Aimee Vickers is a freelance writer whose work has been published in local, national and international magazines, newspapers and books. Aimee is a member of environmental group Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti.
I’ve got a cheap old flannel shirt full of holes. It’s approximately 10 years old, and I wear it whenever I do dirty work. Gardening, renovating or painting ... I often wear that stalwart shirt. But, since it’s been worn and washed a thousand times, it’s become fragile and threadbare. It doesn’t matter though — it’s expendable. I can just throw it out.
I also have a white shirt that I have pulled out on occasion. It cost a lot of money and I wore it to fancy events. When the event was over I’d hand-wash it, never putting it through the drier. This is a prize possession I invested in, and I can’t bear to give it away, even though it doesn’t fit me anymore.
I think of those two different shirts when the Government says they are “tough on crime”, because their approach is the equivalent of using caustic soda to clean a frail shirt and using fabric softener on the white-collar, the shirt that has been made with the best materials and lived sheltered in the wardrobe with the care it needs to last for decades.
When big forestry corporations that made significant mistakes or ignored advice and regulations, causing devastation to land, animals and people, complain about prosecutions and financial loss, you might think the Government would step up and get “tough on crime” — environmental crime. But that has not happened.
Dana Kirkpatrick recently softened the stance, with comments that were completely incongruent with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s words. (Perhaps that’s all they are; words.)
When Luxon was looking for votes, he was asked by Paddy Gower if he was “prepared to shut down these forestry companies that are bad neighbours that let slash into waterways and on to other properties?” He replied, “Absolutely ... we should hit them with serious penalties and there should be serious consequences for them.”
Yet Kirkpatrick, representing the same Government, recently said “prosecution and fining people ... is not the answer”; “that’s not helpful because it means the same thing is still happening, we need to sort out the front end of it”.
In case you can’t see the difference, those are two very different approaches.
Forestry companies complaining about regulations and profit loss is a kick in the guts for the people, particularly in rural areas, who suffered a loss more meaningful than money.
We cannot treat those people as expendable while caustic soda eats into their land, and treat forestry companies gently.
These multimillion-dollar corporations may have to suck it up and take a loss, because eventually there will be no land left, and how will they make profits then?
Of course it’s not that simple and there will be a transition phase, but ecological experts are currently working on better options for a just transition.
Options for jobs and livelihoods should be prioritised. New jobs could be created in pest control and indigenous forest regeneration.
If the Emissions Trading Scheme is tweaked, farmers and land owners could be released from the hook of emissions pricing to better choose the way they use their land; ways that suit the soil profile and geography.
Ideally, a mosaic approach would be the best way forward. Agriculture, horticulture and permanent reforestation. Growing medicine and cosmetics, or food. Even tourism is another way to create jobs.
That’s not to say that no pine can be planted at all, but it needs to be less prolific and more strategically grown, with eyes on the long term over short-term gains.
It’s clear the only way to solve an issue is to start with the objective truth, and that is we cannot continue to plant a monoculture of pine on highly erodible land. Disaster isn’t coming ... disaster is here.
It is not up to the people to solve forestry’s problems. However, as a member of Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti, I can tell you the people are here anyway, prepared to connect and help solve the problem.
The only way we will solve the issue is to come together, despite our differences, and deal with it.
But first, we must agree on our shared reality. The shirt doesn’t fit anymore, and we might never wear it again.