Gerry McSweeney: Cherishing Our Natural Heritage

Forest and Bird, Volume 20, Issue 3, 1 August 1989, Page 38

Gerry McSweeney: Cherishing Our Natural Heritage

n 1983 Dr Gerry McSweeney became Forest and Bird’s Conservation Director. Previously he was Park Scientist at Franz Josef Glacier 1979-82 and from 1975-79 carried out research work in South Island tussock grasslands. He had also spent years in voluntary conservation work as Chairman of the Christchurch branch of the Native Forest Action Council. In the six and a half years he has led Forest and Bird’s conservation staff, it has grown from two to nine people spread throughout the country. Society membership has nearly doubled; there has been a fourfold increase in its budget, and a major expansion in its conservation activity and achievements. In July Gerry left Forest and Bird to develop a wilderness tourist lodge at Lake Moeraki in South Westland with his wife Anne Saunders and children Katie (6), Michael (3) and Clare (2). F&B: What changes have you seen and what do you regard as New Zealand's greatest conservation achievements during your time as Conservation Director. G.MCcS: The biggest change is that the Government has stopped handing out millions of dollars for environmental destruction in subsidies to the private sector and by direct funding of Government agencies. Our first editions of Conservation News in 1983 chronicled this. For example Forest Service were flat out burning bush for pine trees at Mohaka near Wairoa, in Tongariro Forest and in North Westland. Lands and Survey were clearing important forests and native shrubland at Te Puki in the Far North, in the Waitere kiwi

block near Napier and in the Tongariro forest. Using forestry encouragement grants Aetna Life Insurance were burning off native forest in the Hunuas, Caxtons were torching Eastem Bay of Plenty forests and Carter Holts doing the same next to the Urewera National Park. Everywhere natural land outside parks and reserves was considered ripe for "development" and millions were wasted pursuing economically and environmentally crazy dreams. Thanks to Labour since 1984, the subsidies have gone and New Zealand now has a Department of Conservation protecting nearly a third of the country including most of our publicly owned natural land. That is an enormous conservation achievement. We can now concentrate on protecting nature on private land, in raising awareness about conserving the seas and seacoast and in fostering a conservation conscience so that New Zealanders link their individual actions to the global environmental crisis. F&B: Forest and Bird has been campaigning recently on marine, ozone and greenhouse issues, to name a few that are outside its traditional areas of concern. Would you like to see a continuation of that trend and if so, is the Forest and Bird name still applicable? G.McsS: Yes, | would. We're New Zealand’s largest and most active environmental group. Our objects clearly require us to protect the broad natural environment. We can't afford to narrowly restrict those objects just to birds and native forests. Loss of the ozone layer, global warming, exploitation of our fisheries and fertile soils, toxic substances and pollution threaten not just the natural areas and wildlife we have all helped save. They also

threaten the future of all of us on this planet. Our dramatic increase in membership over recent years shows that New Zealanders want to be part of an organisation that is leading efforts to save our heritage and halt the squandering of resources like soil, fisheries and forests. If we're effective in our actions, I don’t think our name is all that important. The full title is a mouthful — especially with the media. But abbreviated to "Forest and Bird" it is now widely known and respected. F&B: What do you think are the strengths of Forest and Bird? G.McsS: | think our greatest strength is our ability to act as a team at all levels from staff and Executive to branches and members. Everyone matters. We couldn't operate without the thousands of volunteers who work for Forest and Bird. I have always been inspired by the dedicated and enthusiastic people in every part of New Zealand who are at the forefront of their local and national conservation issues. There is a real sense of family in Forest and Bird — so much so that everywhere I've always been graciously hosted in people's homes and enjoyed their company in their local district. We can't afford to lose that sense of trust and family as the organisation gets bigger. Equally I know that it gives our members great confidence when they face the arrogance and power of many development proponents to know that help from our Executive and staff, and through them access to lawyers, scientists and politicians is only a phone call or letter away. When I came to Forest and Bird there was still some division and disunity over the failed

NFAC merger. Inevitably that reduced conservation output. Since then we haven't had internal dissension so we've been able to concentrate on conservation results. We are very goal orientated and don’t suffer fools or bureaucratic inertia. Publication of the journal, branch or conservation newsletter on time, saving hectares of forests from logging, rescuing birds, cleaning up beaches, getting toxins outlawed, running good field trips and gatherings are all direct ways we measure our success. Forest and Bird is unique. Its membership of nearly 2 percent of the NZ population is per capita a world record membership of an environmental group. It's also a distinctly New Zealand organisation — not a branch office of a multinational group whose policies are shaped and strategies planned in far off lands. F&B: What are its weaknesses? G.McS: We have a number. There is a danger that we place too many burdens on our committee members. We desperately need more of our many members to offer to help on branch committees, particularly in our big cities. We also need those committees to welcome newcom1 and be constantly on the hunt for new talent and enthusiasts. Another weakness is the risk we run of becoming monument builders through buying land and taking on operational responsibilities for small areas at the expense of efforts to tackle much broader environmental issues. The same amount of money to buy 10 ha of bush in the Bay of Plenty could instead be spent employing Ann and Basil Graeme for a year as Conservation Officers. Their work could lead to preserving thousands of hectares through their lobbying and negotiations. F&B: You've got a background in tussock grassland issues and you've always been keen to achieve more conservation in the South Island high country. Has that issue moved as fast as you would like it to, and what have been the impediments in its way? G.McS: Compared to better known ecosystems like native forests, it has been harder to make people aware of the 20 percent of New Zealand covered by tussock and alpine grasslands. Thanks to Alan Mark's efforts and Forest and Bird and FMC’s campaigns, people now recognise there are important natural values and landscapes in the high country worth protection. Our High Country Coalition with FMC and the Acclimatisation Society has been central in getting the high country recognised as an issue and preventing the privatisation of these public lands. The stumbling block to getting areas formally protected has been the outdated Land Act. Fortunately this is being revised this year. I like to hope that in ten years time there will be a high country network of large Conservation Parks and smaller ecological reserves, and a close dialogue between high country users and farmers in the management of these areas. F&B: Do you see environmental issues as non-partisan in political terms? G.McsS: Yes. The environment is everyone's concern. It worries me that by setting up Green parties or backing one particular party,

those parties that don’t have your support may adopt a hard anti-environment line promoting all sorts of crazy developments and set us back years as Ronald Reagen did in the U.S. I think it’s far better to challenge all the parties to make environmental issues a central feature of their manifesto. Last election it was interesting how both National and Labour sensed the importance of the environment and both sent out their environmental policies to all our members. I think environmental concerns will feature even more prominently in the 1990 election. F&B: How do you view the Labour Government’s record on environmental decisions over the last 5 years? G.McS: | have already applauded their excellent record in removing subsidies and creating the Conservation Department. It has also been encouraging how they have tackled native forest conservation in the West Coast Accord, stopping logging in North Island state forests and saved the forests of South West New Zealand. Above all they have had an open, consultative style on conservation issues. I have found it a pleasure to work with Philip Woollaston, Helen Clark, Fran Wilde, Geoffrey Palmer and the Caucus Environment Committee who all have a strong commitment to the environment. There are some clouds on the horizon between now and the next election. I continue to worry that new resource management laws will give regional government too much power and environmentalists will end up battling 14 different regional governments to establish environmental standards previously set at a national level. I think the Labour Government has been led up the garden path on Antarctica by our Foreign Affairs officials out of touch with public support for full protection for the frozen continent. We also need to watch Mike Moore's campaign to use inflated claims of jobs and revenue to destroy sensible and reasonable environmental controls which protect the coast and our reserve systems. F&B: Do you see environmental issues dominating the political agenda during the 1990s? G.McsS: Yes. Whether we like it or not the 1990s are the last chance decade. If we can’t turn around world thinking and action on issues such as greenhouse pollution, CFCs and tropical rainforests in the next ten years, we either won't have a future at all or if we do, it will be a miserable one. F&B: Conservation groups are often portrayed as Pakeha-dominated urbanorientated organisations. Are Forest and Bird's links with the Maori community, farmers and foresters growing? G.McS: We are Pakeha-dominated but we're not urban-orientated — probably the reverse. Many of our strongest branches are in provincial towns and these areas have usually also been at the forefront of our campaigns. There have been growing links with farming action groups on issues such as mining, protecting native forests and even on the high country issue. I've valued Sir Peter Elworthy and Hamish Ensor'’s help in finding a common ground between conservationists and

