Sustainable Forestry in NZ

Many NGO’s are suspicious of sustainable harvesting on private land, and rightly so. In a recent review (Gillman 2008) of all the North Island plans established under the Forests Act, serious issues were noted. In one case, <0.1% of the forest area was put into permanent plots for gathering information on growth rates. It was DOC’s opinion that due to forest variability, this level of sampling was inadequate. MAF then evaluated the draft plan and notified the owner of a reduced harvest volume. However the owner expressed concern with the reduced quota, citing a financial need for greater harvest volumes to service bank loans. The quota for the two main harvest species was then increased by 32% and the plan approved.
    Permanent plots need to be established as part of the plan process, however only harvest species are required to be identified and measured. This data is used to adjust the annual allowable harvest. Gillman’s review of one particular forest found that three out of the six harvest species were not even in any of the permanent plots and 12 out of 18 trees had been mis-identified. How can any data, let alone any reliable data, come from such a poorly organised and monitored site?
    International agreements for Sustainable Forest Management focus on key objectives of maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem health. In New Zealand the framework for this partly exists. The problem appears to be in the implementation. For instance, plans should at least require the monitoring of rare or endangered plant or animal species. A major failure of the New Zealand legislation as highlighted by Gillman (2008) is the lack of effective pest monitoring and the monitoring of their effects on the forest. None of the plans required any monitoring of pest numbers – even in forests where pests were havinga major impact on the native species.
    Two issues of economics have arisen from the review. Currently woodchips from indigenous forests are prohibited from being exported, if this were changed, profitability, especially from Beech forests, may increase. New Zealand’s sustainably managed indigenous forest products face unfair competition from non sustainable forest products from overseas countries (Harvey Norman!). New Zealand should ban imports of non sustainable forests and only allow imports from certified sustainable forests, in effect, leveling the playing field. In addition, establishing indigenous forests under a Kyoto protocol framework may provide legitimate carbon credits for the forest. 
    So, New Zealand still has a way to go in achieving truly sustainable managed forests. A general public awareness and public involvement in forest management is a worldwide trend and should now be implemented in New Zealand. This would help to make the whole process from plan or permit through to harvest more transparent, increasing both NGO’s and the public’s confidence in the often poorly used word ‘sustainable’.