Let’s have an inclusive plan for the future

Clive Bibby

Opinion

by Clive Bibby

This column will be seen by some as premature because it is written prior to the reporting of the Hekia Parata-led inquiry into land use on the East Coast.

My response to that is — it needs to be! Because the alternative would most likely see it lost in the clamour to apportion blame and seek compensation from those deemed responsible for the carnage.

Such a response, should it happen — which would no doubt suit the main players trying to shield themselves from being cited as equally responsible as the forestry companies — would be a tragedy for the East Coast struggling to make sense of the destruction and chart a way forward that includes us all.

What is needed now, more than ever, is a commitment from all parties to work together in an effort to ensure the region’s future is guaranteed, and everybody and everything can benefit from the much-needed restructuring — especially the environment!

The options for change to the way we do things are obvious but doable and, more importantly, should be acceptable to the main players who are capable of making it happen.

But first we need to clear the decks of existing blame-seeking that has no place in a society needing to make choices that will build on the reality of our current circumstances, rather than spend time and energy trying to satisfy the current blood lust that is misplaced and unhelpful.

Sure, there will be a need to identify responsibility for mistakes made in the past,  although in doing so, it will be hard for any sector to escape responsibility for past actions or inactions. In fact, such time-wasting could be counterproductive when trying to focus on a future that will need the culprits as well as the innocent to remain working together.

My dealings with forestry companies helping in the clean-up after the cyclones have been somewhat enlightening, showing not only their commitment to this region — at least for the moment — but also revealing the danger of continuing to demonise them as being solely responsible for the catastrophe.

These discussions have confirmed my suspicions about the problems we will all face in the future, that we can do little about. For example, a lot of the “forestry” trash that caused so much of the destruction on its way to the lowlands or the sea was in fact non-harvested trees that ended up in the waterways after whole hillsides that had supported them for years gave way under the weight of the sodden top soil.

In those circumstances, which are symptomatic of our geological structure, there is little anyone could have done about it.

Unfortunately, it is part of the local dynamics and the consequences will continue to happen even if the hillsides in question are retired and planted in permanent forests.

In other words, this is just one fact that might be missing in the rush to apportion blame — if we don’t recognise it beforehand.

The real threat to our future is more likely to come from any unfairly imposed fines for an industry that currently supports the local economy. My sources suggest fines could be as large as $10 million per company.

Should that happen, there is a real possibility that those affected would simply walk away. Continuing in an environment that refuses to recognise their contribution to the region’s survival would be seen as a bridge too far.

We can’t allow that to happen and hopefully the Parata report will emphasise the danger of it becoming a self-fulfilled prophecy.