|New Zealand Forest and Bird Protection Society refutes Timberlands plans for sustainable beech logging as myth. Forest and Bird regional officer Eugenie Sage details the flaws in TWC Resource Consent application. Forest destruction plans torn apart. NFA (Native Forest Action) members to note. Threatened wildlife species in Maruia beech forest would be endangered by felling of habitat trees.|
Note: to make this whole document easier to read, I have inserted headings
that Eugenie did not make explicit in her talk. They are in green.
They are there to break up the expanse of text into more digestible chunks.
|I will refer to the West Coast Accord in several places in this document. The Accord is a legally binding contract between the Government and several other organisations, and it deals with allocation of state forest land once managed by the New Zealand Forest Service, and some other land and issues, and the management of the forest. There is a copy of the Accord on this site. Go here to read it. The Royal Forest and Bird Society Inc signed the Accord. The key element of the Accord as far as this debate is concerned reads " that the indigenous forests be managed to allow a continuing supply of indigenous timber in perpetuity;". In other words, Forest and Bird should be supporting sustainable forest management, not opposing it. Supporting it is what they signed for.|
|Some of the recent work that has been done has shown that we have a lot more species that are threatened with extinction than previously thought. Some 1,000 species of our known plants and animals and fungi, and that is nearly double the previous estimate. Of course it does not include those species which are as yet undescribed.||This paragraph has the first example in this talk, typical of the writing of Forest and Bird, of exaggeration of information. The threat referred to in the Report is not one to extinction.|
|A lot of the work in that shows that nearly 2/3rds of the New Zealand landscape is now ecologically hostile to many native species. And a much higher proportion of our land area in New Zealand, some 52% of the total land area and some 90% of lowland area is hostile to many native species.||A lapse into rhetorical journalism? It so happens that 52% is LESS THAN 2/3rds. Perhaps arithmetic was not a prerequisite for arts and history. Data yet to be checked.|
|We have this clean green myth, but that largely relates, I think, to the amount of pastureland in New Zealand, and it is because of our pastoral farming history, that we have got this very high proportion of disturbed habitat, much higher than our actual population would normally suggest. And because of that, it is a lot higher than the world average. Forest and Bird protection is battling for those areas of largely undisturbed of the bird habitat are much more important because of the extensive loss and degradation of the existing indigenous habitat.||Of course it is larger than the world average. The world average would include Antarctica and all the Arctic, and all the deserts. It would be more valid to compare NZ with other moist temperate countries with an economy similarly dependent on soil-based enterprises .|
|(Looking at a projected image of maps of New Zealand at three dates).||A copy of these three maps yet to be obtained for examination. The one representing the oldest data showed Canterbury plains (matagouri scrub?) and the Hauraki/Waikato swamps as forest.|
|And the Timberlands application area contains - for the Resource Consent - at least 19 threatened or uncommon vascular plants; and unlike some of the wildlife work, there has been very little work done, looking at the extent of the threat - from the scientists view, in the Timberlands forests. And it also contains significant populations of at least 24 bird species including eight species that are threatened with extinction. Some of those are the South Island kaka, the New Zealand falcon, the Blue duck, weka; and native fish species like the kokopu. And it is a given that these species are totally dependent on forest for breeding and shelter. From Forest and Bird's perspective, any areas where these species occur should be set aside for their recovery.||
This paragraph deserves close analysis. For the plants, look at Phillip Knightbridge's paper (search this site for it with the search engine - link at top of page). His report was not pessimistic. Further, the DOC scientists generally, told Deborah Coddington " The recommendation that consent be declined was a planning tool, which would give our position and suggested conditions more weight, when it came to the environment court hearing. Nothing more, nothing less. We felt the bulk of the application did in fact meet the criteria for sustainability".
