special report
A recently released paper commissioned by Gisborne environmental group Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti, says the economic contribution of the commercial forestry industry has been considerably exaggerated by the industry’s supporters.
However reaction from the commercial forestry sector via the NZ Forestry Owner’s Association has hit back claiming the paper is biased and narrowly-framed.
Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti has submitted the paper to the Gisborne District Council.
Forestry has been controversial in the North Island’s east coast after Cyclone Gabrielle left the region’s beaches and valleys covered in forestry debris and resulted in six bridges destroyed.
Among environmental consequences is up to 94% of sedimentation and 90% of large woody debris in some catchments is attributable to forestry operations and the forestry sector does not bear the full costs of removal and remediation and is subsidised by ratepayers, taxpayers and insurers.
The paper also states economic and employment benefits claimed by the forestry industry are considerably over-stated.
The paper stated “The forestry sector’s contribution to the Tairāwhiti economy has been overstated by forestry sector lobbyists.”
Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti spokesperson Manu Caddie said the paper “confirms -- – forestry is not the economic backbone of Tairāwhiti that industry lobbyists claim”.
Pine forestry, especially monoculture plantations of species like Pinus radiata, cause significant environmental degradation, including the diminishing of biodiversity, increased soil erosion/acidification, high water consumption, replacement of native ecosystems, increased wildfire risks and result in “wilding” pine spread, while logging activities result in substantial sediment runoff into waterways.
Of couirse forestry commercials will deny all these.
Pine forestry, especially monoculture plantations of species like Pinus radiata, cause significant environmental degradation, including the diminishing of biodiversity, increased soil erosion/acidification, high water consumption, replacement of native ecosystems, increased wildfire risks and result in “wilding” pine spread, while logging activities result in substantial sediment runoff into waterways.
Of course forestry commercials will deny all these.
The forestry sector is heavily dominated by overseas corporates. Profits largely go offshore. Overseas corporates don’t give a stuff about the environmental changes or mess they leave behind.
While pine plantations have been promoted as a solution for carbon sequestration and economic growth in New Zealand, they have significant environmental and economic drawbacks that are often overlooked and denied by commercial forestry interests..
I have seen good trout spawning streams dry under the impact of monocultures of pine trees. Pines are thirsty devils.
Pine plantations significantly reduce water yield in catchments, affecting downstream water flows. During harvesting, they experience increased erosion and sedimentation in waterways.
The east bank of the Motueka River was testament to this.
The impact of pine plantations on soil health is another area of concern. Over time, pine trees cause soil to acidify the soil, altering its chemical composition. This acidification can have long-lasting effects on not only the land (impoverished soil) but also the stream ecology since stream invertebrates – trout and native fish food – are less in acidic conditions. The carrying capacity of the stream for fish life is lessened.
Those who wrongly accuse trout of endangering native fish with predation should put their focus on this acidification of streams.
In any case, in all my years trout fishing I have only very occasionally found a cockabully in a trout’s stomach. I remember once finding a six inch eel.
Nature finds its own balance with predators and prey.
Habitat is much more important. Pine trees are detrimental to habitat of streams.