• Forestry Home
• Illegal Logging
• Indigenous Forestry Unit
• East Coast Forestry Project
• Crown Forestry
• Permanent forest sink initiative
• Forest Resources
• Wood Processing
• Montreal Process
• Publications
  • Forestry Production & Trade Statistics
  • National Exotic Forest Description (NEFD)
  • Wood Supply Forecasts
• 13th World Forestry Congress
• Timber and Wood Products Procurement Policy
• Forestry Contacts

5. Potential Impediments to the Development of These Resources

This section of the study considers why these natural timber resources have not been developed to date; explore what, if any, impediments exist to the development of these resources; and to briefly consider what actions could assist in overcoming any identified impediments. These impediments include a range of issues, some of which can be described as physical, such as access, some are cultural, such as the multiplicity of ownership of most Māori land, and others are either economic or structural, such as the need for skills and capital to develop these assets. There is also in many cases a degree of inter-relationship between these issues.

As a broad generalisation it is fair to say that the reason much of this indigenous timber resource still exists is that it has either been easier to get the timber from other areas, ie, the difficulties associated with each individual area of land have resulted in a decision by saw-millers to target another area for harvest, or the species present have not been sought after, such as beech and tawa. As the timber has become increasingly scarce, those involved in the harvest have been forced to address the impediments that previously prevented them harvesting a particular block.

For example, areas that had good access were harvested before those where expensive roading was required. As the easier blocks were cut out, the saw-millers then had to build the more expensive roads. This could only be justified as the entire supply of native timber tightened up, resulting in increased prices. One of the more graphic examples of this process at work is the recent move to helicopter extraction. This has only been economically feasible as the timber available for extraction by cheaper means was "used up".

It is anticipated that, provided the demand for native timber continues, this process will also continue.

The issues raised in this section have been derived from a variety of sources, the most important of which has been discussions with a wide range of people who have knowledge of, or an interest in these matters. Appendix 3 contains a list of people consulted during the development of this report.

5.1 Physical Issues

5.1.1 Access

Access to some blocks may be a significant impediment to the development of a sustainable business based upon the extraction and possible processing of indigenous timber. Given the range and location of the individual blocks, there can be no simple solution to this issue and each case will need to be addressed separately.

What may be of assistance in some cases is the cooperation of any Government departments whose land needs to be crossed to gain access to the forest. In particular this would require the cooperation of DoC, as in many cases, especially in the Urewera, the DoC estate surrounds Māori land.

There may also be a role here for a Central Government agency (such as TPK) to provide assistance with the process of gaining access through other land. This can be a time consuming, confusing and expensive process, with considerable potential for work to be repeated in different forms and for the tasks to proceed down blind alleys if those involved are not experienced in knowing what is required.

The current Ministry of Economic Development Taskforce working on the development of the plantation forest industry in the Tairawhiti Region may provide a useful model for such Central Government assistance. The approach is to bring all the affected Government agencies together to attempt to seek a workable solution within a reasonable time frame. Further, there are often processes available within Government agencies that are not widely known outside that agency, and this can be a way of ensuring the benefits of these can be captured.

This latter issue of assistance being available but not widely known was raised by many of the people spoken to, and is discussed in more detail below.

5.2 Cultural Issues

A range of cultural issues has emerged from discussions held with many people, and it is often difficult to separate out the themes of the issues as they can be intertwined with personal issues, experience or agendas. This however is always the case when dealing with matters that contain a significant level of "politics".

5.2.1 Multiplicity of Ownership

The implications of land ownership systems are always raised when there is a discussion relating to the management of forests on Māori land, whether they are planted or natural. As with other issues raised in this section of the report, there is a considerable gap between the perception and the reality, and as discussed elsewhere, there is a need for considerably improved communication. In this case it is the non-owners who have a poor understanding of the real as opposed to the perceived situation.

The general concept that most non-owners have is that to get a project progressed on Māori land you need to deal with large numbers of owners, and it can be difficult and time-consuming to get agreement. The use of Trusts and the powers delegated to the Trustees goes a long way to overcoming this issue. These Trustees are able to make decisions regarding the use of that land, which can provide an efficient mechanism for achieving an agreement. This process needs to be communicated to parties contemplating the development of any project involving Māori land.

There is however an issue that has been raised by some Trustees in that they require greater authority to develop these projects and to retain some or all of the funds derived for further investment. In many cases the landowners want the early return of income, leaving little if anything for reinvestment.