The sentences about birds grossly exaggerate. It seems most likely that the data are from Table 1 of Colin O'Donnell's paper, since F&B have used his paper frequently ahead of most of all others. Nine of the species - harrier, bellbird, weka, kea, shining cuckoo, kingfisher, grey warbler, fantail and silvereye - do not need forest; they are facultative forest dwellers. Of the nine primary (but not obligate) forest dwellers - robin, falcon, pigeon, long-tailed cuckoo, morepork, rifleman, tui, brown creeper and tit - all are well catered for outside TWC forests, long-tailed cuckoo when in NZ is primarily in the North Island. Of the obligate forest dwellers - kaka, yellow-crowned parakeet, yellowhead, great spotted kiwi, blue duck and orange-fronted parakeet - yellowhead is considered to be absent from the TWC forests, and blue duck relies more on turbulent streams per se than streams in forests for survival. The remaining two obligate forest dwellers are bats, one of which (short-tailed bat) is thought to be absent from TWC forests.
Colin O'Donnell's paper (see this site) refers to studies showing that some of the TWC forests did have during 1994 - 1999. significant populations of many of these bird species. None of them have a distribution that is confined to TWC forests, and the TWC forests are about only 10 per cent of the West Coast state forests.
Decide for yourself if it is a true statement that these species are all totally dependent on forest for breeding and shelter.
|So in terms of the management system that's being proposed by Timberlands, it was largely an experimental system, and it wouldn't sustain the whole range of values associated with indigenous forest. It may sustain certainly an overall forest cover, and timber yield, but not the life-supporting capacity, and not the same distribution and abundance of a lot of the species that are there today.||
This is an example of several sweeping assertions made in a journalistic style, without factual basis, combined into one sentence, and designed to persuade the uninformed and/or uncritical reader or audience that the TWC plans are bad.
It is not entirely true that the system is experimental, as such single-tree and small-coupe felling systems have been successfully used for centuries. Even if it were true, "experimental" does not necessarily equal "bad".
No proof is given for the assertion that it can not sustain the whole range of values associated with indigenous forest, or, more to the point - since some changes must occur - whether or not the changes that are made make significant changes to the values of the forest. The last two phrases of the sentence are quite untrue; there is no reasonable basis for saying that the life-supporting capacity will be impaired; nor that the distribution and abundance of species will be impaired.
Dr Henrik Moller covers these points in his major submission prepared for the Environmental Court; see this site. He and other serious ecological and conservation experts such as Professor John Craig (see this site) of Auckland University consider the TWC plans to be sound.
Finally, in the West Coast Accord, which Forest and Bird signed as agreeing to, sustainable forestry is a key element.
|And the whole grouped-tree selection system that Timberlands has been proposing hasn't been widely used before in New Zealand, there's not a strong research position - because, in our view it is a continuation really of the old experimentation in beech logging and in native forest management we've seen previously with the Forest Service. And David Norton outlined last week some of the work that was done with group felling and selection logging. And we think that this system with the group tree selection, where you are taking between one and ten beech trees in groups throughout the forest is a continuation of this experimentation.||One point that came out of Dr David Norton's presentation, and which is also logical, if you think about it, is that experimentation is another name for trying different methods of achieving a clearly envisaged goal. As each method is tried and evaluated, the strong and weak points, the positive and negative points, are identified and related to the biological processes of a growing forest, the current method gets better as processes become better understood and unsatisfactory methods are discarded. TWC has reached a point of refinement and perfection of method that has already been given international acclaim by experts; and yet Timberlands consider that they can do better still.|
|So it seems to me that there have been quite a lot of somersaults in terms of what is proposed, and there's no long research position in just what the effects of what these small-scale clearcuts scattered throughout the forest will be. And because we don't have the luxury of having a piece of forest cover left to experiment with, that's been a basis for our view that these areas, because of the threatened species, because they're part of a large continuous patch of forest, are not appropriate for further experiment in indigenous forest logging.||
Some of this has been dealt with already. "Somersaults" is a journalistic way of trying to make valid experimentation sound bad. "Clearcuts", likewise, is rhetoric intended to persuade the reader that coupes of 1 - a few trees in number, cover an area considerably bigger than they really do, and are bad as well.
Exactly what was intended by "we don't have the luxury of a piece of forest cover left to experiment with", is unclear, since if TWC have 98,000 hectares equalling just 10% of the total area of State indigenous estate on the West Coast, then the statement is a nonsense because trial areas can obviously be found. It seems to me that the author wanted to say something to make TWC trials sound bad and almost anything flowing from the end of a pen would do.
