But in the past two decades some of the country’s highest quality land has gone under cement and tarmac for urban development. Despite having a population the size of Melbourne in a land area the size of Britain some people are starting to question whether a country that earns its living off its soils can afford to keep paving over its key resource to support population growth.
The loss of productive soils to housing is a subject economist Shamubeel Eaqub has given considerable thought.
He has serious concerns about whether New Zealanders have been lulled into a sense there is plenty to go around in our supposedly lightly populated country.
“The problem is we have a history of building on top of our best land near populated centres.
“Look at Epsom in the heart of residential Auckland. It used to be corn fields. Then you look further out west where there used to be many orchards. The question has to be asked, ‘what next – is there ever any end to the loss of it to housing?’”
In 35 years from 1975 Auckland lost 10,080 hectares of high-value land. Based on average vegetable crop production of 60 tonnes a hectare that is enough to supply vegetables for most of the North Island, every year.
Canterbury and Waikato have also suffered significant losses over a similar time.
Underlying the growth driving that loss is an even bigger question that no government has ever felt compelled to address.
That is just how many people a country that relies so heavily on productive soils to pay its way in the world wants to have as a population.
“Perhaps, with our population approaching five million, we are at a good point to consider this,” Eaqub said.
We do not have a population policy but we have to start somewhere – it can allow growth as long as it does not encroach on productive land.
“We have a very land-intensive approach to housing compared to many places and to change requires an intensification of our living.
“The Auckland Unitary Plan does go a long way to this and peoples’ expectations around living are changing.”
Eaqub maintains NZ will need a national approach to integrating environment, land use and population growth, possibly using the Resource Management Act, despite its flaws.
“But it’s about this broader question – have we got the balance right around land use?”
He is concerned his economist peers often look on land as a fungible asset in their economic models, that is a uniform asset with use easily interchanged between districts and regions.
“But, in fact, its location and type makes a huge difference about what you can grow on it.
“You can’t swap a hectare of high-quality vegetable land in Pukekohe and simply grow the same things on a hectare down south.”
He urges policymakers to put a 100-year perspective on decisions made today when allocating more productive farm and growing land for housing.
The issues around growing and providing food for people will only become greater and in 100 years paving over those soils might appear foolishly short-sighted.
“Right now the incentive is that it is much more profitable to turn it into houses in many places.
“But it is a blunt approach with the market taking care of it because it is an asymmetrical loss – once it has gone to houses you can’t get it back again. It’s gone.”
He acknowledges in a country like New Zealand where ownership delivers healthy property rights, using a national policy to control loss of productive land could be contentious.
“Particularly in NZ where the route to profitability has been capital gain on exit of that land and if you are close to an urban centre your land will become even more valuable, worth a lot more than the purpose it was sold for.
“Unless you create a regulatory framework to mandate land use as a high-quality food production asset this will not change.”
He puts the capital gain potential in the problem’s front seat. It’s one that becomes a chicken and egg contributor to urban sprawl.
“If you looked at the return on farming you would never do it unless there are future value gains to be had and location near cities only heightens that. The incentive is there at present for the landowner to engage the urban council to expand further and to take the extra gain that comes with that.”
Equab’s concerns over the loss of soils are based on solid history.
“Good quality food is not an economic argument, it is a necessity. We have to be clear there are some things like soil that cannot be replaced.”
His concerns are echoed by Horticulture NZ’s resources and environment manager Michelle Sands.
Horticulture NZ is helping push a National Policy Statement on versatile and high-class soils and land through Parliament, with submissions being received later this year.
A statement means regional councils will be obliged to honour its directions in their planning.
The statement aims to achieve some of what Eaqub is advocating – protecting the 5% of soils that are the most productive and versatile in the country.
It has the support of Environment Minister David Parker who last year said he is concerned at how much urban growth is occurring on irreplaceable, highly productive land.
Sands appreciates the conflict between urban growth and Government expectations for the primary sector to add value to its exports.
“Often, the most premium product is one you can eat raw. Picked cleanly with no E coli and delivered in a timely fashion.”
This typically has to come from soils supported by good infrastructure and with a population nearby to not only to buy the product but to provide the manpower to harvest it.
“So, we often hear about how if you lose land in one area to housing you could move production to another.
“But this is often neither practical or realistic.
“Maybe you can grow brassicas elsewhere but you need to harvest that food and you need people to do it.”
Local Government NZ president Dave Cull said there is no shortage of land in NZ, given it is a country the size of Britain with Melbourne’s population.
But he has acknowledged different challenges across the country with plans like the Auckland Unitary Plan reflecting those differences, where areas of elite soils are protected for the purpose of food supply.
However, Horticulture NZ has maintained that while that protects 2000ha a further 6000ha of next grade soils remain without protection and prospects are for Auckland to lose a further 10,000ha in the next 20 years.
NEXT WEEK:
What councils are doing
