Successful campaigns bring victory for activists and the trees

3
10

keep-calm-and-love-trees-17

The recent successful campaigns to save trees such as the Western Springs Pohutukawa, and the Titirangi Kauri, are victories for the trees and for activists. These victories show that the public don’t want trees treated like objects to be arbitrarily disposed of by developers or utility providers, and that we’ll do what we can to save them. Civic activism is alive and well and so are these trees.

But almost every week Auckland’s Tree Council makes submissions against the removal of significant trees. And this isn’t just an Auckland issue, in Taranaki the ‘Save the Waitara Riverside Pohutukawa’ campaign seeks retention of 23 significant trees which Taranaki District Council wants to remove to build a seawall. A surfer elsewhere in Taranaki saw a significant copse of cabbage trees being removed and saved them from destruction by negotiating with the power company concerned, successfully empowered by the threat of public action.

The proposed removal of significant trees in these public cases is the tip of the iceberg in terms of pressures our trees face. With Auckland’s huge growth, and the housing shortage used as a justification for all sorts of ill-planned developments, trees are often seen as obstacles to progress and first in line to go. Most resource consent applications to remove trees are granted non-notified, and the trees are chopped down before anyone even knows about it. Neighbours find out when the chainsaw starts screaming. The massive Western Ring Route motorway project has already removed much of the corridor’s vegetative character – old macrocarpas, mangroves, heritage character trees from the Unitec precinct…. Tree trimming for power lines clearance also leaves many trees butchered.

But in public at least, there’s a renewed focus on the value of trees and the collective loss if they’re gone. And what makes this resurgence of tree awareness extra exciting, is the creative, democratic methods used for campaigning. Local public action, protestors climbing and occupying trees, yarnbombing, decorating the trees with art, banners, showing love and a sense of community, fun and tree ‘sit-ins’ have all added a new dynamic to complement attending meetings and running petitions!

These recent successful tree campaigns have made great use of social media, online petitions and collective discussion platforms such as Loomio; participation has been open and almost without boundaries. It’s always encouraging to have some successes too. We can take heart from that. The creative use of media and creative spontaneity and support from the public, won the day.

Trees are an essential element of a ‘liveable city’ for people and other species. Trees are valuable intrinsically, but also for their contribution to culture and botany, place, character and habitat, as well as for the environmental services they provide (carbon sequestration, stormwater and erosion control).

Suddenly, last week, trees gained political value too. Politicians from the left and the right avowed their commitment to trees. But because the loss of general tree protection rules was a fully intended consequence of RMA changes in the National term of government, further reforms don’t bode well. The best time to try to protect trees in Auckland under the current regime was through the Unitary Plan and that train has already left the station.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

There’s renewed impetus to find a way to protect our trees amidst an economic paradigm that privileges private property rights and denies the importance of public amenity. We shouldn’t have to sit in trees or wave placards to retain our living heritage. Development should respect and value trees. Councils should recognise their value to the public.
Tree removal erodes environmental quality and public amenity, but is also anti-democratic, so successful campaigns are a victory for the trees, but also for activists. The contingent, magical art of campaigning saved our precious trees. Let’s hope we can replicate that success, for more trees, and wider causes, against threats to come.

 

Christine Rose is employed as Kauri DieBack Community Co-ordinator by the Auckland Council. All opinions expressed herein are Christine’s own. No opinion or views expressed in this blog or any other media, shall be construed as the opinion of the Council or any other organisation.

3 COMMENTS

  1. Auckland is losing it’s amenity at an astonishing pace. The district plan has areas that are able to protect natural environment but the council planners ignore it. Effects are supposed to be mitigated.

    The whole resource consent process in Auckland seems more focused on money and fees rather than actually putting through safe quality consents. The process is supposed to have checks and balances but is not working.

    A person if they have the right amount of money, council connections, and paid ‘experts’ can get anything through. Apparently less than 1% of consents are declined, (and National thinks that’s too low so is going to make economic gain carry more weight hence curtains for trees).

    The worst problem with this, it the onus in now falling onto neighbours at their own cost and time to ensure consents are safe and do not effect them or the natural environment and character of area is not affected. Likewise the ports of Auckland extension. That is taking public amenity and putting it is private hands.

    In addition the houses being built are large and not affordable. The consent process is actually increasing in affordability by putting on excessive engineered houses on sites that should have more modest and affordable houses.

  2. The only time politicians from the right give a jot about trees is just before an election, and even then only if public opinion is on the side of the trees.

  3. In my opinion, there was no need for the last paragraph of this article. You are not in a position to categorically state that certain houses are unaffordable.

    This politically motivated and uninformed cheap shot only succeeds in discrediting the whole article. Shame.

Comments are closed.