Dr Henrik Moller deals at length with the relationship between the threatened species and the minimal impacts of TWC sustainable logging in his lengthy critique of Dr Colin O'Donnell's TWC Critique paper (this site), so refer to that. He demolishes the inference and argument as being without valid foundation.
If a trial area is part of a large continuous patch of forest, that fact provides a buffer in the event that something did go badly wrong. If nothing went wrong, it wouldn't matter either way.
Please note that during the period from November 1999 to about April 2000, Ian James, Kit Richards, and Drs Henrik Moller, Graham Whyte and Euan Mason, have, in submissions to the Environmental Court, in published scientific papers (including on the Internet - see Dr Euan Mason's site here.) and in detailed articles in newspapers, corrected erroneous statements about the TWC model and have exposed the many flaws of the Landcare growth model. Deborah Coddington also covered this in her "North and South" documentary. I have a page devoted to the flaws of the Landcare model on this site.
Despite all these publications, Ms Sage continues to make the same outrageous and erroneous statements about these growth models as she did months ago, and as though nobody else has said or written a word.
|And because a lot of that research work has (never? - audio unclear) been done Timberlands is relying on population modelling to replace it for determining what is an appropriate extraction rate, and what is an appropriate logging regime.||Forest growth models and stand growth simulation by computer are used frequently by foresters to forecast more accurately. The growth of radiata pine is extremely well understood (by comparison with other species) in New Zealand, and growth models are routinely used in the management of that species. So why not with beech? The statement does not stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Growth models enable forest managers to reliably and precisely apply growth "rules" based on the findings of years of study, to changes proposed for a forest. The proposed changes can be run in as many computer trials as needed, fine-tuning details until they are right, without touching a tree. Then the plan based on the best "computer run" can be applied to the forest stand, in the confident knowledge that most human error at the computational stage has been avoided. Forestry knowledge and commonsense is still applied in the forest situation, however.|
|And the model that is being used is based on one that has been developed for tropical forests, and some of the assumptions in it; we've got no confidence that they can actually apply to New Zealand beech forest. Again, this has been a method of management that has only been developed in the last 5 to 10 years. There hasn't been the time for small-scale research trials over anything like a native species in a rotation cycle to expand to the forest.||
Well, now you know. Probably many Scots would like it to be true at times.
Scotland is in the tropics.
The Usher model was developed for, and first used on, Scots pine forest in Scotland.
A cool temperate forest with some even-aged components. Like our beech and rimu forest.
New Zealand foresters have much experience with growth models, and detailed understanding of the natural rules affecting growth in beech forest.
|And the model is equilibrium-based, it assumes that mortality is the same as growth, and it is all started from a range of beech forest plots to actually substantiate this.||Probably a pretty sound process, to actually base the model on facts gleaned from measurements of the forest, don't you think! Where a beech forest is mature and stable, trees that die will be replaced by trees growing up from smaller sizes. Common sense and that's also what happens in our beech forest.|
|And because some of the extraction rates in the model are based on the average growth rate of the beech for broad tree diameter classes, rather than site-specific growth models, there may be quite a difference in growth rate in different size classes across the forest. And Timberlands acknowledges this, but a lot of that site-specific data hasn't been adequately researched and this could mean that the requirements for extraction rates from the model, across the forest, then you could be undercutting in some areas and overcutting in others. And then there is a lack of research to actually question whether these things - to establish that the assumptions in the model can be applied to Timberlands forests.||
Timberlands are probably well aware of this possibility and probably have operational rules dealing with how to avoid over-cutting. I would have thought that Forest and Bird would welcome the possibility of undercutting. The regular independent audits would find out such problems in time to prevent significant damage due to such misadventure.
The last sentence is just more emotive rhetoric intended to spray a bit more anxiety around.
|And Landcare's analysis showed that there would be a substantially reduced number of larger older trees over 200 years, and a major change in the older established forest.||
Here, Ms Sage unwittingly draws attention to the major defect of the Landcare models (there are two). This is that Murray Efford put them on the Internet, programmed so as to be able to be run for 400 years and more, without corrective intervention during the simulation run.