The actual validity of this matter is not for this report to determine, but it is recorded as an issue coming forward as a reason why there is limited interest in a project that is seen as very long term, regardless of how significant that project might be.

5.2.2 Previous Experiences

5.2.2.1 Harvesting

Discussion with a number of people drew attention to the fact that significant areas of Māori owned land has in the past supported indigenous forest, much of which has been now been heavily logged. In many cases the owners felt that they had in some way been "ripped off" in the process. The comment that "now we have neither the timber nor the money" is not uncommon.

Whether or not these comments are justified is somewhat academic. What is important is the fact that there is now a significant level of distrust among some owners and there will be a significant barrier to overcome if there is to be any further development of these forest assets.

This distrust can be directed at several parties. In some cases it is the saw-miller who originally logged the area, while in others it is directed at Trustees or owners who allowed the harvest to proceed, or at various arms of Government for a variety of reasons. Regardless of who the distrust is directed at, the result is considerable reluctance to even consider that an economic opportunity may exist within these assets.

5.2.2.2 Government

Some of the people approached also questioned the degree to which Government’s intentions in this area could be relied upon if owners were contemplating entering into a long-term commitment for their forests. The two major issues raised were:

• The risk that Government might change it’s commitment to allowing the ongoing harvest of indigenous timber, even though this is sustainably produced . This could be seen as fallout from the decision to cease harvesting in the West Coast Crown forests, especially as this was carried out before resource consents could be considered by the Environment Court. The matter of Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi was suggested as the owners’ defence of any attempt to alienate their property rights with regard to their forests. It was equally recognised that while they were confident of "winning" such a case, there would be considerable cost, delay and angst involved in such an issue. It was clear that this was not seen as desirable but there does exist a concern that it may come down to a legal battle.
• The second major issue, identified by Maori, is the degree to which owners can rely on Government agencies (both central and local) to complete their obligations as neighbours. The particular issue relates to pest control. Owners and their advisors are saying, "What is the point in us carrying out pest control on our land if our neighbours do not complete similar work on their land? Our pest free area will be like a magnet to the neighbours’ pests and we will have to deal with them as well." This is a particular concern where Māori land adjoins part of the DoC estate.

There are no short-term solutions to the matters raised by these people but they need to be recognised as valid concerns that have been raised. The matter of Government Policy towards management of indigenous forests is a particularly significant issue casting doubt in the minds of owners.

5.2.3 Conservation Ethic

Discussions with owners and their representatives also showed a significant level of desire to protect any forest assets from any form of management. There are twin threads to this philosophy. The first is the Māori spiritual association with the land and with the forest. As stated by one person interviewed "it is almost umbilical - a reverence for the native forest".

While it was not directly stated, the second message that was coming through between the lines was that "we have been ripped off over our forests before so why risk it happening again? Why not just let the forest be?"

When discussed further there was also the scarcity issue to consider. Many of the people who are either economic leaders or opinion leaders have lived through a period where the forest with which they are associated has been logged, cleared or otherwise modified to a significant degree. These are the people who are saying the cultural and scarcity value of the forest is such that they see economic development as an unlikely or undesirable option.

No attempt was made to determine whether there was a pattern to who was saying these things, but anecdotally it would appear to be older people (who have seen the changes wrought by the first harvest), and some younger people with less direct association with the land in question. For these latter people it is the conservation ethic per se speaking, more than a specific issue with a given forest. The older people may be thinking that "we have lost the trees and we did not see enough benefits from that harvest to justify any further manipulation of the forest".

This philosophical stance is difficult to argue with, especially given the experiences of some of these people and the low level of understanding of the difference between the current requirements for sustained yield management and what has been done in the past. There may however be an opportunity to show these people that in fact without management (especially of pests), the forest is likely to be in very poor condition in the relatively near future. Thus careful management as required by the current provisions in the Forest Act will actually provide benefits to both the owners (economic returns) and the forest (environmental improvements through pest management).

This message came through very forcefully from some quarters where it is believed that the issue is conservation not preservation. Further and importantly in the context of this debate, is the concept that "the total restriction on use of a natural resource is never in perpetuity, rather, as the resource becomes more capable of a sustained yield then there is the opportunity to begin using that resource again".

What was clear from many of the discussions was that few understood the extremely adverse impact that introduced pests were having on their forest. From several people came the response that if they could see that sustained yield management had the potential to increase the "quality" and "quantity" of the forest as well as providing a timber resource, then they would consider this to fit very well with the conservation ethic they strongly believe in.

