TO SAVE A FOREST HERITAGE

Forest and Bird, Issue 266, 1 November 1992, Page 20

TO SAVE A FOREST HERITAGE

EUGENIE

SAGE

In the 1970s and early 1980s a circled sketch of two kahikatea was the grimly ironic logo of the Forest Service, a government department responsible for clearfelling and burning large areas of New Zealand’: unique native. forests. In the 1990s these same kahikatea are a more appropriate symbol for the Forest Heritage Fund, a body established by government to work for the voluntary protection of native

‘forest on-private lana.

looks at.the fund and its

achievements.

HE LOGO may have been recycled but the resemblance with the Forest Service ends there. In its first two years of operation the fund had arranged the protection of nearly 48,000 hectares of forested land. The forests ranged from kauri stands in Northland to rimu and matai forest on Southland’s Hokonui Hills, and they were protected at a cost of only $8.6 million or an average of $179 per hectare. Less than a third of New Zealand’s original forest cover remains. One sixth of this, an estimated one million hectares, is in private or Maori ownership. Much of it is vulnerable to grazing by stock and logging for timber, firewood or conversion to pasture. The Forest Heritage Fund was set up by the former Labour Government in 1990 as part of what was to have been a

comprehensive Indigenous Forest Policy. A companion body, Nga Whenua Rahui, was established to work with Maori landowners (see panel story). Forest and Bird applications were among the first grants approved by the fund in 1990. The funding covered fencing and survey costs associated with covenants to protect six areas totalling 350 hectares on the Chatham Islands. The vision or kaupapa of the fund is "to protect through acquisition or agreement remaining indigenous forests and associated vegetation, particularly those containing old growth forest and forest of high ecological value". The kaupapa recognises the need to safeguard heritage values and preserve genetic diversity in flora and fauna. It also recognises the integral part that nature conservation on private land plays in a sustainable land ethic. Both agencies have an independent

commuttee which meets at least quarterly. The Forest Heritage Fund Committee is chaired by Canterbury landscape architect and Conservation Authority member, Di Lucas. Other members include Masterton farm forester, Jim Pottinger, beech ecologist and forester, Dr John Wardle of Oxford, and nature tourism operator and former Forest and Bird conservation director Dr Gerry McSweeney. The committee advises Conservation Minister Denis Marshall on whether funding should be allocated to assist with survey, fencing, legal and other expenses associated with putting covenants on forested land so that landowners are not burdened with the costs of protection, or to help DoC or another agency purchase the land. Protection can also be achieved through voluntary leases, management agreements, accords and land exchanges. The fund’s definition of "indigenous forests" includes vegetation of any canopy height where some forest tree species are present, and.significant successional vegetation on land previously burnt or logged which has a relatively continuous canopy and where regeneration is occurring. Forest associations and areas linking forest and aquatic or coastal systems are recognised by the fund. At Pateke, near Awana Bay on Great Barrier Island a covenant has helped to protect 143 hectares of land which includes a freshwater wetland associated with nearby broadleaf forest and stands of kauri rickers. The wetland is home to an estimated 13 per cent of the world’s wild population of endangered brown teal. OREST AND BIRD’S conservation director, Kevin Smith, says one of the fund’s major achievements is that "it has not been blackmailed into paying extortionate prices for land. Often the worst people to negotiate land purchases are people like Forest and Bird members because we make decisions with our hearts. We are not real estate agents trying to get the best bargain." The committee’s hard nosed pragmatism has seen several Forest and Bird branches disappointed when the fund has declined applications to buy particular forested areas because the asking price has been too high. Committee members are determined not to distort rural land values by paying inflated prices. "Every block we purchase influences the price of every other block because land valuation is so closely tied to previous sales," says Gerry McSweeney. Nor, it appears, will committee members succumb to landowners revving

chainsaws and threatening to log forest unless the fund coughs up the asking price. The committee recently walked away from negotiations over the purchase of a forest block in the Catlins because the sale price was unreasonable. It was later logged. "We are here to protect as much highquality forest as we can for the minimum dollars. We are not here as a social welfare department for farmers or foresters who have generally done pretty well out of government in New Zealand," says Gerry McSweeney. "Decisions are made on the ecological significance of an area, not just the immediacy of the threat to it." The committee uses a range of ecological and commercial criteria to assess each application and weigh up the national and regional importance of the forested land against the costs involved in its protection. The forest’s ecological significance (its rarity, representativeness, diversity, and distinctiveness) is a major factor. "We don’t want the lone kahikatea in the cow paddock, but we are interested

in areas of remnant forest which are viable, have a diverse range of species and are distinctive ecologically," Di Lucas says. Top priority goes to applications where forest is being gifted as a reserve or protected through a covenant with no financial benefit to the owner. Covenants are registered against the title but ownership remains with the landholder. A management regime for the protected land is agreed on and set out in the covenant document. This usually involves a ban on any logging, grazing, earthworks, cultivation, top-dressing and chemical spraying. Noxious plants and pests such as rabbits must be controlled. Where outright purchase is the only option the fund is more likely to approve a grant towards the purchase price when local authorities or community organisations such as conservation groups are also contributing. The support can also be in the form of practical help such as a commitment to maintain access tracks or revegetation work if this is necessary.