The TWC Resource Consent applications were for only 35 years. TWC envisage that improved models would be developed by TWC as accumulated data are applied to the mathematics, and an essential part of the process is that constant feedback from forest observations and re-measurement would correct the running of each model (and application of the results) in the adaptive management process.
It was dishonest and grossly misleading, to politicians and the public, to make the models available for untutored public use in this manner. No growth models are run over 200 years or more without reality checks along the way, with correction where needed. Not even over 10 years or more.
|Landcare showed that Timberlands had over-estimated the number of beech trees they would be logging, and the number of larger older trees which would remain after logging. And, initially, there was, I think, an over-estimate of about 22 per cent of the number of - um - well it is an over-estimate of about 10 - 30 per cent of the population growth that would occur for each 15 year cutting cycle. And if you compound this over 200 years you get a substantial reduction in the number of bigger, older trees that would remain.||This is a wild and unsubstantiated attempt to spread panic. Possibly what Ms Sage is alluding to is the setting that Dr Efford fitted in the first model he released. This assumed that TWC could not predict which trees were going to die next and fell those in preference. The second model was somewhat improved in that a manual adjustment to this percentage cut is available. Again, the model should not have been able to run for more than 35 years, and certainly not without it being possible to make corrections along the way.|
|And one of the mistakes in the model had to do with the sapling recruitment and the time taken for trees to grow through each of the size classes, to one from another. And there were over-estimates in there and so over-estimates in the amount of timber and trees that were available for logging and so on; that it affected the number of trees that remained.||This is not a mistake, and is referred to by Ian James in his Assessment of Environmental Effects. He points out that the widespread occurrence of "cohorts" or patches of even-aged parts of stands that have grown up all together when they have regenerated after one of the frequent disasters that these forests are subject to, means that much of the forest has trees growing up in "pulses" or "bursts" of even-sized trees. Dr Efford wrongly assumed that there is always a smooth gradation in size (numbers of trees spread through the diameter range), and criticised the TWC model on this basis. He is wrong. West Coast beech forest is not like that. Windthrow, earthquake and insect attack sometimes kill trees in big patches and the beech forest grows up again right there. As it does when felled by man. In somewhat even-aged stands.|
|And the Landcare analysis was quite fair, but there was a lot more information needed, on natural forest dynamics and just how the forest would respond to the different extraction regimes.||The Landcare analysis was unfair, not to mention unethical. There were no other extraction regimes intended for these stands or planned. Furthermore Dr Murray Efford made a presentation here to a Parliamentary Select Committee which seems to be misleading and unscientific.|
|There were problems with the model, but there was also from past research and experience, major problems with impact on wildlife. And in the past, logging regimes have caused dramatic declines in many bird species especially New Zealand bird species. And there's no research showing that the Timberlands' regime could be any different. And Timberlands itself admits that the effects on birdlife is one of the great unknowns in terms of its management.||
Dr Henrik Moller here deals with the point of past logging practices and the impacts on birdlife in detail, in his examination of Dr Colin O'Donnell's Critique. Dr O'Donnell makes the same erroneous and misleading comparisons; perhaps Ms Sage adopted his comments uncritically. Both authors seem intent to deceive.
The past logging practices referred to are forms of clearfelling which left very little of the original forest intact. The harvesting under sustainable management for which Timberlands sought Environment Court consents has such minor impacts on forest and wildlife, the forest being left almost entirely intact, that the comparisons would be laughable if it were not for the serious political consequences.
To say that there is "no research showing that the Timberlands' regime could be any different." seems to me to be a mischievous piece of rhetoric, since a simple examination of the facts - the relative degree of tree removal, and birdlife preferences - (which Ms Sage avoids) are all that is required to show this.
|And in terms of the threatened species, even any percentage reduction in the distribution and abundance of those species is unacceptable.||
As pointed out by Dr Moller in his thorough examination of Dr O'Donnell's 'Critique', there is no proof that the sustainable management process will cause reduction in numbers, and an examination of the habitat (available nesting and roosting holes, etc) shows there is ample space for populations several orders of magnitude larger, and it is clear that predation by (eg stoats) is the cause of population decline.
