Keith Woodford sees the imminent debate about land use on the Christchurch Port Hills full of self-interested positions with forestry, farming, recreation and conservation all in competition

Keith Woodford sees the imminent debate about land use on the Christchurch Port Hills full of self-interested positions with forestry, farming, recreation and conservation all in competition
Belted Galloways on Port Hills (Photo: Annette Woodford)

By Keith Woodford*

The recent disastrous fires on the Christchurch Port Hills give cause for thought as to the best land use on these slopes. It seems that no-one foresaw a fire event of this magnitude.  With different wind patterns, it could have been much worse. How should this new knowledge about the risks influence decisions for the future?

Since European settlement, much of the Christchurch Port Hills has been dominated by pastoral farming. In recent decades, we have also seen substantial plantations of pine trees, together with some revegetation of native species.

The Port Hills are also a huge recreational resource for the urban population of Christchurch. On a fine weekend, there are hundreds of walkers and bikers out there enjoying the outdoors. Paragliding and rock-climbing are also much favoured.  A lot of this recreation takes place s on public land, but some is also through the agreement and support of farmers.

Paragliding on Mt Cavendish, Christchurch Port Hills (photo credit: Steve Beasley)

In the forthcoming debate about future land use, there will be lots of people who know the outcome they want. As in all debates, so-called facts will be organised with both self-interest and noble-cause corruption, where ends justify means, coming to the fore.

There will be pro-farming and anti-farming stances. There will be pro-exotic plantations and anti-exotic plantation stances. And there will be pro-recreation and anti-recreation stances.

There are also some thousands of houses on the Port Hills, stretching from Scarborough in the north-east to Kennedys Bush in the south-west.  Then further to the south-west, there are lifestyle blocks in behind Tai Tapu. 

I live at Kennedys Bush, so my interest is personal. I am often to be found roaming on the Port Hills in the weekends.  All of Kennedy Bush Spur (some 200 houses including my own home) were evacuated for periods ranging from three to seven days during the recent fire.

Some of us think there was a substantial element of luck as well as great work by the ground and air firefighters that prevented many more houses from being destroyed, from Kennedys Bush right through to Cashmere and beyond. One can only shudder at the thought of what a strong but dry southerly change might have done at any time on the Tuesday or Wednesday (days two and three of the fire), or if the easterly had chosen to continue throughout that Wednesday night.

I want to step back from immediately focusing on answers, to lay out some issues first. The facts do not always align with what we might want to believe.

We know that the fire started in dry grass, probably caused by part of a transformer or other electrical equipment falling from a power pole.  We also know that the spring and early summer had been wet, followed by a dry January and February. As Australian friends remind me, this is the same lethal weather pattern that Australians fear, with vegetative fuel building-up to carry big fires.

Farmers use sheep to control vegetation build-up, and there are thousands of sheep on the Port Hills. But sheep farming is not easy on these summer-dry lands.  Domestic dogs can also be an issue – I have come across two sheep carcasses in recent weeks showing undoubted evidence of a dog that had decided on a feast of lamb kidney.  Stocking rates are probably lower than in the past, with the economics of fertiliser much more challenging than in the days when wool made a major contribution to sheep-farming incomes.

Sheep on Mt Cavendish, Christchurch Port Hills (Annette Woodford)

There are also some cattle on the Port Hills, and I often say ‘hello’ to a herd of Belted Galloways on the Kennedys Bush Track. I hope they survived. But in general, the Port Hills are not really cattle-country.

Belted Galloways on Kennedys Bush Track (Annette Woodford)

Poor pastoral economics have led to substantial planting of radiata pine on the Port Hills in recent decades, especially south-west of Cashmere.  These land owners have now lost many and probably most of those plantations to the fire.

These plantation losses will inevitably lead to a re-assessment of the economics of radiata pine on the Port Hills.   It took some fifty or so years for Canterbury land owners to recognise that growing radiata on the plains was not particularly smart, with exceptional gale-force north-west winds bearing down from the mountains every fifteen or twenty years and knocking down the plantations, often just as they were approaching maturity.

Interest then turned to Banks Peninsula and in particular the Port Hills for growing timber.  We now have to ask whether or not fire risk should lead to the same economic conclusion as on much of the plains.

Fires within exotic-pine plantations generate much more heat than do grass fires, and these pine-forest fires are much harder to control. The hot-spots and flare-ups from the recent fire have now continued for close on two weeks since the fire began. If it were not for the pine plantations, my assessment is that the Port Hills fire would have been put out within a day of it taking-off.

It seems that the native forests, once established, have stood up to the fire much better than the exotics. However, the fire did make its way over the crater rim, and then made its way down through native bush towards Lyttelton Harbour and Governors Bay on the other side of the Port Hills. On the Christchurch side, the Kennedys Bush Reserve (located south-west and apart from the Kennedys Bush Spur which has many houses) seems to have survived despite being in a direct line of the initial fire. The native bush in the Hoon Hay Valley also seems to have survived whereas the surrounding exotic plantations have succumbed. But so far, I can only look from afar, as there is no public access.

Those of us who live on the lower slopes also need to ask searching questions about our own properties. There are a great number of fast-growing macrocarpa (Monterrey cypress) and various eucalypt species which are highly incendiary. My wife and I have planted only native trees on our own property, but that decision was unrelated to fire risk.  Despite living in Australia for close on 20 years, we gave no thought when we built our house to the possibility of a massive Port Hills fire on the scale we have experienced this year. 

