheme is unnecessary and a waste of money, as well as an assault on nature. I am one with the conservation organizations in a willingness to use NVDA if necessary to prevent construction. After participating in the Fraser Island blockade last year, and watching Chaelundi from a distance this year, I feel confident there is enough power, experience, and commitment amongst eco-activists to stop the scheme cold. But I cannot feel happy that this is all we should do. I live on the tablelands, and aim to make my permanent home here. I was here for the world heritage listing. In many ways the locals were right to be afraid of it. They have lost their jobs, and face a future filled with new uncertainties. They were ripped off ... by conservation groups, government, industry, and even by aggregations of narrow self-interest within the district. Compensation schemes didn't consult and didn't rebuild. Rather they papered over the cracks. While I was on Fraser Island, I saw the same thing happening. Literally millions of dollars were being spent by government, industry, and conservation groups on either 'winning the issue', or 'winning hearts and minds'. Nothing at all was being done to harness local skills and knowledge to create the needed third and fourth alternatives. Eventual compensation is once again being poured into already failing industries (pine plantations replacing native scrub). I can't help but think we ought to be able to do better than that. A nonviolence group For the past few months a small group of people have been meeting and workshopping in an attempt to develop a nonviolent conflict resolution/problem solving process in Ravenshoe and district. The group consists mostly of Ravenshoe residents, with a few skilled outsiders from other tablelands districts. The formation of such a group and process is something none of us have ever tried before, and one reason I'm writing this is to ask for comment and advice from the NVT readership. It's very frustrating, but our group seems both too homogeneous and too diverse. We are all white, well-educated in a formal sense, and (with a few exceptions) refugees from middle-class urban life. As yet we have no pro-dam people participating. I feel a strong need, if the process is to work, to reach out and make contact across the divides - with aborigines, ex- timber workers, youth, business and development interests. At the same time, there isn't enough cohesion and agreement yet within our group to feel comfortable as a base to reach out from. For example, there are strong concerns and differences about funding/resources... How much is needed/desirable? how should it be raised? On what will it be applied? What alternatives are there? These concerns are linked to all our other concerns about equity, self-sufficiency, responsible consumption, appropriate means, personal needs, pluralism, empowerment, and nonviolence philosophies generally. We quickly despaired of meetings as a way of dealing with all these issues. We started instead to hold day long workshops or gatherings where different members give presentations or exercises in a skill or area of interest... and at least half the objective lies in getting to know each other. We play games and eat together, go for walks in the forest, as well as discussing ideas and looking at the problems which confront us. This change in process feels good for the moment, and I believe we will eventually establish friendship, trust, and consensus enough to commence operations in the outside world. When this will be is harder to say. Fears and concerns I guess my main fear is that the issue of Tully-Millstream is galloping ahead, whether or not we're ready to play an effective role. I don't think there's anything we can do about that. If we can't get a coherent group together we're not going to play an effective role anyway, no matter how active we are individually. Also the dynamics of violence and conflict in Ravenshoe extend well beyond any one environmental issue. Racism is probably the most persistent problem in the town, and the group is focussing strongly on such structural considerations. More immediately, there are signs that the time of cooperation and conflict resolution has come. Everyone I've spoken with thinks it's a good idea. Early on, when a nonviolence group in Ravenshoe was pure speculation, discussions with Kevin Buy at CAFNEC (Cairns and Far North Queensland Environment Centre) led to his approaching Herberton shire council with an offer of cooperation and support in creating alternative industries. That offer has now crystallised into a joint presentation by the shire and CAFNEC to the federal government for funding of a feasibility study towards creating a plantation timber industry of native hardwood and rainforest species. Four years ago, that wouldn't have seemed possible. Even so, it's announcement last week scored two column inches in the major regional daily, the Cairns Post. Otherwise that paper's coverage has been of the growing confrontation (and in one issue even potential war) around the Tully-Millstream issue. I suppose you sell more newspapers that way. The conservation groups have actively contributed to that perception by saying that direct actions will be 'bigger than the Franklin blockade' if the scheme goes ahead. All their official comment comes from Cairns (150 kms away) or Brisbane (1800 kms). When I think of the impact on locals (as distinct from state and federal politicians) such statements make me wince. I too feel morally culpable here. In the past I have been content to make strong statements about preventing the dam's construction. I acted out of a driving sense of urgency to protect the forests, but I see now I had failed to accept all my responsibilities from taking a position like that. It is one thing to accept personal hardship and suffering as part of NVDA in defence of the forests. That's a choice we make for ourselves. It comes out of, and illustrates, activists strength and integrity of purpose. (Also, to be honest, it's an ego gratifying thing left over from warrior culture... all that playing of cowboys and Indians.) It's another thing to passively accept the involuntary hardship and suffering of those our actions affect. It seems to me that once we have decided to take interventionist actions, we are being fairly arrogant about having our will prevail. As a result, where our actions harm the basic welfare of others, we must carry responsibility to help repair and heal their lives and circumstances. As I get more into things at Ravenshoe, I'm discovering just how hard and challenging that process can be. Bryan Law PO Box 698, Malanda Qld 4885 Footnotes: 1. Tim Doyle, "The Green Elite and the 1987 Election" Chain Reaction No 63-64, April 1991.