Forest row — bitter and personal

Press, 30 August 1979, Page 17

Forest row — bitter and personal

Milling at Minginui of 600-year-old rimu and other native trees from Whirinaki State Forest is not only a matter for reasoned argument — it is an emotional issue.

The people of Minginui village, the Forest Service, and the conservationists all have points of view touched by emotion. Members of the public may feel that the emotional nature of the issue is obscuring the facts for them, and so hindering the reaching of a reasonable conclusion.

But even the “facts” of the Whirinaki issue are emotional ones. The conservationists feel that enough indigenous forest has been milled over the last century, that what is left should be reserved in its virgin state, that mills dependent on indigenous timber should either be closed or converted to exotic timber, and that natural values of fauna and flora should be preserved in these remnant forests.

The Forest Service and Minginui villagers agree in principle, but say that in practice doing this would involve killing the village because the mill could not handle exotics instead, that conversion to exotics would cost a lot of time and money, that only some of the forest is being disturbed, and that replanting schemes are now in full swing.

On May 14, the Forest Service published a plan for the management of Whirinaki. Submissions from the public on this closed on August 17 and must now be processed. In the meantime, milling of Whirinaki timber at Minginui continues, and this has aroused much criticism. The main complaint is that if the Forest Service really cared what

the public thought, it would stop logging so that all points of view could be considered calmly. By continuing logging while the management plan is being discussed, the plan becomes seen as the avowed intention of the Forest Service no matter what anyone else might think.

The row over logging during public discussion of the management plan is symptomatic of the whole argument over Whirinaki. There is no good will on either side.

No moratorium was promised by the Forest Service during public discussion of the management plan, and it considers it impossible to stop logging. Minginui is geared to cut indigenous logs and it would need drastic and very expensive alterations to its main machinery before it could cut exotics instead.

The issue might have been cooled if the Forest Service had promised a logging moratorium for Whirinaki. But the Forest Service claims this was not possible. Certainly, the timing of the trials in the Old Fort Road area to coincide with the public submissions was unfortunate — even unwise. The Forest Service claims the trials were planned well in advance and that the only other two sites that might have been suitable are now included in reserves. The Forest Service claims that the only other options open to it would be to clear-fell other areas rather than selectively-log the dense lowland podocarp forest, or to select-ively-log other areas further north which have bad and expensive access.

Shifting to exotics now rather than phasing them in over 10 years would cost Minginui Sawmills,

Ltd, $2.2M to convert, and would mean logging immature exotic trees from Kaingaroa Forest some miles north-west. The Forest Service claims that because of a hiatus in planting in the 19505, these immature exotics are already under dangerous pressure.

But still it is hard to avoid the feeling that to some extent the Forest Service is the author of its own misfortunes.

The seven objects of management for Whirinaki set out in the management plan conflict, some directly, and are bound to be a fruitful basis for dispute. Both supporters and critics of the management plan can shift their position from one objective to another every time the other side becomes too pressing. The seven objects are:—

1. Protection of water and soil values. 2. Maintenance of the present area of indigenous high forest.

3. Re-establishment of indigenous timber species by natural or artificial means.

4. Reservation of representative areas of forest types, plant communities, and historic sites of special scientific or public interest.

5. Maintenance of the social and economic viability of the Minginui comihunity.

6. Management of in-digenous-exotic timber resources on a sustained yield basis. 7. Development and encouragement of public use of the forest for recreational purposes.

As far as number 7 is concerned, although highly desirable, New Zealand’s declining population and the shortage of ever-more expensive petrol means that the public will be less able to get to Whirinaki, even should greater numbers become more keen to do so.

Debate over the objectives is endless. Someone will have to step in and make a decision as to what needs to be done. This will be the Minister of Forests (Mr V. S. Young), who is also Minister of Lands and Minister for the Environment.

As Mr Young is already being vilified by even moderate conservationists, his position as holder of the three portfolios is unenviable. It is increasingly surprising that he finds his position tenable.

One factor not mentioned in the seven objectives is wildlife. A 1971 study failed to find kokako in Whirinaki but identified a number of other native birds. A three-year study begun in 1978 will study bird populations in fopr areas — two logged and two unlogged — bur none are in

the controversial Block 10. Indeed, Block 10 is not big enough to provide the bird stations needed for a scientific study. Apprehensions about the impact of selective logging on bird life in any native forest must remain. The best forest for birds is unlogged forest. The kaka and parakeets of Whirinaki nest in holes in old and rotten trees, which also provide nutrients for the soil when they fall. Some species (such as robins) seem to have adapted to life in nearby exotic forests but,

although kaka and parakeets live in exotic forests, there is no evidence that they will breed there. They may still need unlogged virgin forest to breed. It is not as if Whirinaki were the only dying podocarp forest in New Zealand. They nearly all seem to be, with the few exceptions mostly where roads or other human actions have broken the overhead canopy. And a broken canopy is bad for the bird life. Because this seems to be almost universal, the Forest Service is keen to preserve a high density lowland podocarp forest at Whirinaki by planting seedlings at the same time as it is selectively logging for the Minginui mill.

Does the Forest Service have the right to interfere with the natural process which is changing this podocarp forest into podo-carp-hardwood forest? If it

does have this right, can it be sure the way it has chosen is the right way to do it? These questions have no finite answers. The best one can do is make educated guesses, and then hope for the best. Is that good enough? On the other hand, if the Forest Service shut up Whirinaki and left it alone, could a high density podocarp forest survive there? If it could, how long would it survive? Does it matter if Minginui does not survive? Would a dead or dying forest have any merits? Could the Minginui community survive? Again, only educated guesses can be made. At this point a decision has to be made on the “facts” available and in the grip of whatever emotions the individual feels. The issue cannot be divorced from the emotions. That is why the dispute is bitter, so personal, and so unpleasant.

Controversy exists over the milling of trees at Whirinaki State Forest, 60 kilometres south-east of Rotorua. Conservationists, and the residents of Minginui, who say the issue is life or death for their community, are up in arms. In his second and final report OLIVER RIDDELL asks who will impose the solution and how it will be arrived at. His first report was published yesterday.