This sentence is another example of rhetoric designed to cause unwarranted alarm.
|We do know that logging reduces the average age and size of trees, and it is the larger older trees in the forest which have highest habitat value, and are disproportionately important to wildlife for foraging, nesting and roosting. And also for climbing and perching plants.||As pointed out by Dr Moller in his examination of Dr O'Donnell's 'Critique' and elsewhere, with the appropriate calculations, the proposed felling intensity would come no-where close to limiting the availability of essential habitat trees in such a way that the populations of threatened birds and bats were affected.|
|So these bigger older trees, because they've got more dead branches falling off, there are obviously more cavities forming holes that they are very important as wildlife trees in the forest. And for something like yellow-crowned parakeet, they're a Category 3 threatened species, they were once common throughout the forest of New Zealand, but today they are found mostly in low numbers in quite large forest blocks. And they rarely survive in small isolated forest blocks. Their numbers are being greatly reduced by predators, they are not able to live outside native forest, and they need large holes. And like species like mohoua (or yellowhead), they can't nest in holes below a certain minimum size, and those holes are only able to form in the large trees.||As pointed out by Dr Moller in his examination of Dr O'Donnell's 'Critique' and elsewhere, with the appropriate calculations, the proposed felling intensity would come no-where close to limiting the availability of essential habitat trees in such a way that the populations of threatened birds and bats were affected. While the information about mohoua and yellow-crowned parakeet is interesting - I have not yet been able to check it for accuracy - discussing it here in this manner seems more intended to cause alarm without just reason, than to inform.|
|And the people like Dr Colin O'Donnell and Peter Dilks have modelled the impact that different rates of timber extraction would have on forest birds, and they have based their studies on work they have done on foraging behaviour of species like parakeet, and they have shown that at even small extraction rates of 20 per cent of those trees, they have been associated with significant decline in yellow-crowned parakeet population.||As pointed out by Dr Moller in his examination of Dr O'Donnell's 'Critique' and elsewhere, here for the table of values and important comments 31 - 33, and here (see comments 35, 36 - 39) and here (see comments 62, 63, 64 and 65) with the appropriate calculations, the proposed felling intensity would come no-where close to limiting the availability of essential habitat trees in such a way that the populations of threatened birds were further endangered . Further, the extraction rates proposed for 'habitat trees' was not as high as the 'small extraction rate of 20%', which actually seems quite high. It is revealing that in his June 1998 report to DOC Westland, Dr O'Donnell does not use his 1990 joint paper with Peter Dilks on modelling yellow-crowned parakeet populations in relation to tree harvest rates. This suggests that he had reduced confidence in it.|
|One of the other issues was the whole proposal for improvement felling which was a regime to thin a forest of defective stems for timber purposes. And that was likely to gradually reduce the whole suitability of the forest for hole-using, and hole-using species.||This assertion is shown to be wrong by Dr Moller who writes " Saplings removed for "improvement felling" are not expected to be the main source of future holes because foresters select for shape and holes are triggered by environmental damage later in their lives." See here, and here for comment 69. In other words, wind and snow damage cause the holes by breaking branches out from the tree-trunk, not the fact of whether or not a tree is straight.|
|And in terms of the whole impact on the number of wildlife species, there has been population modelling done to work out the extraction rates of trees, but there has been no similar population modelling done to look at the impact of the logging regime on the wildlife. And so it was going into a not .... .... knowing from our past experience that there would be impacts but being totally unclear about the extent of those impacts.||Untrue. Ms Sage has already referred indirectly to the 1990 paper on precisely such modelling by Colin O'Donnell and Peter Dilks.|
|And with the loss of the bigger older trees too, there might have been quite a loss of special food sources, that may have reduced the abundance of birds in the surrounding upland forests, and because the relationships between wildlife and plants aren't well understood, any decline in the abundance and distribution of seed trees through habitat loss and dispersal could also affect pollination, could affect dispersal, and the abundance of plant species like mistletoe. Because you've got species like pigeons and tuis and bellbird and they are very important dispersers of seed of many native forest plants. Pigeons are the only species that disperse the very large fruits of a number of species; tui and bellbird are important pollinators of our plant species, so if they are reduced in numbers, then it could result in some native forest plants declining in abundance as well and becoming locally rare or extinct. And the rarity of mistletoes in some areas may be a reflection of the losses of dispersers such as kaka and mohoua (or yellowhead).||
There seems to be some quite woolly thinking here. Beech trees are wind-pollinated and have a small seed that is dispersed by wind. There is no suggestion in the associated papers (Moller, O'Donnell) that tui and bellbird could be endangered by the sustainable management proposals. Only Coprosma obconica (see Philip Knightbridge's paper) might be affected by pigeon abundance; and in any case there is no serious suggestion that pigeon could be deleteriously affected by sustainable forest management.