The definition of "quantity" and "quality" is open to interpretation. but could include an increase in the indigenous fauna, especially birds, an increase in the size and number of large trees (especially economically important species), an improvement in the health of the forest, and possibly an increase in the area of forest (say as scrub develops into forest).

The Māori concept of conservation is that natural resources have an obligation to sustain people, and that people have an obligation to sustain the natural resource, hence the "umbilical" concept.

This is a very powerful message and it is the author’s opinion that it needs to be clearly understood before any decisions are taken as to what to do from here. Of all the issues raised, this one strikes at the very core of resource management for Māori. Failure to understand this and to simply tout economic benefits (and associated employment prospects) is likely to meet with a somewhat lukewarm response.

In considering the issues raised here, there is a considerable need for improved communication. In particular the objectives and requirements of the Forest Act as it applies to the management of indigenous forest, and the benefits such management can impart on the forest will be seen as more important than the economic benefits that may accrue. To quote one person "the implications of pest control will resonate with Māori more than the economic benefits".

5.3 Economic and Structural Issues

This section attempts to identify some of the issues that control the way any proposal for the development an indigenous resource should be pursued.

5.3.1 Skills and Finance

In considering the economic and structural issues that may be impeding progress, a number of people suggested that the obvious matters of skills and finance were the biggest hurdles to address. Other commentators however suggested that this may be an issue on the surface, but the reality in their opinion was not lack of skills or money, but rather a communication, and in some cases a motivation, matter.

This latter group of people was in several instances intimately involved in matters not dissimilar to the idea of creating an indigenous timber industry based around the sustainable harvest from Māori land, and thus had a good idea of what was available in terms of both skills and money. The key issue they identified was lack of information about what was available, or perhaps more importantly, lack of appropriate communication of that information. The comment was made that printing a pamphlet or creating a web site does not automatically get the information to those who need it. In their opinion there is no substitute for face-to-face meetings if this information is to be adequately communicated.

These people stated that in their view, if the skills were not already in place, there was no shortage of opportunities to gain those skills, and similarly there was funding available through agencies such as TPK if people knew how to access that funding.

Despite the belief in some quarters that the funds can be accessed if you know how, there is still a significant demand for up front cash to get a project such as this underway and there is a significant time lag between commencement of expenditure and the first financial returns. This time lag would commonly be a year or even longer. This requires a source of funding that is accepting of the poor early cashflows such a project has.

In addition to the cashflow issue there is the need to develop the skill sets required to complete the range of tasks involved. Some of these may well exist in many of the communities that may consider such a project. These would include the general forestry skills and the animal and plant pest control skills. The more advanced inventory work and preparation of Sustainable Forest Management Plans may be more efficiently managed by employing specialist help in the early stages until those skills were better developed within the community.

Outside these direct forest related skills there is a need for a set of business management skills. In combination with the development of a Sustainable Forest Management Plan for a forest the business case needs to be developed. It is important that the business plan demonstrate the viability of the project in the long-term, not simply as a short-term generator of a few jobs. This must be based on sound business case developed through market research and analysis that shows the project can be self-supporting, and not requiring ongoing external funding or support.

Discussions with Forest Industries Training (FIT) have indicated that there is an opportunity to develop one or more qualifications for those interested in the management of natural forests (as separate from planted forests). FIT believes that some of the necessary units are already available, but there is a requirement to explore the demand for such training, and to determine what if any additional units would require developing.

FIT has indicated that the cost of completing this work is not high, but at this time they do not have the necessary budget.

There also exists an opportunity to explore the concept of an indigenous timber producers marketing brand where several forest owners could work cooperatively to support market research and development while at the same time retaining their independence. This is an area that could be explored if sufficient owners decided that they wished to develop Sustainable Forest Management Plans for their forests and that they wished to retain control of the resource so created some distance down the value chain.

5.3.2 Forest Certification

Forest Certification such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification attempts to give consumers of wood and wood based products confidence that the products they are buying have come from sustainably managed forests, as opposed to forests where there is no regard for matters other than low cost timber production. On the face of it this is a laudable process and has certainly gained acceptance in some markets to the point where in those markets (especially the US and Europe) retailers are now specifying that they will not purchase product unless it comes from FSC certified forests.

