Rt€@lll

-LIz-
adaptability. If that capacity for innovation could be married to the island ethic of
self-reliance, we would have little to worry about.
The irnportant difficulties we face are two-fold: firstly' we have not yet come to terms
with the ultimate need for a low-growth economy (and the aehievement of social sLability
within s.rch en economy); secondlyr we have yet to learn how to manage our resources
cnsibly, equitably and in nabional rather than sectional interests.
Since returning to New Zealand six monthe ago, the biggest cha1.ge I have noticed is in
attitudes to the forelt environment. I recall my astonishment when I first srrived here in the
early 1960s at what appeaned to be nothing short of a misanthropic obsession of New Zealand
foresters - the padlocks on forest eccess gates, the huge notices along the tourist roules
south of Rotorua proclaiming that I'lb is itlegal to enter ihese forests'r! Tlere were no
provisions tnder the Forests Act for setting apart State forest parks and recreation areas in
btrtu fore"ts until 1965 - and we were spending enormous $rns of rnoney annually poisoninq
wildlif e!
Inevitably, I then contrasted these atLitudes with Denm'rk - where every forest over 5
hectares in area, State or private, is legally and freely scCessible lo public recreationists;
whenedeerinStatffiffitificiallyfedsothatpeoplemaywatchthem;whereurban
facilities (hotels, pubs, restaurants, racetracks, golf courses - even amusemen[ parks) are
provided to attract people into forest areas; and where the forester is ss much concerned
with the management of a resort as a resource!
What made for difficulties in coping with NZ forestry attitudes in the 1960s was lhe
patent sincerity of foresters. The idea that there might be general and free access to State
production forests - let alone those in private ownerghip - was reqarded at that tirne as an
astonishing concept - €xi was the notion that there might be widespread public consultation
and debate about forest policies and practices. The subsequent change in attitudes has been
. revolutionary; present-day foresters €re infinitely more concerned about the needs and
aspirations of ordinary people (and much more knowledgeable about how those needs may be
salistieO) than was tnai generation - and is, I believe, every bit as sincere. Few of us, 20
years ago, could have imagined a Landscape Section in the NZ Forest Service and the
iublication of Guidelines fJr Creative Forestny; or the wealth of information now freely
available about our forest and environmental heritage. Who, then, eould have envisaqed a
Csnmission for the Environment - let alone a Government pnepared to pay $7 million in
compensation to preserve parL of Pureora?
Not surprisingly there is a much greater public awareness of forest land values than
there was in the fieOs - and throughout the region more people than ever before cate more
than ever before about the environment in which they live and work. For the sake of our
children - and their children - we should be thankful that this is so.
Ccnsiderably less comf orting, however, is a disturbing parallel development - the
increasing, though zubtle, exploitaiion of people's concern. There have always, I zupposet
Ueen proinets oI doom but they have exploited primarily the selfishness of a few ignorant
souls; our latter-day pnofiteers of doom exploit the finer feelinqs of Inany more people.
Moneover, they do soinGi- ne guise of scientif ic omniscience. Again, there have always
been scientific charlaLans - but they have usually deceived only each olher. A small but
vociferous minority of mountebanks purporting to represent our environmental movemenLs,
however, mislead vast. numbers of concerned citizens who are honest enough to acknowledge
thst they do not know Lhe answer to the Faustian dilemma we face with respect to the use
of our resources.
There is a real need, I believe, for environmental leadership which does not
over-represent particular issues at the expense of real problems. In Australia, for example,
preoccupation with rain forests diverts attenLion from the Mediterranean ecosystems - which
have no conservation status. In New Zealand a similar preoccupation with Government-held
Iand results in an almost total absence of environmentalist pressures upon private owners of
land to manage it purposefully for multiple use and in lhe naLional interest. And where is the
environmentalist concern for the lraditional (and appropriate) food resourees and their
management in the Pacific lslands?
It is perhaps [imely to expound the splendidly sensible case for human chauvinism
argued by John Passmore in his masterly account of rrManrs responsibility for NaLure" (J91 4)'