The Evils of Deforestation.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLII, Issue 23, 9 June 1909, Page 20

The Evils of Deforestation.

VI. < By I. P. GROSSMANN. M.A.. Director <»f School of Commerce. A.U.L .» The Profits of Forestry. I HAVE dwelt on the Gernwn forestry system in some detail, partly because of the general interest of the subject, but chiefly because l wirfh to emphasise the amount of care and trouble ami expense that the most busine-s-like ami economical State in the world think- it neces-ary to take about the conservation of its fore~ts ami -he replenishing of it- timber -apply. Ami what 1 have to say m-\t bear- directly upon this a-pect of rhe question. Knowing that the tierman- pride them-elve- on making a commercial succets-s of their undertaking's. we might ju-titiably as-ume that an enterprise carried out on -uch a scale as to employ about a million worker- directly, and three times that number indirectly, mu-t be a highly piotitable investment. Ami. a- a matter of fact, it i- so. Various estimates r* present the total net return to the » ♦ rman Treasury from the State for-♦•-t- throughout the Empire at from tl" .000.000 to £20.000.000 a year. These are jmpre—ive figures. bur the facts have been on record for many year-, for even New Zealander- to relb <t upon. So far back a- 1*79. M. Leroy. in a paper on "The Fore-t Question in New Zealand.’’ contributed

to the N.Z. Institute Transactions, pointed out that Prussia, expending 1,100,000 a year on her six million acres of State forests, drew from them between 1860 and 1870 an annual revenue of £21.000.000. During the same period. Bavaria, on an outlay of less than £500.000. drew a forest revenue of £1.261.000; and France, on an annual expenditure of £70.000. drew an income of £1.400.000. or twenty times her outlay. from her State forests. And these high average returns have been maintained. and have even gone on increasing down to the present day. Thus the little State of Wurtemburg. from one forest of 20,000 acres, average- an annual yield of £2 per acre. Considering that the forests of Germany managed on. scientific lines yield on the average 40 cubic feet of wood per acre, as against about twelve cubic feet obtainable from the average American forest t litre must be a wide margin for profit in a fore-try system when properly conducted. As a matter of fact, the net surplus from the State forests of Germany range from about 6/- per acre in Prussia to over 22 - per acre in Saxony. The forestry record of tnis last-named State is in many respects so interesting that 1 am tempted to quote in some detail the remarks made by that eminent authority. Professor Schlich, in an article dealing with the British forestry problem. There are reliable statistical data for the State forests of Saxony since 1817. Between 1817 and 1*93 their area increased by about 17 per cent. In 1817 the yield in wood per

acre was 01 cubic feet; in 1893 it had risen to 92 cubic feet, an increase of about 50 per cent. Within the halfcentury, from 1844 to 1893, the average stock of wood standing on each acre had increased from 2.173 cubic feet to 2,t>58 cubic feet, that is to -ay by about 25 per cent. This means that the forests, in spite of the greatly increased annual yield, are now much more valuable than they were fifty years ago. As to the pecuniary return. the record- are even more instructive. From 1817 to 1826 the average net revenue from the Saxony State Forests was 4/- per acre; from 1854 to 1863 it was 10/- per acre; from 1884 to 1893 it was 18 6 per acre; and by 1900 it had risen to 22/6 per acre. Taking these facts in conjunction, we see that between 1817 and 1900 the average receipt's per cubic foot of wood have risen by about 114 per cent, while the net receipts per acre have risen during the same period by over 460 per cent. ”Surely.” as Professor Schlich remarks on concluding this analysis, ’’here i«s an incontrovertible proof of what scientific and systematic management of woodlands can achieve.” I have probably said enough to convince most people that forestry properly conducted affords an extremely lucrative form of investment either to the State or the individual, and that the successful experience of other countries fully justifies us in making experiments on similar lines here. The reason for such an undertaking is, of course, the ever-growing certainty that our timber supply is being rapidly reduced, and that we already find it unequal to the demand. And if. after we have considered the risks ami

perils involved in Deforestation, as already set forth in »nv earlier articles—the destruction of soil, the Hooding of rivers, the deterioration of climate, and the reduction of the country - productive powers—if. beyond all this, some further argument is needed to strengthen the ease for Afforestation, we may find it in the large pecuniary profits always secured by either States, corporations, or private individuals who have undertaken, under favourable conditions, the lucrative work of tree planting