This in turn has led to a rush in New Zealand to get forests certified to FSC standards. The vast majority of these forests are planted forests. A few indigenous forests have also pursued certification. FSC however makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the owner of a planted forest to also manage for timber production any indigenous forest within the total estate.

This has significant implications for some forest owners. The proportion of the planted estate that is on Māori land is significant and increasing. In addition, there is an ongoing process of land return to Māori. This land includes areas that have been leased to forestry companies and especially the Crown, and more significantly, ex State Forest lands that are being returned as part settlement of Waitangi claims. Within those forests there are in some cases quite substantial areas of indigenous forest, some of which could have potential for a sustained yield of timber.

For present forest owners that are seeking FSC certification, the general view is that the majority of their asset value lies in the planted part of the estate, and hence the requirements of this take priority over the residual indigenous forest. Management of the indigenous areas for sustained yield timber production is inherently smaller scale, less profitable and significantly more demanding on resources.

Of even greater significance is the FSC requirement of (almost) mutual exclusivity. By this they mean that if you are managing a planted forest, any indigenous forest within that estate must be managed for biodiversity and conservation purposes, and not for timber production.

There is no simple solution to this dilemma and the response to date has been to conform to the requirement rather than seek a special case for what after all is a small part of the asset. Even in the bigger picture, the forest industry as a whole tends to hope the matter of indigenous management could be settled elsewhere and have no bearing on the management of planted forests.

The only real solution is a change in thinking that sees all forests treated as different parts of a continuum and that all require management for various outcomes and that all can contribute to economic and environmental outcomes. Management of indigenous forests does not mean that they cannot contribute to biodiversity and conservation objectives, and in fact there is increasing evidence that shows that unless there are significant levels of management (particularly of animal and plant pests), the values seen as desirable in our indigenous estate will soon be lost.

Given the above discussion, it is reasonable to assume that few indigenous forests that are managed in conjunction with planted forests are likely to be available for indigenous timber production in the short term. This will be significant in some areas such as the Taupo Basin and the East Coast.

There is however another side to this coin for Māori forest owners. FSC requires forest managers to adequately cater for the needs of indigenous peoples. This concept was originally developed around people who lived within the forest and relied on it for their daily needs (such as within the Amazon). There is no distinction made that would suggest Māori cannot use this principle to further any desire to manage their indigenous forests either as part of a planted estate of independent of any planted estate.

This would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

5.4 Understanding the Opportunity

Throughout the discussions with people, one message that came through clearly was that few understood that management of indigenous forests for timber harvest was still permitted, and even those that did found the issues daunting.

Most people believed that they could no longer carry out any form of extractive management of their forests. While this is not the case, there are a number of agencies and organisations that are happy to allow this fallacy to prevail as it supports their objectives. The message that this is not the case has not been widely heard, particularly by those who could influence the management decision for their forests.

For this situation to change there is a need for communication with the key leaders, both economic and opinion, within the major forest owning groups. Such communication needs to traverse a number of areas. This includes the principles of sustained yield management, the relationship between the RMA and the Forests Act, compliance with territorial plans, and most importantly the potential benefits, both environmental and economic.

A second message that came through in this area was that much of the impetus needed to come from within, rather than be imposed from externally. The interpretation of this is that people are seeking ideas and information, but they need to develop the energy for such a development from within their people. This can be complemented by assistance (such as technical information) from other sources, but without internal commitment the likelihood of success is diminished.

By simply saying to the owners that there is an opportunity here, and we can give you the recipe to make this happen will cause some interest among owners that is likely to wane quite quickly. The challenge is to assist the owners and their advisers in developing such initiatives largely from within. This results in ownership of the project, and a higher level of long-term energy and commitment.

5.5 Mentors

The concept of management of indigenous forest for sustained yield timber production is new to most people and thus needs resources to both champion the case (as the Indigenous Forestry Unit does), and to assist forest owners to develop their case. For Māori this may well be in the form of a expert who has responsibility for some of the technical matters (such as the inventory work and initial plan development) and for guiding the owners through the process and ensuring high standards are set and maintained.

In the late 1990s the Government sponsored the preparation of management proposals for the development of planted forest on under-utilised Māori land in Northland. In this situation the Government recognised that it did not want to get involved in forest ownership or management but was willing to facilitate communication between Māori landowners and private sector investors, with a view to developing commercial plantation forests. In part this recognised that Māori did not have the resources necessary to do this work themselves at the time, and this was a means by which Government could assist without becoming involved in the business aspects of any venture. The concept was to bring in expertise to assist in the development of management plans for each block of land that the owners could then use to assist in attracting private investment.

For the development of Sustainable Forest Management Plans, a similar process could be used, whereby a plan was developed to a certain point under the guidance of an "expert". This could then be used by the forest owners to take the project to the next step either themselves or with another party.

The need for improved communication is very evident whenever the issue of sustained yield management of natural forest is raised. It became very clear in discussions with people that few understood the current legislative framework that surrounds the management of natural forest. Even Trustees of very significant areas of natural forest were under the impression that the Government had effectively removed any opportunity to derive economic outputs from this land or forest through legislation. There is a widely held belief that there are no circumstances under which native timber can be legally harvested from Māori land. Further there is considerable confusion over the roles of the RMA and the Forests Act.

These communication issues must be overcome before any attempt to develop Sustainable Forest Management Plans begins. Those people in positions of responsibility for decisions concerning this land (such as Trustees and the Māori Land Court) need to be made fully aware of what the options are. Once this is done they can then communicate the potential to the actual owners of the land. This again points to the potential of having mentors or a champion to ensure that any message is received by the right people in a format that is appropriate.

5.6 Shortcomings Identified by This Study

Any study of this nature will highlight areas where either the data is not particularly robust, or areas where there are additional dimensions that, if researched will add considerably to the body of knowledge or options available for decision-making.

Through the course of this work a number of issue have been identified which are briefly outlined in this section.

From a technical perspective, the most pressing need is more detailed resource descriptions at an individual forest or grouping of forests level.

Before any application for a Plan can proceed, detailed inventory data is required for the forest in question. This work will be completed as required for each forest, should the owner wish to proceed.

Improved resource descriptions would assist this process by identifying specific areas with the greatest potential for sustained yield management. This will also help to ensure that scarce resources are not applied to forests with lower potential for management, and that owners are not given unrealistic expectations of what potential their resource may have.

From a project development perspective, the greatest weakness appears to be a communication issue. The people who either make decisions relating to Māori owned indigenous forest, or who are able to influence those decisions, appear to be largely unaware of the opportunity. More seriously, many in fact believe that there is no opportunity available to them. They have been lead to believe that they are not able to develop their indigenous forests under any type of active management, and that all that can happen is the forest remains locked up. This has come about through a combination of rapid change in the legislation affecting the management of natural resources over the past 10 years, and a lack of "champions" for any view other than a preservation one.

If sustainable management of indigenous forest on Māori land is seen as desirable, the lack of information and assistance that owners are aware of and can access needs to be addressed. Considerable attention to the means of delivery of this information is required to ensure those in a position to use the information receive the right signals.

Further down the track the option of direct assistance may wish to be considered. Any attempt to do this should be carefully considered. While some assistance with some of the technical detail may be appropriate, there will be little long-term success unless it is driven from within the owners’ structure, and can be shown to have a sound business case with a high potential for success.

5.7 Conclusion

This study has identified the extent of Māori land that supports natural high forest and has estimated some volumes of timber that are supported on that land. The numbers point to a significant resource that could have potential for sustainable forest management, should that be the owners’ desire.

Given that the resource exists, it becomes necessary to explore what if any development of that resource could occur, what may be required to assist that process and what may impede the process.

A number of matters have been raised that require further work, but none of them indicate that the development of an indigenous timber industry based on sustainable forest management of the natural forest on Māori land is not an achievable outcome.

The next step must be to initiate discussions with the owners, their advisors and decision makers and their opinion leaders to determine whether they feel there is an opportunity there that they wish to support. Without support from these people successful development of sustainable forest management for these forests is unlikely.

The opportunity to develop an industry based upon these forests could provide both economic and environmental benefits. The potential environmental benefits to the forest of pest control could be very substantial particularly given the poor state of health of most of NZ’s natural forests. These benefits to the forest are not likely to be lost on the owners and are likely to feature strongly in any decisions.

There are some areas where assistance may be required from agencies such as Central Government. These need to be carefully considered and targeted, as ultimately the energy for such development must come from within the owners, not from externally, if there is to be a likelihood of success in the long-term. There are also some areas where Government can assist both Māori and the wider indigenous forest industry through such initiatives as refinement of the data held and development of suitable qualifications.

Contact for Enquiries

Policy Analyst - Forestry
Innovation and Research
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Tel: +64 4 894 0100
Fax: +64 4 894 0741
Contact this person