Sean Weaver – 3/9/99
If you haven’t already done so, you may like to read the first article in this series.
Timberlands and the National government are constantly claiming that the
logging of West Coast forest is sustainable and is, therefore, nothing to
worry about. They often add that anyone who does not support their logging
is an environmental extremist. Let’s have a look at some of the many arguments relating to the Timberlands controversy as seen from a conservation viewpoint.
How Many Forests Are Left?
Many people who support Timberlands claim that there is more than enough
forest protected in New Zealand. They suggest that the tiny percentage that
Timberlands have should be used for production.
Over 80% of New Zealand was forested before the arrival of humans. Now about 23% remains in total. Much of this is higher altitude forest which
was not needed for agricultural production and has become the basis of our
national parks system. Lowland indigenous forest amounts to approximately
15% of the pre-human level, and about half of that is cut-over. About 7% of
what remains is old-growth, lowland indigenous forest, much of which is
located on private land. That fragment which remains on Crown land is located on the West Coast of the South Island. These are the forests that
are controlled by Timberlands.
Aren’t Most West Coast Forests Already Protected?
Many supporters of Timberlands claim that the majority of the West Coast
region is already protected and therefore the relatively small amount of
native forest being logged “sustainably” by Timberlands ought to remain
available for logging.
In fact, the vast majority of the West Coast conservation estate is high
altitude and includes large areas of alpine habitat including alpine herb
fields, sub-alpine scrub and tussock, rock, ice and snow. A very large proportion of what remains on the West Coast of lowland native forest is
under the control of Timberlands. Such forest no longer exists in other
regions or if it is does it is very rare.
We could draw an analogy from the Auckland Islands and the Hooker’s Sealion
colony there. The Hookers Sealion is the world’s rarest and largely restricted to New Zealand waters. If we lived on Enderby Island (a major
Hooker’s Sealion breeding rookery in the Auckland Island group) we could
claim that Hooker’s Sealions were so common locally that we should be able
to kill them “sustainably.” However, the Hooker’s Sealion is the world’s
rarest and the colony is the only one of its kind. Therefore we are justified to ask that it be entirely protected.
The same kind of situation exists on the West Coast. These are not common
forests – they are lowland forests and we have very few of them left in
this country.
Why The West Coast Still Has Lowland Native Forest
Supporters of Timberlands enjoy claiming that the West Coast people are
better conservationists than the rest of New Zealanders and this is why
they still have native forests.
There are a number of reasons why there are still some lowland native forests left on the West Coast. They do not, however, prove that West Coasters are better conservationists than any one else.
Firstly, the West Coast is extremely mountainous. During the years of colonial settlement and land clearance, high altitude areas throughout New
Zealand were not favourable for pastoral farming due to inaccessibility,
poor climate and poor soil conditions. Because of this, many high altitude
habitats survived and became the basis of our current national parks system. There are more of these forests on the West Coast simply because
there were more high altitude forested landscapes to start with.
Secondly, the lowland forests of the West Coast have been plundered as with
the rest of New Zealand. For example, even in the relatively richly forested Hokitika Ecological District the area of lowland alluvial podocarp
forest reduced from 19.2% in 1860 to less than 0.1% today. This represents
only 0.2% of the existing unmodified vegetation in that District. The story
is much the same in the Grey Valley, the Buller, and (to a lesser extent)
south of Hokitika.
Thirdly, in dryer regions it was much easier to clear forest, as forests
would more easily burn. This vulnerability to fire damage in some regions
(e.g. Canterbury, Marlborough) was a key reason why there were large deforested areas when Europeans first arrived in the country. In other regions (especially in the North Island) forests were cleared by settlers
and burned to make way for pasture. The West Coast is very wet and the forests were (and are) far more resilient to clearance by fire.
Fourthly, most of the highly profitable lowland alluvial podocarp forests
on the West Coast were cleared long ago. The last remnants of heavily wooded lowland podocarp forest were clear felled up until recently (e.g.
Kaniere, Wanganui, and Ianthe forests), with the exception of Okarito and
Saltwater forests which are being logged by Timberlands. If beech was as
profitable as rimu there wouldn’t be any lowland beech forests left either.
One Tree Per Hectare?
Timberlands constantly claim that the Beech Scheme involves harvesting
only one tree per hectare per year (on average). This sounds very gentle.
It is designed to sound very gentle. Lets take a closer look.
The Beech Scheme plans do state that (on average) one tree per hectare will
be removed from the forest.. But the Timberlands public relations mantra does not explain how many trees will be cut down but not
“harvested.” In addition to those trees removed from the
forest we have what is called “improvement felling” which allows for up to
two more trees per hectare to be felled and left dead in the forest.. In addition to this, any tree that is damaged by a falling tree is to be felled and left dead in the forest. .The management plan runs on a 15 year cycle and so 15 years worth
are taken in the first year, and repeated every 15 years thereafter.
In summary: Year 1 – single operational hectare Selection felling = 15 trees/ha Improvement felling = 30 trees/ha Hygiene felling (damaged trees) = 5 trees/ha (a conservative estimate) Total = 50 trees/ha (approximate) Year 16 – repeat cycle = 100 trees/ha (approximate total)
In other words, approximately 100 trees per hectare will be felled
every 30 years.. In addition to this there is the impact of roading, which opens up forests to pest and predators (the helicopter is
only able to be used for log removal to within 2 km of a road). The ecological impact of this rate of logging will be significant, particularly
when carried out in old-growth lowland habitats such as the Maruia forest.
