For information: I sent the following message to Ned Daly (re: Clive
David's note) today.
28 June 1994
Dear Mr. Daly,
If you are serious about taking an objective view of the impacts of
monoculture tree plantations, you should study the New Zealand example.
Here, the native forests were being destroyed by overcutting and burning
(mostly to clear land for sheep, but the timber industry also was involved).
If it were not for our monocultures, we would no longer have any native
forests. As it is, roughly 97% of our wood fibre comes from those
plantations which make up less than 5% of our total land area. Hardly any
wood fiber is being harvested any more from our natural forests which make
up 23% of our total land area.
"Which allows for more biodiversity, extensive forestry or intensive
forestry?" The question is not a fair one. A more proper question would
be, "Which allows for more biodiversity, extensive forestry allowing for
wood fibre harvest on the eitire forested estate, or intensive forestry on a
small percentage of the total land area allowing the remainder of the forest
to grow uncut."
Gathering food over a wide range allows for more biodiversity than intensive
farming. However, given our population level, if everyone gathered food
over a wide range, our ecosystem might be in even worse shape than it is
currently in. No matter what we do, we are going to have an impact on the
environment. Ultimately, the question is one of population levels and
living standards.
Are our plantations here in New Zealand sustainable? That remains to be
seen. But I do not think you would find too many ardent environmentalists
over here protesting against them. The environmentalists know, as do the
forest industry people, that the plantations saved the native forests. The
system is not perfect. And there are still issues. But it's not
confrontational as it is in the States.
If you want to do serious and objective research, you'll consider the New
Zealand example. If you only want to do psudo-research or
advocacy-research, you'll ignore this message.
Best wishes in your work.
Sincerely,
Ted Bilek
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ted Bilek, Forestry Economics |
| University of Canterbury, School of Forestry |
| e-mail: e.bilek@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| phone: 64-3-364-2121 fax: 64-3-364-2124 |
| addr: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0