Land use decisions critical for region’s future

Manu Caddie

Opinion

Re: Blame narrative changing, November 11.

Official policies and plans of successive local and central governments back to the 1860s neatly document the prevailing attitudes, assessments and aspirations for land use in the region.

The 70-page submission from Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti to the Ministerial Inquiry into Land Use was the result of over 100 researchers reading more than 150 scientific reports and policy papers going back many decades.

MTT was very clear in the analysis and commentary contained in our submission that the responsibility for the ecological tragedy Tairāwhiti faces lies with both historic decisions of the Crown and local government.

Responsibility also lies in part with the people who cleared the land of permanent forest (some in the region are still spraying and burning native forest), and to a lesser degree responsibility lies with the entities that have farmed and planted the land to prevent diverse indigenous forest re-establishing on the land.

Responsibility also rests with us as voters, and some of us who have been governors and trustees of regional authorities, stations and land parcels of various sizes. Some responsibility also lies with those of us who have voted for central and local decision-makers, participated in consultation processes, or not, that have continued to accept unsustainable land use in the region.

Previous generations had good reasons to focus on farming and then plantation pines, but hindsight is 20/20 and there’s an emerging consensus that both options exacerbate erosion and make human occupation, let alone sustainable income and employment, very challenging. Now we need new options and a just transition that provides for affected workers and landowners.

“Pine trees” is used because in addition to “slash” (the woody debris remaining after a plantation has been harvested), we have many catchments with mature pine plantations completely collapsing. In my neighbourhood, whole pine trees are still lying along the banks of the Mata River, across the Makarika flats and alongside roads where they landed during recent rain events.

Central and local governments have acknowledged the historical policy and operational decisions that led to what will be an ongoing disaster until at least the end of this century, even with the rule changes now being introduced. We could try prosecuting them, but that will cost a lot of time and money, and they will spend our money defending the public institutions. Council has successfully prosecuted companies that break the already lax rules — that seems like a good use of public funds.

The two branches of government should, and are, paying to assist the worst-affected victims of flooding caused by poor land use choices — of course, it is using our tax and ratepayer funds. These buyouts may be justifiable at present, but with the flood and erosion modelling now available, many more property owners will need to accept that building sites and land uses deemed safe and secure previously are no longer.

The priority for the region at this time has to be a dispassionate, best-evidence-based classification process with a range of scenario models, to determine exactly what kinds of activities are suitable for each of the 835,000 hectares of land in the region.

Council has started that process, but in addition to understanding the geomorphology, topography, hydrology and dendrology of every site, it will need those who live closest to each parcel of land to provide critical input with their expert knowledge about what is happening on each slope, gully, ridge and waterway.

The future of the region depends on getting this right, and it needs to be done quickly.