The suggestion that Molesworth Station could be turned into a giant pine monoculture is crazy says well known angler-hunter and outdoor book author Alan Simmons.
“It’s even more crazy coming from the Department of Conservation who have failed to control wilding pines on public lands it is entrusted by parliamentary law to manage,” said Alan Simmons. “The option put forward by DoC to hand it over to forestry interests to plant as one huge pine forest is appalling to many and sends a shudder through all those who love and appreciate our NZ back country environment.”
The issue hit headlines when the Molesworth farm manager of 24 years, Jim Ward, abruptly resigned this week with sources saying he was increasingly frustrated about the lack of action to control wilding pine trees starting to cover parts of the 500,000 acre station’s farmland.
Alan Simmons – “DOC failure to control wilding pines on public lands”
Molesworth is such an iconic environment owned by the New Zealand public and valued for its vast wilderness landscape and currently run as a huge beef high country station said Alan Simmons.
“DoC is completely out of touch with reality and to the contrary, there is a strong case not to plant any more pine trees because of their detrimental effect on the environment. Pines are invasive, suck up huge quantities of water and deplete stream and river flows to the point of drying them up, poison the soil by turning it acidic, if and when harvested the slash waste is a huge problem for land owners downstream while clear felling results in heavy siltation of rivers and coastal waters such as the Marlborough Sounds.”
He said economic benefits were marginal as most logs are exported raw overseas and imported back as processed timber. Pine forests provide no real work for New Zealanders apart from harvesting and result in depopulation of rural communities and closure of community infrastructure such as schools. Environmentally monocultures of pines resulted in considerable loss of biodiversity.
Alan Simmons said perhaps DOC saw the concept of a giant pine forest in backcountry Marlborough as climate change mitigation. However the amount of grassland and native vegetation on Molesworth Station already contributes to any climate change goals. Besides the criteria of the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) is flawed such as not considering vegetation under five metres height.
“The thought of planting 446,705 acres or 700 square miles into pine forest turns my stomach,” said Alan Simmons.”Molesworth needs to remain a vast wilderness for future generations to enjoy. Past experience with forests once owned by New Zealanders is that they end up overseas owned and we end up locked out. An example is Kaiangaroa Forest in the Central North Island or the many former State forests of the Hawkes Bay now overseas owned. ”
He predicted any attempt to turn Molesworth Station into a mega-pine forest will set off a public outcry equal to the “Save Manapouri”campaign of the 1970’s.
I was pleased to see Mr Simmons point out DoC’s failure to control wilding pines in Marlborough’s high country. In the Branch catchment wilding Douglas Fir have been allowed – by DoC – to grow to maturity. The maturity reflects 25 years of neglect by DoC especially since the mature trees were right by a 4WD road. Reports are they have been logged. I hope DoC were shame-faced.
Pinus radiata wilding pines are proliferating just a stone’s throw from the 4WD track up the Leatham.
DoC’s suggestion to plant pines on Molesworth station is just plain, down-right dmb.
The Amuri County Council was very strong on the whole question of wilding pines well before their amalgamation ( Hurunui District Council) in 1989. I well remember that even the Governor General of the time Sir Paul Reeves was shown the growth around the Hanmer Springs area in 1989. That is 40 years at least of growth, despite the best efforts at that time.
Fundamental Contradictions in DOC Policy
The Department of Conservation’s suggestion to convert Molesworth Station into a pine monoculture exposes a staggering contradiction at the heart of their mandate. This is the same organization that is legally required to control wilding pines across New Zealand’s public conservation estate, yet has demonstrably failed in this basic responsibility for decades.
The Wilding Pine Failure:
– DOC has allowed Douglas Fir to reach maturity in the Branch catchment over 25 years of neglect
– Mature wilding trees were growing “right by a 4WD road” – highlighting DOC’s complete failure to act even when access was straightforward
– Pinus radiata wildings are proliferating near the Leatham 4WD track
– This represents 40+ years of documented wilding pine spread despite awareness dating back to the 1980s
How can DOC credibly propose deliberately planting the very species they have systematically failed to control when they spread naturally?
Betrayal of Conservation Principles
DOC’s pine forest proposal represents a fundamental betrayal of conservation principles and public trust:
Loss of Biodiversity
Converting 700 square miles of diverse high country grassland and native vegetation into a sterile pine monoculture would create one of New Zealand’s largest biodiversity deserts.
This is Ecosystem Destruction on a vast scale. Pine forests acidify soil, dramatically reduce water flows in streams and rivers, and create ecological dead zones that support virtually no native wildlife.
Public Asset Disposal Perhaps?
This appears to be a backdoor privatization scheme. Historical precedent shows that state forests inevitably end up in overseas ownership, permanently locking Kiwi’s out of their own public lands.