Disturbance Regimes
In response to such scrutiny Timberlands tends to argue that this kind
of analysis is not looking at the bigger dynamic picture – forests are constantly changing, regenerating and evolving. According to Timberlands,
conservationists are looking through a “window” at a static picture rather
than seeing the dynamic system through a “video.” Lets take a closer look
at disturbance regimes.
Any natural forest will be subjected to a regime of natural disturbance.
Human induced disturbance adds to the overall disturbance regime by increasing disturbance events due to forest fragmentation, introduced pests
and weeds, roading, and logging. In time, the impacts of the human disturbance regime, together with the natural disturbance regime, will change the character of the forest.
Indigenous forestry management aims to change the forest structure to increase the proportion of commercial species and specimens. This lowers
the age structure of the forest which changes from an old-growth to a regenerating system. Many of the Beech Scheme forests are old-growth and
their habitat values relate to this. Changing the age structure from old-growth to regenerating will degrade the habitat of rare or endangered
species that rely on old-growth environments. This is one of the many reasons why conservationists are opposed to the Beech Scheme. A report released by Crown Research Institute “Landcare” helps to point this out by
showing that the rate of the proposed Beech Scheme logging will not sustain
the old-growth character of the forest.
Jobs And Conservation
A common complaint by people campaigning against forest conservation is
that conservationists have caused job losses on the West Coast and that
more conservation would simply mean more job losses. The facts suggest otherwise.
Most job losses on the West Coast over the last fifteen years have resulted
from state and private sector restructuring. For example, between March and
April 1987 state sector job numbers dropped from 2,371 to 1,497. This number dropped further by 1991 to 917. These job losses resulted directly
from the enactment of the State Owned Enterprises Act and the establishment
of the Department of Conservation which saw a major reshuffling of state
sector employment on the West Coast.
Total job losses were also affected by private sector restructuring that
came about from the removal of regional development grants and the loss of
trade tariffs which were fostering West Coast industries such as manufacturing. In a period of 18 months to December 1987 the regional unemployment rate had risen from 6.7% to 12.8%. This had risen by 1991 to
13.9%, second only to Gisborne, and one of the highest rates of unemployment per capita in the country. The number of those gainfully employed declined by a further 7.6% between 1991 and 1996. According to the
1994 Prime Ministerial Task Force on Employment the West Coast suffered the
largest decline in regional employment between 1987 and 1993.
Shutting Down An Industry?
A common claim of Timberlands supporters is that conservationists want
to shut down the entire forest industry on the West Coast. The facts prove
otherwise:
The majority of the West Coast forest industry is in exotic forestry. Conservationists do not want to shut this industry down. Indeed Native Forest Action and Forest and Bird are promoting the transferral of the West
Coast state owned exotic forests to local government control and ownership.
This proposal originated from West Coast Resource Interests – an amalgamation of West Coast forest industry players. Conservationists are
supporting this locally grown proposal.
Furthermore, conservationists acknowledge that any loss of employment from
the ending of native logging needs to be offset through some form of compensation that would satisfy the social and economic aims of the West
Coast Accord. This is why Native Forest Action is calling for a regional
Development package for the West Coast that would adequately compensate for
the ending of the native component of State forestry on the West Coast.
The West Coast Accord
It is commonly claimed by Timberlands supporters that conservationists
are reneging on the West Coast Accord.
In fact, the heavy logging of rimu in the Buller is supported in the Accord
only for that period while there were insufficient volumes of exotic timber
to satisfy the local demand for timber in West Coast mills. Currently, Timberlands is logging rimu in the Buller in breach of the West Coast Accord because there are now sufficient volumes of pine capable of satisfying the local demand for timber in West Coast mills.
However, SOE Timberlands West Coast Limited (TWC) are doing two things to
obscure this fact: 1. TWC are sending over half their pine logs off the Coast for milling (see
Timberlands 1998 Financial Review) 2. TWC are leaving their pines in the ground rather than beginning to harvest them on the basis of their commercial preference (i.e. to harvest
the state pines on a late cut as opposed to a base cut scenario). One of
the motivations behind this commercial preference relates to the high profits TWC can get from logging rimu, which is why TWC wants to obscure
the fact that there is indeed sufficient pine available now to end the Buller Overcut.
Outsiders Dictating To Locals?
Timberlands supporters commonly claim that conservationists are not local people, and that “foreign greenies” are trying to tell West Coasters
what to do with their own resources.
In fact, there are many West Coast residents who are opposed to the logging
of native forests. For example, in February 1999 Native Forest Action gathered petition signatures for their own petition in Westport. In just 32
hours of street contact, NFA gathered over 600 signatures on a petition
calling for an ending of native logging on the West Coast in exchange for a
regional development package.
There are also many West Coast residents who may support native logging of
some form but who do not support TWC or their current and future logging
plans. This means that there is a significant constituency on the West Coast that does not support the status quo and who are willing to see some
significant changes in the management of the West Coast native forests.
Moreover, the native forests in question are not owned by West Coast people
alone. They are State owned and therefore owned by all New Zealanders –
over 99% of whom live in other regions. These owners deserve to have a say
in their natural heritage.
Furthermore, regional development proposals put forward by Native Forest
Action and Forest and Bird do not amount to telling West Coasters what to
do. This is because the proposals have come from West Coast people themselves. Native Forest Action has taken heed of these suggestions, supported them, and invites other New Zealanders to support them too.
Such proposals include transferring the ownership of state pines to local
government, state funding for exotic forestry plantings in the Coastal Buller, state funding assistance for sewage schemes in Westport, Reefton
and Greymouth. There are not many people on the West Coast and it would not
cost the rest of New Zealand very much to help the region economically in
exchange for the protection of national and international treasures.