Finding the way forward is not going to be easy.  My own inclinations are towards grassland on the faces and spurs, and natives in the gullies and on south-facing slopes.  This would be similar to pre-European days.

In the long run, recreation is going to be a lot more important than pastoral farming, which will always be marginal on these lands. In a perfect world, the Government would bring more of these lands into public ownership.  But then they would need to manage the fire risk themselves, as grassland without sheep, or poorly-managed sheep, would itself be a huge risk.


Notes:

  1. For those who wish to understand something more about the geography of the Port Hills and the chronology of the February 2017 fire, here is a link to an earlier article that I wrote.
  2. The best paper I have found on the historical vegetation of the Port Hills is a paper written and presented in 1919 by Robert Laing, and published in the Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is available here.

*Keith Woodford is an independent consultant who holds honorary positions as Professor of Agri-Food Systems at Lincoln University and Senior Research Fellow at the Contemporary China Research Centre at Victoria University.  His articles are archived at http://keithwoodford.wordpress.com

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.

6 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

A really thoughtful summary. Although you note this As in all debates, so-called facts will be organised with both self-interest and noble-cause corruption, where ends justify means, coming to the fore.

fundamentally it is an issue of property rights. I would suggest one option is to put regulation in place to specify land-use under a spatial plan. Property rights might be impacted both positively (where new subdivision is permitted, called "betterment" in planning terms) or negatively (where reestablishing radiata plantation or grazing/grassland is restricted and reforestation of native is required, called "compensation" in planning terms).

As long as both betterment is charged and compensation is paid - there would likely be no requirement for the public purchase of private land.

The problem in NZ planning law is that we never levy a charge on landowners for betterment - hence leaving the payment of compensation to taxpayers. We have a privatise the profits and socialise the losses planning regime.

Kate,
I doubt whether further subdivision is gong to be a big issue on the Port Hills but I could be wrong. One area of potential subdivision would be below Kitcheners Knob between the Hoon Hay Valley and Kennedys Bush Spur. There are some choice sites there, albeit on land which was either threatened or actually hit by fire.
I think the bigger issues relate to multiple land use of non urban land, and the risks from what some people do (e.g planting exotic plantations) extending to other land owners and land users.
Keith

A good summary, Keith. As you note, a straighforward measure of fire potential is similar to the pasture KgDM/ha: Fire Fuel/hectare. The fuel potential for various types of cover is assessable from published lab tests.

A useful KPI here would be the requirement to keep Fire Fuel (measured in whatever units seem applicable)/ha to below a planning-regime-imposed figure. It is like a 'carrying capacity' limit in reverse: it's a 'capacity for harm'.

This leaves choices where they belong - with the property owners - but would catch all sorts of weird land uses quite usefully: stacks of old tyres, drums of fuel, paddocks chest-high in long grass, as well as the obvious plantations, shelter belts and other land covers.

I live adjacent to Bottle Lake Forest Park, which is a managed plantation currently owned by Matariki Forests - a Rayonier subsidiary. BLFP is chock full of firebreaks, fire ponds, and other preventative measures.

Those hillside plantations were, it seems to me, sadly lacking in any equivalent for the most part.

I also really like the landscape effects of native vegetation in gullies (and along tops and spurs): there is a lot of this around Waikawa (mid-Catlins, largely down to the fact that access there was so dicey - sea only - that not all of the bush got knocked down) and it is a wonderful prospect to view.

If you own a life style block you are a farmer. You must farm animals or cut hay and silage. If you don't manage the grass or plant lots of trees around your house you are creating a fire risk. Fire doesn't care about how expensive your house is, your views on the environment, water quality or animal rights.

Our family live in Early Valley Rd and very close to the seat of the original fire, thanks to Valley owned fire fighting equipment and the efforts of the Rural fire service their property survived. there have been local comments on the failure of land owners to close graze pasture pre summer which raises the wider question of Farming economics with Sheep being particularly volatile in returns making it difficult to make a reliable business plan - even diary swinging between approx $4 & $8 a Kg of milk solids shows the strife of trying to run a business where the product can halve in value.It is easy to lay the blame at the processor, the market, exchange rates and global economics but unless a more orderly market for product exists increasing food shortages will occur as world population increases and weather patters disrupt crop and stock results. If Farmers in NZ collectively withheld stock & crops from the market for a month the effects would be so disruptive and creating panic in the market that the anti farming brigade would quickly face the reality of how dependent they are on the farmer. The average age of Farmers is increasing to the point were their skills and experiences will be lost as they exit to be replaced by less experienced people who have more loyalty to the $ than the Land or stock & god forbid we see the growth of Corporate farming were the $ is the ultimate driver of everything - bigger they come the harder they fall is an old but true saying. Govt, Local Authorities and other regulators need to talk to those who do the doing and understand the differences between the practicalities and the ideals and encourage all to gain practical experience it may even be worth paying Farmers to run practical courses.

Rumpole,
I am very impressed the way the Lansdowne Valley community and the rural fire team saved so many houses in the valley. There is a message there, in relation to the importance of local communities, who swing into action well in advance of any central bureaucracies playing their part. I hope we never forget the importance of local volunteers and the importance of communities. I am sure there is a story to be told about the efforts of the people in the valley and I for one would be interested to hear it.
Keith W