Victoria University of Wellington Tramping Club
Welcome to VUWTC Sign in | Join | Help

Wildling pines

  •  22-08-2010, 10:06 PM

    Wildling pines

    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.

     

View Complete Thread
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems