In the aftermath of the damage occurring to the East Coast and Hawke's Bay, I tried to do a bit of a dig around to what other examples there were (world-wide) of forestry having such an adverse impact upon both the environment and society.
Not surprisingly Canada, or in particular British Columbia, as recent as 2021 has highlighted significant instances where slash and clear felling has significantly contributed to increased flooding and the associated damage to roading and also to the down stream societies. They have had the added contribution of forest fires which added to the denuding of the land.
Fortunately, New Zealand forests have not yet had to deal with major forest fires although the stats must be moving in the direction of an increased likely hood of this occurring.
The scale of clear felling in the New Zealand areas affected worse by slash induced floods can be seen in the Google Maps snap shots below. I could have taken others which include the Te Karaka catchment of Whatatutu also heavily flooded and inundated by logs or parts of Wairoa.
Google Maps shot of inland Tokomaru Bay and Tolaga Bay north of Gisborne
Google maps shot of the Esk Valley where major flooding occurred.
The Canadian example unfortunately gave little in the way of positive news for remediation etc. In fact some of the commentary was about how much in the way of taxpayers money had been used to subsidise the forestry industry and there still appears, at least in British Columbia, to be no cohesive policies to prevent both over-logging and the resulting slash and its associated issues.
Source: Mongabay news.Ca
I could have also included many equally descriptive photos of farmland (in New Zealand) without trees on where there has been extensive erosion and questions also need to be asked how is the lack of protection for soils still being allowed to happen? Parallels could be drawn between hill country erosion and now forestry mismanagement and the issues dairy has had to face up to regarding water quality. None of these issues were or are going to be quick fixes but lines in the sand need to be drawn.
Forestry did have guidelines at least as far back as 1992 with the first Code of Practice for Forestry Operations. It has been updated since, and includes under environmental legislation clauses from the RMA, such as:
(b) Where it is likely that an activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity. (Must be included in applications) It does include guidelines on how slash should be managed.
To manage slash and wood debris to avoid adverse environmental effects, especially surrounding landings e.g. ‘birds nests’ and material deposited in waterways.
Rules General rules
(Compulsory) • Comply with applicable Council requirements, Resource Consent conditions, Historic Places Trust Authority and any other legal requirements.
• Ensure slash management requirements have been identified and clearly mapped or documented before the operations starts e.g. slash storage sites.
• If there is insufficient space for onsite slash disposal, plan for temporary slash storage that will allow slash to be accumulated and then taken off site, e.g. transported to another landing site.
There is even included what the consequences of breaching such clauses are: that is, $200,000 fines or two years in prison. Given councils are the authority meant to be overseeing these activities, serious questions need to be asked of them.
None of this however is going to rectify what has happened or what else may happen in the coming years. Like the water issues with dairying, it may be decades before natural processes run their course even if root causes were fixed tomorrow.
Should there be a moratorium put on harvesting of forests that cannot show that they will not contribute to a slash problem?
Given the current price of carbon (currently dropping to $65 per tonne), if the forestry companies were required to no longer log these blocks and instead convert them to carbon farming enterprises what would be the cost to them?
The thought of providing forestry companies compensation (as was mooted by the forest industry) would go down like a lead balloon especially by those downstream from them who have been so seriously affected by the flooding and damage. Given that Government is committed to get to a zero emissions status for the country by 2050 and looking as though it would have to purchase off shore offsets (forestry) to balance the equations these problematic forests could help solve part of the problem. If they are allowed to continue a “Business as Usual “policy it will only make living down stream of them more dangerous and expensive.
Perhaps if forestry were asked/required to pay for the costs of all their externalities they might welcome the chance to put away the chainsaw. In the short-term jobs in forestry may disappear but already there are vineyard and horticultural block owners who are talking about not replanting. So, whose jobs are more valuable?
The other alternative will be to totally review their practices and utilise more selective (less clear felling) this may also have the companies end up at the same place as being shut down as economics may limit their viability.
One thing is for certain, something is going to have to change. Forests were put there for the correct reasons (arguably the wrong trees but we’re stuck with them now) but there have been some serious short comings in what has happened and been allowed to happen since.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.