New Zealand has long history of protesters occupying land or staging sit-ins. Nelson Railway, Bastion Point, Moutoa Gardens, Ihumātao are part of this history. More than two years ago a group of Mt Albert residents occupied the local maunga to save its exotic trees being cut down. The group’s leader, Anna Radford, explains why they’ve kept up the long battle.
Ecology is being increasingly idealised into a simplistic binary of native equals good/non-native equals bad.
This is starkly portrayed in Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s plans to rid Tāmaki Makaurau/Auckland’s maunga (volcanic cones) of all exotic trees – some 2500 in all.
It had already cleared three maunga and was about to start on Ōwairaka/Mt Albert’s 345 non-native trees - nearly half the maunga’s tree cover - in November 2019 when myself and others intervened. We formed the Honour the Maunga tree protection group and occupied the maunga to block the contractor’s access. Most of us had never done anything more radical than signing a petition or walking in a protest march, so occupying was a daunting step.
A news and social media storm ensued and, to the horror of our Pākeha members and bemusement of our Māori and other non-Pākeha ones, we were branded racists even though all we wanted to do was save hundreds of trees and the lifeforms they support. It is evident in this and other issues in Aotearoa that the meaning of racism has changed from denigrating people based on their race, to daring to criticise anything that has a Māori component - even if the person criticising it is Māori themselves.
It didn’t take long to realise we had unwittingly walked into an intersection of complex and highly nuanced issues that drive to the core of our society.
Understanding the situation requires understanding of who Tūpuna Maunga Authority is and why our tree-saving actions became so politically-loaded.
The ratepayer-funded body was established to administer 14 maunga following a 2014 Treaty settlement that vested ownership of them in a collective of 13 iwi and hapū. However, the settlement placed the lands in trust for the common benefit of that collective - and all other people of Auckland.
The “other people” include Māori excluded from that settlement, and people from other ethnicities. The lands were designated public reserves, guaranteeing everyone’s access.
To reflect this Treaty partnership intention, the authority equally comprises iwi and Auckland Council members. Any questions about its processes are therefore directed at its Auckland Council representatives as much as anybody.
Despite claims to the contrary, our group has only ever been motivated by environmental concerns. Auckland is losing tall mature trees at an alarming rate, and it is a travesty to destroy 2500 more during a climate emergency.
Although we support succession to fully native vegetation over time, best practice is to retain mature elder trees to provide shelter for the new natives, and food and homes for the birds and other lifeforms that depend upon them. These trees will also provide climate management and amenity value for everyone until the young native plantings grow to maturity.
We believe the authority has consistently misled Aucklanders over this issue. For example, it implied it would “cloak” the maunga in trees yet planting plans and recent plantings reveal a completely different picture. Artist impressions suggest lush, verdant landscapes but in reality most of the new natives are low-growing species such as grasses, flaxes and shrubs. The tiny number of tree species will take 50-100 years to reach maturity, if they survive at all given maunga environments are harsh and exposed with little topsoil.
Revegetation won’t occur where the doomed exotics are, and - as can be seen at Mangere and Mt Wellington - the net effect will be largely bare-looking maunga.
The authority’s claim that between 9000 and 13,000 natives will go in at Ōwairaka sounds impressive until compared to the Tiritiri Matangi revegetation project. There, between 250,000 and 300,000 were planted over a decade, resulting in 60 percent forest cover on the island.
Taking size differences into account, Ōwairaka would need between 108,500 and 130,200 natives for its restoration to come close. The authority says it has planted 5180 natives at Ōwairaka in the three years to now. Therefore, the sparse plantings seen there today represent around 40 percent of the intended end result, very few of which will become trees.
Sadly, Forest & Bird, the Tree Council and the Green Party refuse to stand with us, preferring instead to support the wholesale destruction of a significant proportion of the city’s rapidly dwindling urban forests. Some local and central government politicians are suggesting establishing tree protection measures - but only for native trees.
It is hard not to conclude that ideology is winning over what is the right thing to do for the urban environment, even in designated significant ecological areas such as Ōwairaka.
An uneasy calm presides two years on from our initial occupation, with non-notified tree felling resource consents being live for Puketāpapa/Mt Roskill, Ōtāhuhu/Mt Richmond and Ōwairaka. Ōwairaka’s trees are safe for the moment, thanks to an injunction undertaken as part of a judicial review initiated by Auckland couple Warwick and Averil Norman. The appeal decision is pending and, should it not favour the trees, then local communities are poised to spring into action.
Although Honour the Maunga doesn’t currently occupy Ōwairaka around the clock, the strength of feeling is such that we have (Covid permitting) maintained a daily vigil there for more than 760 days. People from all over the country come to find out more, with most voicing support for our actions.
Many ask why this is happening? We can’t answer that definitively because the authority’s claims, in our view, often don’t stack up. For example, it said the trees were “pests”, so we checked the pest register and found only a handful of maunga species listed there.
Apparently Ōwairaka’s exotic trees are hazardous even though there has never been a full assessment. The claim that single-phase felling of nearly half the maunga’s mature tree cover is best practice succession, is also debatable. The authority also talks about the tihi (summits) needing to see each other, yet pōhutukawa - not exotics - obscure Ōwairaka’s.
Some of its supporters and members have referred to “decolonisation”. But what exactly is decolonisation and how does spending many millions on destroying healthy mature urban trees during a climate emergency fix anything? And if the underlying reason is decolonisation, then why doesn’t the authority say so and explain what exactly that means for all the people of Auckland and how this aligns with its own values of “actively nurture positive relationships”, “respect histories” and “tread lightly”?
Trees rarely seem to win in this city but what makes me even sadder is how trying to save thousands of them has become such a deeply divisive and politically-loaded issue. Yet it doesn’t need to be like this.
Wouldn’t it be truly transformative if the succession to native vegetation was done in a sensitive and constructive manner that treated all ecologies and cultures with respect and integrity. Imagine the positive partnerships that could arise if the authority engaged in a manner that worked with local communities, not against them.
I have thought deeply about how to heal the rifts that the past two years’ events have opened up and spent many hours discussing this with our Māori and non-Māori supporters alike. Common to all of us is a deeply held spiritual connection with the earth mother Papatūānuku and all of her children - no matter what their whakapapa may be.
Good old-fashioned communication aside, I believe the way forward lies in promoting good relationships with and ensuring the protection of the natural world by putting Papatūānuku at the front and centre of all political and personal relationships. Because when nature wins, we all win.