Private Enterprise. It may be as well to remark here that so far as the general benefit to the conn try is concerned, this can be secured equally well whether the trees are planted by the State or by private individuals. And as an encouragement to those persons who may feel inclined to make practical use of the experience of other countries in this matter. I may point out that by far the most remarkable results

that have been secured from tree planting in England and America are due more or les-, to private initiative. In Perthshire not long since, a plantation of Douglas fir just forty years old, was valued at £2<H) an acre to the enterprising grower. But forty years is a long time to wait, ami pecuniary results can be secured by judicious management in a much shorter period than this. In Kansas, we are told by Mr. T. 11. Will, secretary of the American Forestry Association. a catalpa plantation, 10 years

old, has been valued at £4O per acre; another in Nebraska. 14 years old, gave a net return of £37 per acre: another also in Nebraska. 16 years old, gave a net return of £3l per acre. Cedar plantations. twenty-five years old. produced £4O per acre in the United States, ami European larch, of the same age, is worth from £4O to £6O an acre. A mixed plantation. started by a director of one of the Western railways in Kansas on two

square miles of waste land, after 25 years’ growth, yielded more than £25.000 worth of timber to the company in one year. Another plantation, owned by another railroad company, has been described by Professor Gifford, of Cornell University. Within twenty-ti,ve years this area of 400 acres could show a clear net profit of £2B per acre, and a gross value of nearly £7O an acre. These figures should be enough to impress the ordinary commercial imagination deeply enough. If any of my readers would

prefer an illustration, taken from nearer home. I may quote an interesting case from Australia. Near Creswick. in Victoria. there is some wretchedly poor land, which has been planted with several varieties of pirn*. “The particular hillside chosen.’' we an- told, “is lightly covered with a lifeless clay soil, often so scants as to lay bare the sandstone. The natural vegetation was of the most meagre ami valueless kind. In the early days miners riddled the area for gobi, ami when the officers of the Government took charge it was a hillocky waste.” About 7<H> acres of this very unpromising

land were planted at a cost of about £2 per acre, ami the expense of looking after the plantation has been very small. Today. after 17 years of growth, the timber is being sold at prices that yield from £l6O to £2OO per acre net profit. Why Not Here and Now ? If all this can be done in Germany and America and Australia, there is certainly no reason why it cannot be done in New Zealand. Ami. as a matter of fact, ex'periendc in xhis

count ly ha* already shown that treeplanting can be made a highly profitable venture within a relatively short space of time. In our official forestry handbook. “Tree Culture in New Zealand.” the late Mr. 11. .1. Matthews cites the <a-<* of a larch plantation started in Canterbury in 1887 on poor, dry soil. Ihe lan I was worth £2 an acre, and the total cost of tree-, fencing. and plantation was £l2 an acre. Verv little attention was given to the trees (luring their growth, and £1 per acre would

more than cover thia form of expenditure. The total coat to the proprietor was, therefore, £ls per acre. After 17 years’ growth, the total value of the timber in the plantation was estimated by Mr. Matthews at £270 per acre. “Deducting the initial cost of £l2, there remains a credit balance of £258 as a return for 17 years’ growth, and the land is in better condition now (through the humus formed by the annual fall of leaves) than it was at the start.” By way of contrast, Mr. Matthews notes that portions of the adjoining land are let for grazing at 2/ per acre a year —that is. 34/ in 17 years. “No other crop," says Mr. Matthews, “whether grain-growing, mixed fanning, stock raising, fruit or vegetable growing, can compare with the above results, while at the same time not only has the soil been retained in a fertile condition, but it has been vastly improved in its productive capabilities.” Taking all this into account, we may reasonably infer that in this country, endowed as it is with a mild and equable climate and a bountiful rainfall, even the waste land that will not grow anything else might be turned to highly profitable use by tree-planting. There is an immense amount of land of varying character in these two islands, from the rocky slopes of the Southern Alps and the gravel flats of the Canterbury plains to the pumiee lands of the centre and the gum lands of the northern half of this island, that could certainly be utilised for afforestation purposes without interfering with the progress of settlement or encroaching upon the areas required for our other staple industries. Even to private enterprise, the pecuniary prospects offered here by afforestation should be alluring enough: and as we have seen, no long time need be expected to elapse before the returns begin to come in. As a final word of encouragement to the settler or the farmer hesitating whether to plant trees or not, I may quote from “Tree Culture in New Zealand” again:—“To most farmers the raising of a crop of trees from seed or from seedling-trees seems a long and hopeless undertaking. The period required for a tree to attain profitable size under favourable conditions is, however, much shorter than is generally supposed. In from 10 to 15 years from the time of planting, all the fuel and fencing material necessary for farm use can be had for the cutting, without in any way interfering with, but, on the contrary, being an actual benefit to. the remaining trees.” The Duty of the State. But it must now be sufficiently obvious that from the national point of view, the work of Reforestation, or Afforestation, is of such vast and farreaching importance that it ought not tc be left to private enterprise alone. A- Professor Schlich has recently pointed out in a letter to the “Times,” dealing with the report of the British Afforestation Commission, “practical polities clearly indicate that the State, corporations. and private proprietors, must cooperate in the scheme of afforestation.” But as we have seen in the ease of Germany. there is a great deal io be gained by working afforestation on a comprehensive and systematic plan that shall be perfectly consistent and continuous over a long period of time; and it is dearly impossible to secure these advantages in the highest attainable degree, unless the work is taken up by the State. So far as corporations are concerned, the commercial bodies best fitted to undertake afforestation are railway companies. “Railroads,” says Mr. J. Gifford, of Cornell University, in an article on “The Railroads and Forestry,” “as a matter of fact car produce timber to better advantage than any other proprietor”; and the reasons he gives are that railroad companies are long-lived; they must have timber for ties, and sleepers, and bridges, and they can transport it at a minimum cost. The reduction of the future coot of maintenance is to such corporations, as Mr. Gifford says, simply a business proposition, and he quotes a large amount of evidence to show that in America they have made a great success of it. In a country like our own, where the railroads are in the hands of the State, the arguments in favour of afforestation by corporate

