Wilding conifer species are a pressing
environmental issue in large areas of the Canterbury high country,
including places like the Mackenzie Basin, Craigieburn, Lake Coleridge,
Flock Hill and Hanmer Basin. These conifer species are invasive in NZ,
in that they were brought in for commercial purposes but have now
spread and threaten the ecological integrity of the areas they invade.
Invasive conifer species outcompete native plant species and
drastically alter the landscape because of this. If these species were
left to spread unchecked large areas of NZ could resemble a North
American landscape instead of a NZ one. Each year hundreds of
volunteers (including members of the CUTC) take part in Environment
Canterbury’s (Ecan) wilding conifer removal days in the Waimakariri
Basin. These removal days have helped prevent the spread of these trees
to areas such as the Torlesse Range.
However,
Ecan has just completed a 5-year review of their Regional Pest
Management Strategy. Unfortunately, this could change the way unwanted
wilding conifers are managed. Large areas in inland Canterbury
(including the Mackenzie Basin, Craigieburn, Lake Coleridge, Flock Hill
and Hanmer Basin, to name a few) are threatened by the spread of
wilding pines. The new strategy does not declare species with no
commercial value such as lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and mountain pine (P. mugo)
as pests in the draft review (see attached). If these were formally
designated as pests they would not be able to be used for commercial
value or be allowed to spread to areas of protected land, as outlined
in the Biosecurity Act 1993. Furthermore, if these species were
declared pests, then their use for carbon storage/sequestration under
the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) can be better managed. Currently
anyone can use any conifer to generate carbon credits. Therefore,
creating an incentive for some land owners/occupiers to use unwanted
wilding conifer spread to gain income through carbon forestry. There
needs to be legal restrictions to prevent the spread of these wilding
trees onto adjacent land where they are not wanted, and this can be
addressed through declaring the highest risk species as pests under in
regional pest management strategy.
What can you do?
Let
Ecan know that without the measures described above they will not be
able to effectively control wilding pine spread or counter the argument
that wilding pine spread provides a good opportunity for gaining
revenue under the ETS legislation. To achieve this, a large number of
submissions will probably be needed, as for the Schedule 4 mining
debate. Submissions close on the 30th of August, and in a submission you should make the following points:
1. Your
awareness of the situation (described above), any experience you have
with seeing wilding pines in areas you visit, or helping out with
wilding pine removal especially in Canterbury.
2. Your concern that the proposal for the RPMS will not provide effective control measures.
3. That it is unacceptable to declare P. contorta and P. mugo as
“Containment Pests” which are then dealt with at the discretion of the
land occupier/owner, as both of these species are serious threats to
the integrity of the Canterbury high country and have no commercial
value, other than under the ETS. But, this value is far outweighed by
their threats to local ecology.
4. Recommend that P. contorta and P. mugo must be designated as “Eradication Pests.”
5. Be
aware that before an organism can be designated as such a pest it must
meet certain criteria under Section 72 of the Biosecurity Act.
Basically, economic costs/benefits must be balanced against
non-economic (social, cultural and environmental) criteria. In this
case, the economic benefit carbon credits on wilding trees would need
to be weighed against all other economic/non-economic costs. This is
where your submission is important as a part of Ecan’s submission/consultation process.
6. Know
that the Biosecurity Act and the Resource Management Act both over-ride
the ETS, so that the argument made by some in rural Canterbury for the
promotion of wilding pine spread can be effectively neutralised through
a Council’s Regional Pest Management Strategy.
7. Record
that you support a rule that land occupiers take all necessary steps to
prevent the spread of self-seeded wilding conifers from their land.
8. Lastly, support the revised Review and its associated policy as it relates to all other species of wilding conifers.
The
review is attached to this email, and contains further information on
how and where to submit a submission, as well as a copy of the
submission form (from page iii onwards).
Please
take the time to make a submission, as this proposed Regional Pest
Management Strategy threatens a large number of areas the club
regularly visits. Every submission really does count; just take a look
at the result of the Schedule 4 mining debate J.
The club will be making a submission on this issue, and if you would
like any further advice on making your own submission please do not
hesitate to email me at environmental@cutc.org.nz.
There is also an opportunity to learn more about Ecan’s current control of wilding pines at the annual general meeting of WELRA (Waimakariri Ecological & Landscape Restoration Alliance). On Monday the 6th of
September at the Ecan office at 10:30 am. Please contact me if you wish
to attend this, so that I can advise Ecan of numbers.