Little by little until its gone – each bit seems like nothing, yet all the bits were something, and before you know it, it’s gone, finished, over; whatever it was – it is no longer there.

Is this is the story of Auckland’s urban forest?

The [Auckland] Tree Council estimate that 40 per cent of the trees in some Auckland suburbs have been lost. A recent Auckland City Council report details that over 620,000 square meters of tree canopy has been removed in the past 10 years. That there have been 12,879 tree removal events, but this is not an accurate reflection of tree loss because each tree removal event may involve the removal of multiple trees. But, in my mind, the most significant point in the Auckland City report is that in over half the tree removal events, no new buildings or structures have replaced the space created – more than half of tree canopy loss has occurred for no obvious reason.

The problem gets worse when you leave the suburbs, in central Auckland, the tree canopy cover is less than 10% and getting smaller. In comparable cities around the region, the opposite is occurring. Informed cities are actively expanding their tree cover; Sydney is aiming for 30% coverage, Melbourne wants 40% and Brisbane is already at 50% but plans to grow it some more. Those cities see the benefits of trees but Auckland city doesn’t seem to see what others can. So what is it that Auckland can’t see – because it is clearly not the forest for the trees…

The benefits of urban trees are well documented; trees increase property values, reduce crime, create community, store carbon, reduce surface water runoff, attract customers, prolong the life of infrastructure, reduce noise, purify the air, improve immunity, supply oxygen, attract residence, decrease soil erosion, reduce sediment loading, reduce wind speed, save water, provide habitat, improve learning, increase the rate of healing, reduce UV exposure, improve mental wellbeing, increase life expectancy – the list goes on; healthy cities need trees – but the City of Sails seems to have missed the boat.

The loss of Auckland’s urban forest can be directly linked to the removal of blanket tree protection from the Resource Management Act in 2015. But to solely blame urban deforestation on the removal of blanket tree protection would be an oversimplification, land banking, poor urban planning, weak leadership, public ignorance, the ‘not in my backyard’ attitude all play their part. And as long as each part can blame some other part the problem will never resolve, complexity is a great excuse for inaction.

The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago. So how can we resolve a problem that will take up to 30 years to fix? What can be done to stop the loss?

To stop the loss, strong leadership is required, strong local government leadership that is actually for the good of the city, not just for the benefit of the next election cycle. Tree protection laws need to be put back into place. I never thought that I would write something promoting the creation of additional laws over the freedom of choice – but clearly, the choices of some are affecting others, and that is what the law is for. Laws exist to ensure that people living in a community are not abused by other people, by organisations, or by the government itself. Through intent or ignorance, the simple reality is that people living in Auckland are being abused by other people, organisations, and/or the government.

Luckily we already have laws that manage natural and physical resources for present and future generations; the Resource Management Act (RMA). Note that the RMA is includes consideration for ‘future generations’. Laws exist to ensure that people are not abused by other people… is the loss of Auckland’s tree cover, not a situation where the present generation are abusing future generations?

The present generation made changes to the RMA because it was time-consuming, expensive and placed bureaucratic restrictions on legitimate economic activities. So they removed blanket tree protection and ‘more than half of tree canopy loss has occurred for no obvious reason’. It would seem that Aucklanders can’t manage their freedom of choice, or their elected leaders are more concerned with election cycles than the health of their city.

The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, restore blanket tree protection and stop the present generation through intent or ignorance abusing future generations.

• Written for Tree matters Magazine (NZ)