enterprise apply with equal force to the assumption of this public duty by Government itself. As to action by private individuals, a great deal has, of course. been done by rich land owners in England and America to repair the ravages in the native forests, and to restock their' estates with timber. Even in New Zealand, young and relatively poor as the country ' is, reforestation and afforestation have been carried out more or less tentatively and experimentally by a large number of our settlers and station holders. The work done in this respect by Mr. J. Hall, at Parawai (chiefly experiments on the growth of indigenous trees), by Mr. K. Reynolds, at Cambridge, and by Mr. T Adams at Greendale, Canterbury. deserves public recognition, not to say public gratitude. Those of my readers who have had occasion to refer to cur Government publication. b aring on the land, and its products must be familiar with the reports of Mr. Adams upon the growth of imported trees, which form a permanent feature of the Official Year Book of the Dominion. But such experimental work, valuable as it undoubtedly has proved itself to be. lacks the essential requisites of comprehensiveness and continuity; and apart from all other considerations. the heavy expense and the long period of waiting involved, render it impossible that any systematic scheme of afforestation or reforestation could be undertaken in New Zealand by private enterprise alone. In this country, where we have extended the functions of Government with such beneficial results to so many forms of public work and duty, we may fairly throw the chief responsibility for the replanting of our forests and the replenishing of our timber supply upon the State. What New Zealand Has Done. 1 may say here that I do not suppose that many people whose attention has not been specially called to the facts of the case, have any idea of the amount of work already done in thi-s direction in New Zealand by our various Governments. As Mr. Kensington, the Under secretary for Lands, pointed out recently in his evidence before tire Timber Commission, reforestation, as the work of a State department, has been in existence in this country only about ten years. During this period, the whole of the outlay—some £170,000 in. all—has been drawn from the receipts from the State Forests. Not a single penny has yet been voted by Government for the special purpose of reforestation. But, in spite of the inadequate financial basis on which our Forestry Department is founded, much valuable work has been done. About 63,500,000 trees and seedlings have been planted, of which over 6.000,000 were added to our stock last year. The New Zealand State Forests Act passed in 1885 set aside large areas of frown lands as State forests, and provided for the establishment of schools of forestry. But- it was realised that something must be done to counteract the constant drain on our timber resources, and since the late Mr. H. J. Matthews was appointed in 1896 to supervise the reforestation work, considerable progress in this direction has been made. The Commissioners of Grown Lands aet as Conservators of the State forests, and under them are the Crown Lands rangers and timber experts, who help to inspect the forests and take precautions against their destruction. Apart from forest conservation, reforestation and afforestation are provided for by the establishment of nurseries—at Eweburn and Tapanui (< itago 1 .at Ilanmer (Canterbury), at Starborough (Marlborough), at Ruatangata and Rotor.la (Auckland). As I have said, millions of trees have been sown and planted in these localities, and care has l>ecn taken to select those varieties which will not only give the best returns when they reach maturity, but will grow most rapidly under the climatic conditions that obtain here. But though lam far from desiring to depreciate tlie good work done by our late Chief Forester, and by the Lands Department in their attempt to replace our rapidly disappearing native bush, the fact remains that the total area so far replanted i* only a little over 12.000 acres, and thia manifestly represents a miserably inadequate provision for the needs of this country in the distant future, and an entirely ineffective defence against the many evils which, as I have already shown, deforestation always brings in its train. (To be Continued.)