high country farmers. We have also recently found lots of common ground with commercial foresters determined to plant future plantations away from native forest areas. | regret that Forest and Bird doesn’t have a strong Maori membership but that is not an unusual feature amongst voluntary conservation groups. Nevertheless, I have valued Ngai Tahu Sandra Lee's vital contribution on the Forest and Bird Executive. She has opened our eyes to the Maori dimension in conservation. Our awareness has been helped by working alongside Maori groups on issues such as Wellington sewage, the Kauri National Park, marine reserve proposals and native forest protection. F&B: What have been the most personally satisfying issues you've been involved in during your time at Forest and Bird? G.McS: There are three issues that stand out; the Crown land carve up from 1985 to ‘88, the South West New Zealand campaign from 1985-89 and most recently negotiating the forest conservation accord with Tasman Forestry Ltd. The Crown land carve up started like a detective mystery. Our team pieced together the evidence for the misallocation of 600,000 ha helped by superb work by branches and members. Having published the evidence and established our credibility we were then invited by Government to work in the team negotiating directly with State corporations and DoC to sensibly reallocate the lands. The South West NZ World Heritage concept originated from my 1985 Anzac fellowship where I saw how Australia was seizing upon World Heritage as both a conservation tool and to help tourism promotion. Since then our team spearheaded by Kevin Smith and Gerard Hutching promoted the idea through books, pamphlets, posters and calendars and the grand concept has been crucial in getting protection for the entire 2.6 million ha which will be nominated for World Heritage status later this year. The Tasman Accord has been very important because it is a breakthrough in getting protection for some 40,000 ha of prime native forest in total. Because of the enthusiasm and interest of people like Bryce Heard and David Buckleigh of the Fletcher Challenge subsidiary Tasman Forestry and David Field of DoC, our Forest and Bird team was able to reach amicable agreement. The alternative of polarized bitter debate, legal actions and possibly mediation by Government haunted all of us involved in the negotiations and we were determined to show it was possible for industry and the environment movement to work together. I hope it will be a model to other companies and organisations in New Zealand and elsewhere. F&B: What has been your involvement in tourism and do you see it as a natural ally of conservation? G.McS: Through conservation work I've guided thousands of people into the forests and mountains. I spent 8 years in Arthur's Pass and Westland National Park co-ordinat-ing summer nature programmes and visitor activities. I also worked in Westland National Park at the height of the campaign to get Okarito for-

est added to the Park. By showing it was possible to save the forests and use them sensitively for tourism it was possible to gain the support of many of the local people in South Westland against logging. Since then, at Forest and Bird we have built on that concept to protect the Paparoas, the Karamea forests and the Tongariro Forest Park. Kevin Smith’s excellent South Westland nature tours, Mark Bellingham’s Chatham Island tours and my trips for Venturetreks in New Zealand, Australia and Malaysia are all examples of sensitive nature tourism instead of environmental abuse. I think tourism is a vital ally of conservation. It is infinitely better than clearance of forests for logging pine trees or farming. Na-ture-based tourism is also a good way to create jobs and revenue for New Zealand built around our clean green image. It must be well planned and tourist attractions need to be well managed. Therefore we must be prepared to adequately fund DoC so its staff can do this. Equally DoC needs to be responsive to the needs of the tourist industry. F&B: What are your reasons for wanting to run a wilderness lodge at Lake Moeraki in South Westland? G.McsS: Firstly, my family and I want to spend more time together. My Forest and Bird job has inevitably involved a tremendous amount of travel and a lot of irregular hours so we want a change. Secondly, my wife Anne and I have a dream that has grown out of our time in Franz Josef Glacier. It involves offering visitors to New Zealand and New Zealanders a really

high quality outdoor experience from a comfortable base. Thirdly, I think its important to have a staff turnover in all organisations. Kevin Smith has tremendous experience in the conservation field and will work with Joan Leckie and all our team to bring new energy to our Head Office. Finally, we are keen to live in the wilderness again and give our kids a chance to grow up, not in a concrete jungle but amongst the rainforests and wildlife we have all fought so hard to protect. F&B: What is your Lodge offering? G.McsS: It is an existing motor lodge, 30 km north of Haast on the Haast Pass Highway. It has new motel units, cottages, a caravan park and a restaurant. As well as accommodation and meals we have developed a programme of guided nature walks, talks, birdwatching, canoeing, hunting and fishing. Its location between a lake and the sea, surrounded by high rainforest and mountains, makes it an ideal place to spend a few days discovering original New Zealand at its finest. Later next year we plan to establish a Rainforest Education Centre which can host and train young students who want to research the forests and animals. We have already received some sponsorship to build the centre and are looking for more. F&B: Will you miss the political scene in Wellington and the interaction with other conservationists? G.McsS: | will miss it. It has been terrifically

stimulating to work with all the sensitive caring people in Forest and Bird, the Department of Conservation and others working in environmental fields. In particular, I'll miss the close team of Alan Mark, Joan Leckie, Mark Bellingham, Andrea Lomdahl and Gerard Hutching and everyone else on the staff and Executive. I suppose I will also miss the drama of the media and political battles we have fought on conservation issues. Obviously we will maintain a close interest and involvement in environmental issues. F&B: Canadian zoologist and science broadcaster David Suzuki says that in 40 years time there won't be any wilderness left in the world. Are our work and beliefs just a token gesture? G.McS: No. Most environmentalists are optimists and I think anyone who feels otherwise should read our Annual Report and think again. In just 10 years New Zealanders have gone from wreaking havoc on our swamps, forests, tussocklands and coast to an era of caring and appreciation. A whole new environmental ethic has taken hold in New Zealand. I think we're now missionaries who have to sell to the world that message of living conservatively and cherishing our natural heritage. Our politicians have been effectively communicating that on the world stage and people throughout the world see New Zealand as a symbol of hope. It’s our job to maintain that reputation. | know Forest and Bird will continue to play a key role in doing that.