If mistletoes are being affected by loss of kaka and mohoua, that is certainly due at least in part to past and current predation (eg by stoats), not by future logging!
|Other problems from the impact of logging is the logging regime that was proposed, in the Maruia forest, 11,000 hectares, in two blocks of that forest, there was new roading at least 29 kilometres proposed and about 22 skid-sites. And for species like the New Zealand robin which doesn't move across bare ground. The whole roading of the forest, fragmenting the forest, possibly causing reduction in the size of populations in particular areas, and maybe causing bad breeding conditions and causing the populations to reduce in size.||This paragraph seems unduly alarmist. Ms Sage doesn't specify which species "like robin" she is concerned about. Also, it seems incomprehensible that any bird species which has already survived huge forest catastrophes caused by wind and earthquake damage would be significantly affected by the construction of narrow roads under forest canopy. Finally, it is typical of forest roads in such areas to be laid out at least in part as finger roads. Birds, if constrained as Ms Sage suggests , could easily move around the ends. The robin is able to fly.|
|There was very - there were no actual surveys done to establish the abundance and distribution of native fish species within the area targeted for logging, there was only a desk-top survey done.||The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research have a very comprehensive national set of fish occurrence and abundance records available for examination. The DOC submitter, Philippe Gerbeaux, was concerned about low data in Maruia only, and was satisfied with the readiness of TWC to take appropriate action to benefit native fish.|
|So reserve areas covered a very low percentage - about 10 per cent I think - of the range of some species like kaka and parakeet, and so they weren't going to protect viable populations. And a lot of those concerns were echoed by the Department of Conservation in their evidence.||
The TWC forests are surrounded by reserves (the DOC estate) covering about 1 million hectares in total. Birds are well catered for. My understanding is that the reserves were for the benefit of uncommon and/or rare plants requiring special rare habitat types, such as scree and talus slopes such as below cliffs.
Deborah Coddington reported, in her "North & South" article that DOC scientists were very cross about being mis-represented by Ms Sage, and this sentence seems to repeat similar mis-representation.
|And one of the other major issues is that commercial imperatives will often impede changes in logging practice, if they are picked up through monitoring, and I think a key example of this is the continued Buller overcut. Where you've got a company that can, in the last 12 months, cause huge damage to Orikaka forest where there's an area for great spotted kiwi, one of the areas where you've got high numbers of kaka and parakeet, that have been recorded, and the company has gone on logging there because rimu logging is highly profitable and they need it for its cash flow. Timberlands managers recognise that the overcut is not sustainable, yet it hasn't been stopped. So if the company can't do that when the effects are known, when they recognise it is damaging, then we have no confidence that depending on that management regime will result in some of those changes being implemented if they affected the commercial return from logging.||
This paragraph is an incredible example of convoluted woolly thinking. Or mischief-making.
Monitoring has nothing to do with it.
The West Coast Accord which Forest and Bird is a signatory to (Go here) makes provision for the so-called "Buller Overcut" because government would not provide any operational funding for TWC, and TWC needed the income from this rimu harvest to provide the funds for the 10-year transition from rimu clearfelling to beech sustainable management and harvesting from their exotic forests, which were too immature earlier to consider harvesting. The industries using the rimu also needed time to make a transition from rimu to beech - but the beech had to be available first.
For Forest and Bird to argue as they do in this paragraph shows a complete lack of integrity, and inability to hold to an agreement.
