When the new Government was formed, it sparked a bitter debate about native forest management. On one side is the Government. On the other side is a much smaller group of ecologists. The group is informal and it has no name. The ecologists are widely spread. Some are academics and some are professional scientists. Overseas their opinions count. For a Government trying to establish a reputation for being 'green' their opposition is embarrassing. Who is really going to believe that a bunch of ecologists are less scientifically informed and more politically motivated than the Labour Party?



What is at stake is conserving our native forests effectively. In the past native forests have had to cope with volcanic eruptions, floods, fires and cyclones. But today they aren't coping with possums, wasps or stoats. Locking up forests as reserves isn't enough to conserve them. The ecologists opposing the government knew this. Reserves depend on government funding for pest-control. This is unpredictable. It has also never been sufficient.



Timberland's offered a novel solution. They asked how do we make sure native species don't disappear from beech-forests and still make a profit? After ten years of research they came up with an answer. Light, very selective harvests of high-value trees could work. This paid for a big effort at pest control. Native forests under this management would recover quickly. Ecosystem health could actually improve as pest numbers fell. As the science got better, more ecologists appreciated the value of the project. These beech-forests might end up in better shape than neighbouring reserves.



The mess started when the Government stopped Timberlands from going for its resource consent. Timberlands needed a resource consent to start its project. The Environment Court was going to hear all the scientific evidence. If Timberlands really was going to wreck the beech-forests the Environment Court would've stopped them cold. Stopping the consent-process was a mistake. It's also expensive. The West Coast needs compensation. The beech-forests now need increased pest control to match Timberlands previous efforts.



The consent hearing would have made the novelty of the scheme transparent. It would have given ecologists the opportunity to explain the benefits of the project. The Labour Party in election-mode hadn't seen the evidence. The evidence had yet to come to light. A Government that really was interested in conservation would have considered the feasibility of the project. Was fulfilling the 'letter' of the election-rhetoric more important than 'spirit' of conserving beech-forests effectively?



Scientific opposition to the Government flared- then persisted. Management of native forests needs to be scientifically informed. It should not be determined every three-years by political parties seeking votes. The tragedy is that the Government won't back down. They'd rather burn their bridges than correct an ill-judged, hasty decision. In doing so, management options are being closed off. The damage to conservation is profound.



In 1986 the West Coast Forest Accord was signed. For the first time, rural communities, foresters, environmentalists and the Government agreed on something. This was the idea that there was a common ground. Slowly trust was built up. Tensions still existed but the principle endured. Native forest management could be built on a consensus. All parties could get what they wanted if they compromised a little.



The new Government destroyed this principle. A decade of hard-won trust was sacrificed. Rather than building on the consensus, the Government chose to exploit old tensions. Conflicts between foresters and environmentalists don't produce stable forest management. That was the whole point to the Accord. The message now to private landowners, to iwi, to foresters and rural communities is simple. Cash in your chips- cut down forests where you can. Let them die where you can't. Don't trust the Government. Don't compromise with environmentalists.



The Government has said that science doesn't matter. Don't find better ways to save native forests. Stick with the script. Put them into reserves and lock them up. Leave them to die slowly to pests. This is a real tragedy. Conservation depends on learning about the problem we face. It can take decades to learn small but vital details about endangered species. If science does not matter, then research does not either.



These are the real costs to the Government's decision. No one is going to find out now if pest-control can be self-financing. Old conflicts have awakened with less chance of a truce. Scientific research to discover better ways to conserve forests has become pointless. The Government requires ecological research to be done. Yet it attacks scientists with the expertise to do it. Meanwhile, pests make bigger inroads into our native forests. Is the new Government's conservation strategy really 'don't mess with failure'?

Brendan Moyle M.Sc., Ph.D.

Senior Lecturer, Department of Commerce

Massey University (Albany), PB 102 904,Auckland, New Zealand

Tel.: +64 9 443 9799 ext 9472; Fax.: +64 9 441 8177

e-mail: b.j.moyle@massey.ac.nz