The Government's Policy On Sustainable Forest Management Coast Action Network

Regent Theatre, Greymouth

Thanks for the opportunity to present the Government's views today.

At the outset let me state that the Government is committed to the sustainable management of forests as one way of providing an economic base for communities while maintaining New Zealand's unique bio-diversity.

New Zealand's future is in sustainable jobs and sustainable forests.

With respect to the West Coast, the Government has recently:

Consulted with interested parties on the West Coast Accord Strategy;
Consulted with the public on Timberlands' plans for beech production from the Maruia and Grey Working Circles;
Announced a decision on the future management of the West Coast Accord Production Forests containing two key elements: a conditional green light for sustainable beech harvesting on the West Coast; and the early end of the Buller Overcut.

I don't propose to spend too much time on the conditional approval of the Beech Scheme. The business case, and certain other details, are still under consideration.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry received over 12,000 submissions on the Timberlands West Coast Beech Management Plans. 2,000 were in support and 10,000 were in opposition. Of the submissions from the three main urban centres (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch), 87% were opposed. Of the submissions received from the West Coast, 95% were in support and these supportive submissions from the Coast comprised 86% of the total number in support.

The scope of this public process was restricted to comment on the beech plans. The Government considered that reasoned comment should carry more weight than numbers in support or opposition. However judging from the response, many submitters seemed unaware that comment was restricted to the beech plans and submitted on the issue of the logging of native forests generally.

Clearly some groups saw the process as an opportunity for a referendum on the future management of all Crown-owned indigenous production forests on the West Coast, and sought to capture it on these grounds.

While stressing that this was not a referendum there are a number of conclusions that I would invite this meeting to draw from these figures.

Firstly, only a minority supported this scheme and the bulk of the support was local. However, the Government made a principled decision based on sustainable use of natural resources.

Secondly opposition to the plans was strongest from the urban sector. To the extent that urban New Zealand is the market for native timber, as business people, you cannot afford to ignore this expression of urban opinion.

Thirdly many people are poorly informed about the major changes in the management of indigenous forests over the last decade.

The Government is in no doubt that unless New Zealand moves to sustainable management of all indigenous forests outside the conservation estate, consumer uncertainty and international pressure will stop native forest harvesting.

New Zealanders have concerns about their use and access to rimu. If the public cannot be assured that the wood they are using in their homes, their furniture and their flooring is environmentally friendly, then demand and the price for indigenous timber will drop.

By using native timbers from sustainable sources, we avoid becoming dependent on imported timber from clear-felled tropical rainforests. As a developed nation, New Zealand has a responsibility to tackle the problem of global deforestation.

The Government's decision, will give New Zealanders the confidence that the wood they are buying is from sustainable sources.

We need to demonstrate that sustainable management of our natural resources is not just a theoretical concept, but actually works out in the bush. If we do not do this successfully and quickly, then those advocating preservation as the only option will win the day.

It is simply not an option to continue overcutting native forests. We have all seen the results of this: cut-over, weed-infested bush, rusting machinery, derelict buildings and communities with no jobs and no future. I am sure that this meeting is familiar enough with this picture.

In making the case for sustainable use, we do not distinguish between publicly and privately owned forests. The same rules should apply to both.

Having established why the Government is committed to the sustainable management of our indigenous forests, the issue becomes how the transition should be managed.

For community reasons we couldn't immediately end the Buller Overcut. If we had shut it down overnight, not only the West Coast, but also furniture manufacturers, would have been severely affected. This way we have given the people reliant on this source of rimu timber two years to adjust.

I acknowledge that many people on the Coast consider that two years is too short a timeframe for the end of the Buller Overcut. However I know there are also conservationists who believe that 31 December 2000 can't come soon enough.

The Government has come up with a solution which tries to balance the needs of both groups.

The adjustment will be difficult for some individual companies in the timber industry. Volumes available for saw-millers and processors will change and the trend will be downwards.

But prices paid will change, and this trend will be upwards. It is the increase in value, rather than the increase in supply that will deliver gains to the indigenous forest industry and the communities who are reliant on it.

As a consequence of the upward trend in native timber prices, uses may change as well. We have already seen this of course. Whereas rimu was once commonly used as boxing for concrete, this is no longer occurs.

Some companies will find the new business environment difficult to adjust to and will most likely lobby Government for "special arrangements" to insulate and protect their business interests.

Government is committed to seeing that people are treated fairly, but those who would look for "special arrangements" should look to the Government's track record in the phasing-out of import licensing before spending money to lobby for protection. This Government has worked hard to ensure an open and internationally competitive economy. An environment where trade is based on quality, price and innovation rather than protection and exclusion.

There are certainly some urgent and pressing equity issues for Government to address at the present time. Not all indigenous forest owners are covered by the indigenous forestry provisions (Part IIIA) of the Forests Act. Some Maori forest owners in Southland and Otago are legally able to continue to clearfell their forests. This situation is complicated by Treaty of Waitangi claims, but the Government is exploring all possible ways to achieve sustainable management of indigenous production forests, while addressing historic injustices.

The Government wants to look ahead, and as the community with the most knowledge of sustainable indigenous forest management, the West Coast has the potential to lead the rest of New Zealand.

Conclusion

We know that the West Coast forests within the conservation estate are a unique and precious natural asset, and that New Zealanders increasingly value this part of their heritage. We also know that native fine woods are part of our cultural heritage, and that many New Zealanders prefer furniture made from these timbers in their homes. Sustainable forest management makes it possible for the present generation of New Zealanders to enjoy the beauty of native fine woods, without devaluing the natural heritage to be passed on the next generation.

There are threats to the achievement of this vision for the future. Urban New Zealand is the dominant force in our democracy, and the Timberlands beech plan public process shows that many people are poorly informed about the sustainable management opportunity.

The development of an environmentally responsible image is where the future of indigenous forestry lies. And I am sure that it's clear to all here tonight that overcutting plays no part in this future.

New Zealand has a reputation as a world leader in the management of its forests. With that reputation comes the responsibility to ensure public awareness. The win-win situation that can be created through the sustainable management of forests is something that I'm sure Coast Action Network is only too well aware of.

I applaud your efforts so far in making the facts available and in raising the issues for debate through forums such as this.