Conservation at breaking point

Press, 27 May 1981, Page 23

Conservation at breaking point

By <

OLIVER RIDDELL

The fragile alliance withir. the 32,000-strong membership of the royal Forest and Bird Protection Society — between those who seek political co-operation to achieve the aims of conservation, and those who seek political confrontation — is about to end. The winners will almost certainly be those using confrontation. They have won most of the battles, even if the war is not quite yet over. Since its inception in the

19205, the society has generally tended to seek change and improvement in environmental fields by working with people and trying to influence them. Opinions vary on how successful these tactics have been — or even whether they have been as successful as was needed — but that philosophy operated until the early 19705. . Then, dissatisfaction with the society, and clashes of personality within it, led to

the splintering off of more radical groups. These had varying degrees of success, but the best organised, and certainly the most effective, has been the Nelson-based Native Forests Action Council.

Its rise to prominence was certainly helped by its choice of native forests as its field

— they were the biggest conservation issue in the 1970 s — but it was also very well led.

Many council members were also members of the society, and it was natural that members of the most active group should interact with members of the biggest and wealthiest group. Both were successful in a number of endeavours during the 19705, sometimes working together and sometimes separately, but usually with mutual support. By 1978, it was no longer possible to be an active conservationist and not be political. It was over how to be political that the argument occurred. It sprang from the contempt the political co-operators had for the methods of the political confronters, matched by an equal contempt by the confronters for the co-operators. There was, and is, a place for both approaches, but there was little goodwill within the conservation

movement for other points of view.

It was in 1978 that the action council first seriously considered influencing society policy by having its sympathisers within the society elected to positions of power. This may not have been a calculated campaign, but it is surely more than an accident that after much lobbying of society branches the 1979 annual meeting of the society elected a national executive committee with strong sympathies and ties tothe council. This trend continued at the 1980 annual meeting, in spite of a few setbacks at branch meetings. The 1980-81 national executive committee has been vastly more amenable to council policies than was the committee of five years ago.

The council’s next step, it seems, is to replace the chief executives of the society with people more amenable to council policies, and even council direction. The apparent scenario for this is to have the present council research director, Mr Guy Salmon, appointed as national director of the society. This would involve the society shedding its national

conservation officer, Mr David Collingwood, and its national secretary, Mrs Olga Langford. It now looks as if this, will happen at the society’s annual meeting on June 13. By then those keen to see the appointment of Mr Salmon should have the support they need on the society’s national council to get their way. In case they do not, there is a remit before the annual conference that all staff be obliged to retire at the age of 60 years, instead of the present 65 years. It would net Mrs Langford and Mr Collingwood who both fall within this five-year period. This was not the original plan. When the post of national director was advertised in February, it .was anticipated that the society’s national executive would review the candidates and appoint Mr Salmon. But a number of the society’s branches insisted , the matter be dealt with by the national council instead of the national executive, and threatened legal action if it was not.

Mr Salmon and Mr Collingwood would probably work quite happily under the one roof. They have worked

together profitably on a number of projects. But it would be a question of who was superior to whom. Neither is likely to budge on that point, so a choice between them has become necessary.

This is very sad for the conservation movement in New Zealand, because over the last decade no two people have made a bigger contribution to it. The way the votes seem to be falling, it looks as if Mr Salmon will win in June and Mr Collingwood, presumably, will retire.

Many of those involved in this situation have tended to see it as a result of a clash of personalities between Mr Salmon and Mr Collingwood. It is not. It is the result of a clash between two political attitudes and the two men — who are among the most flexible thinkers in the entire conservation movement — have been seen by the partisans as their representatives.

A victory by Mr Salmon over Mr Collingwood, or vice versa, will be seen as a victory by one point of view over the other. The conservation movement cannot afford such a polarisation of opinion. The movement needs all the strength it can get. Those whose actions have led to

The Royal Forest and Bird Society is an umbrella for many interests and many age groups. Whoever controls

it after June 13, and whatever their beliefs, it must still be a grouping which can attract a broad spectrum of support. Otherwise, it will be weaker. And because it is the biggest such grouping, the conservation movement will suffer.

this polarisation may one day ruefully contemplate the effects of what they have done.

There is a temptation to see radical politics as inevitable in the battle for conservation for the next 20 years. Perhaps it is, but the radicals have also shown some arrogance in their belittlement of the work done by those who have gone before them (see accompanying report).