Surely DoC are guilty of Environmental Hypocrisy and are creating a potentiial Water Security Threat.
At a time when water security is increasingly critical, DOC proposes covering half a million acres with a species notorious for depleting waterways. The environmental impact on the Marlborough region’s river systems would be catastrophic.
While DoC pretend to claim climate benefits, the proposal ignores that existing grassland and native vegetation already provide carbon sequestration. The ETS criteria used to justify such projects are fundamentally flawed, ignoring vegetation under five meters height.
Legal Contradictions: DOC’s Molesworth Pine Forest Proposal vs Conservation Act 1987
Executive Summary
The Department of Conservation’s proposal to convert Molesworth Station into a pine forest represents a fundamental breach of its statutory obligations under the Conservation Act 1987, the Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy, and the Molesworth Management Plan. This analysis demonstrates multiple legal contradictions that render the proposal ultra vires (beyond legal authority).
Core Statutory Violations
Conservation Act 1987 – Section 6: Primary Functions
Legal Requirement: DOC’s primary statutory functions include “(a) to manage for conservation purposes, all land, and all other natural and historic resources” and “(ab) to preserve so far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats”
Violation: Converting up to 180,000 hectares (about the size of Stewart Island) of diverse high country grassland into pine monoculture directly contradicts managing land “for conservation purposes.” Pine forests:
– Destroy existing native grassland ecosystems
– Eliminate freshwater fish habitats through stream acidification and water depletion
– Replace diverse ecosystems with sterile monocultures
Conservation Act 1987 – Advocacy Function
Legal Requirement: DOC must “advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources generally”
Violation: Proposing the largest ecosystem destruction project in New Zealand’s history is the antithesis of conservation advocacy. DOC is actively advocating against conservation by promoting biodiversity destruction.
Conservation Act 1987 – Overriding Principle of Protection
Legal Framework: The Conservation Act has “the overriding principle of ‘protection'” which “has primacy over that of sustainable management”
Violation:The pine forest proposal prioritizes commercial forestry interests over protection of existing natural values, directly inverting the statutory hierarchy.
Definition Contradictions
“Conservation Purposes” Under the Act
Legal Definition: The Act requires “management for conservation purposes of all land and natural and historic resources” and protection of “indigenous natural resources”
Contradiction: Pine monocultures serve commercial, not conservation purposes. The proposal:
– Destroys rather than conserves natural resources
– Eliminates rather than protects indigenous biodiversity
– Prioritizes exotic species over native ecosystems
Hierarchy of Activities
Statutory Hierarchy: “To the extent that the use of any natural or historic resource for recreation or tourism is not inconsistent with its conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources for recreation, and to allow their use for tourism”
Violation: The hierarchy places conservation first, recreation second, and commercial use third. Pine forestry:
– Is inconsistent with conservation (violating the primary requirement)
– Eliminates recreational opportunities through access restrictions
– Prioritizes commercial forestry over all other values
Molesworth-Specific Legal Violations
Molesworth Management Plan Contradictions
Statutory Requirement: The management plan requires “protection alongside a pastoral farming operation” with “wider public interests, particularly conservation and recreation, to be enhanced”
Violation: Pine forestry would:
– Eliminate both pastoral farming and conservation values
– Destroy recreational access and opportunities
– Breach the specific management direction for the reserve
Reserve Status Violation
Legal Status: Molesworth is designated as a “Recreation Reserve” under “Section 40B of the Reserves Act 1977”
Contradiction: Recreation reserves cannot be converted to commercial forestry. The Reserves Act prohibits activities inconsistent with recreational purposes.
Treaty of Waitangi Violations
Section 4 Conservation Act Requirements
Legal Obligation: DOC has “a particular responsibility under section 4 of the Conservation Act to interpret and administer the Act to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”
Failure: The pine forest proposal shows no evidence of:
– Consultation with Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura (identified as DOC’s partner)
– Consideration of kaitiakitanga responsibilities
– Recognition of Māori cultural values in landscape management
Partnership Obligations
Statutory Requirement: “DOC is working in partnership with Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura to develop the next steps for considering future management options”
Breach: Proposing pine forestry without meaningful partnership consultation violates Treaty obligations and established working relationships.
Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy Violations
Regional Conservation Framework
Legal Framework: The Canterbury CMS “provides guidance for DOC’s work in the form of a vision, objectives, outcomes for places, policies and milestones” and “covers all public conservation lands and waters in Canterbury”
Violation: Pine monoculture contradicts CMS objectives for:
– Biodiversity protection and enhancement
– Ecosystem integrity maintenance
– Water quality protection
– Landscape value preservation
Integrated Management Requirements
Statutory Obligation: Conservation management must consider multiple values including indigenous biodiversity, water quality, and recreational access.