This is not an instance where the thinking of TWC was wrongly influenced by a good financial return. They were abiding by a contract signed by Forest and Bird (and other conservation NGO's), government and industry. The objectionable clearfelling had an end-date (advanced by the last National government), and TWC consequently had a very tight timetable to work to, in order to get the sustainable beech management going.
|First of all, of course, there was - 6.2 million hectares, I think you said, existing today; that's based on the last Forest Service - Ministry of Forestry - records, in 1987. And in 1920, there was 6 point - well the best estimate was 6 million hectares. So there's been no loss of indigenous forest in that whole period in which we had the Forest Service. Despite logging. OK? And that's been acknowledged in many areas. .||Here, I think Dr Whyte is being unfair, and unreasonable. He is not comparing apples with apples. Land which has been cleared of emergent mature trees and/or a canopy of mature climax forest, and which then "reverts" to any one of a number of kinds of indigenous regrowth, is not clothed by forests of equivalent quality at the two points in time. And the forest quality aspect is extremely important. Two examples; in the book "Come be a Pioneer - In Times of Old Cape Runaway" (ISBN 00-473-04808-6), Jock Hindmarsh documents the tremendous effort expended by European settlers on leased Maori land to remove the forest to make way for grass; not only at Cape Runaway, but all over the East Coast region of the North Island. After the first flush of burn-induced fertility went, much of the land reverted eventually to high manuka-kanuka scrub and other low forest. These two kinds of forests may count as being the same area, but are of vastly different qualities. Secondly, in Northland and on the Coromandel, most of the old-growth kauri trees were felled, and several books document the effort people made to obtain the logs. Sometimes the cutover was burned, sometimes not. The land has remained in forest. The quality of the forest prior to felling was very different from that now, or at the last NZFS area check. Similar examples elsewhere in New Zealand abound.|
over 5 million ha of which are in indigenous forest.
DoC is not legislatively required to manage its forest resources sustainably..
Question 1 .
(a) Why not?.
(b) Where is the evidence in formal reports based on accurate surveys that DoC's forest ecosystems throughout the 5 million ha are being fully monitored to determine changes in flora, fauna and physical attributes in terms of their future biodiversity, soil and water qualities, scenic, recreational and amenity values and usufruct rights?.
© If neither conducted nor reported, why not?.
(d) Why was the transfer of TWC's indigenous forest resources to DoC the top priority of the Labour /Alliance minority coalition government? [Note: TWC was trying to manage sustainably, DoC is not].
(e) What is the likely ball-park annual cost per hectare of stock-taking, monitoring, auditing and responding through remedial operations of ensuring sustainable outcomes in indigenous forests without harvest revenue?.
Question 2 .
(a) Does not the 1991 RMA legislation need to be modified to accommodate Labour's change in forest policy?.
(b) Should New Zealand remove its signature from the Rio Declaration of Forest Principles, the Montreal Process and other UN initiatives?.
The Montreal Process requires various indicators to be monitored and reported for each of the seven criteria set out below:.
1 Conservation of biodiversity
2 Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
3 Maintenance of ecosystem health and vitality
4 Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
5 Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles
6 Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies
7 Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management
|Eugenie Sage: Just in terms of your statement, I think; I don't think I have mis-represented the impact of logging on wildlife. There's been quite a lot of research done by Eric Spurr, Colin O'Donnell, Peter Dilks and others which does show that logging does have a major impact on wildlife.||She certainly has mis-represented the impact of logging on wildlife. This has been dealt with also by Dr Henrik Moller to took Dr O'Donnell to task for his mis-representation of this matter. The misrepresentation was done by taking data from clearfelled areas in one set of years and applying it to sustainable management harvesting techniques in other years. The former has severe impacts while the latter has none or negligible impacts; and of course it is not scientifically valid to make comparisons across time gaps on top of the differences in location. Go to here for comments 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 which cover this issue.|
|And the fact that Timberlands may spend more per hectare, I think is irrelevant, because they are only spending it on a very small area, and that therefore ignores what's happening elsewhere.||This extraordinary assertion neatly says more about the logical approach of the speaker than any other one sentence. Should TWC to do pest control for DOC on the DOC estate as well?|