Failure: The pine proposal ignores integrated management by prioritizing single-use commercial forestry over all other statutory requirements.
Procedural Violations
Public Consultation Requirements
Legal Process: Management changes require extensive public consultation, with “more than 4,500 responses” to the previous Molesworth survey
Violation: The pine forest proposal appears to bypass required public consultation processes established under conservation legislation.
Conservation Board Input
Statutory Role: “DOC is also working closely with the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board and the Molesworth Steering Committee”
Breach: No evidence of Conservation Board approval or consultation on this fundamental change to management direction.
Legal Precedent and Authority
Conservation Authority Guidance
Independent Oversight: The Conservation Authority “primarily acts as an independent conservation advisor” and “advocates on matters of national significance to conservation”
Concern: This proposal appears to lack Conservation Authority input or approval, despite being a matter of clear national conservation significance.
Statutory Planning Hierarchy
Legal Framework: “A national park management plan and a conservation management plan cannot be inconsistent with a CMS”
Violation: The pine proposal contradicts the established planning hierarchy by proposing activities inconsistent with higher-level strategic documents.
Indigenous Biodiversity Protection Failure
Primary Legislative Purpose
Statutory Purpose: The Conservation Act 1987 is “New Zealand’s principal act concerning the conservation of indigenous biodiversity”
Fundamental Breach: Converting diverse indigenous grassland ecosystems to exotic pine monoculture represents the complete opposite of indigenous biodiversity conservation.
Freshwater Protection Requirements
Specific Obligation: DOC must ensure “preservation of indigenous freshwater fisheries” and “protection of recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats”
Direct Violation: Pine forests are notorious for:
– Acidifying streams and eliminating fish habitat
– Depleting water flows essential for aquatic life
– Destroying riparian ecosystems
Conclusions and Legal Remedies
Ultra Vires Determination
The pine forest proposal exceeds DOC’s legal authority under the Conservation Act 1987. The proposal:
– Contradicts DOC’s primary statutory functions
– Violates the overriding principle of protection
– Breaches specific obligations for biodiversity conservation
– Ignores Treaty of Waitangi requirements
– Contravenes established management plans and strategies
Legal Action Options
This analysis provides grounds for:
– Judicial Review of any decision to proceed with pine forestry
– Injunctive Relief to prevent implementation
– Mandamus to compel DOC to fulfill its statutory obligations
– Declaratory Judgment that the proposal exceeds statutory authority
Statutory Compliance Requirements
To proceed legally, DOC would need to:
– Demonstrate consistency with Conservation Act purposes and functions
– Conduct full environmental impact assessment
– Complete statutory consultation processes
– Obtain Conservation Authority and Conservation Board approval
– Amend relevant management plans through proper legal processes
– Address Treaty of Waitangi obligations
Recommendation
The pine forest proposal should be abandoned as fundamentally incompatible with DOC’s statutory mandate. Any attempt to proceed without addressing these legal contradictions would likely result in successful legal challenge and restoration of legal management requirements.
DOC should refocus on its core statutory obligations: conservation of indigenous biodiversity, protection of natural resources, and management for genuine conservation purposes as required by the Conservation Act 1987.
Andi Cockroft
Chair, Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations Of NZ
A Department of Conservation proposal to turn the iconic Molesworth Station into a giant pine plantation is surely one of the most idiotic ideas ever to emerge from that top-heavy bureaucracy.
Are these supposed environmental “experts” unaware that pines are invasive (DOC can’t even control wilding pines as they are supposed to do), suck up water to the extent of drying up streams and rivers, poison soil by turning it acidic, and lead to the widespread devastation caused by slash that is increasingly occurring when harvested areas are subject to heavy rainfall?
Clear felling also results in siltation of rivers and coastal waters.
One has to ask just who is pulling DOC’s strings?
If Jim Ward reckons pine trees are a scourge on Molesworth, maybe the government should listen. No wonder he’s had enough. So has everyone else.
Planting the area with pines is utterly daft. The soil will be destroyed as will the native and other wild life. If you must plant trees plant oaks, walnuts, chestnuts, pigeonwood, an appropriate choice of Notofagus, and hazel nuts in the ratio of 1:1:1:1:1:5. Keas, wekas and native pigeons particularly will all thrive offering shooting and foraging for the NZ public. Plant all on a six metre grid.
An american scientist visited NZ at behest of a forestry management company around ten years ago . The scientist looked at the NZs pine situation and concluded in 150 years NZ would be inundated by pines and the landscape completely changed, the pines would take over killing the native off. He advised it is too late to stop the over run by pines as each current tree produces thousands of seeds annually that can lie dormant for decades. There is no way of stopping this from happening he said.
DOC wanting to help and speed up the process is fairly typical. Kill all the birds. Plant NZ in pines, I don’t expect much else from them
Absolute madness