Saturday, March 30, 2024

Concern over forestry spread

Neal Wallace
The Government has been accused of failing to fulfil election promises to protect quality soils from forest planting and to review the favourable treatment of foreign forestry investors.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard says the Government promised to revise the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) to require resource consent for proposed forestry blocks larger than 50ha on class 1-5 soil but has not yet done so.

“We were told they would,” Hoggard said.

The Government has announced terms of reference for a review of the Overseas Investment Act (OIA), which provides favourable treatment of foreign forestry investors, but a report is not due until the end of next year.

NZ Forest Service acting director general Henry Weston says changes to the national environmental standards (NES-PF) need to be considered alongside other work such as increased planting of permanent native and production forests to meet emission reduction targets.

It must also take account of reviews into the role of timber and wood processing in a net zero carbon economy and changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), of which the NES-PF is part of.

Weston says the NES-PF provides regulation for the management of any forest block over 1ha planted for commercial harvest, and a review of those rules started in 2018 was released last year.

It recommended changes to reduce the risk of wilding trees, tighter control in the management of slash and improve accountability for biodiversity.

Hoggard says the Government promised to introduce new standards to protect soils within six months of being elected, but Weston says it will now be considered along with the emissions reduction plan, part of the Zero Carbon Act, and RMA reforms.

“One of the work streams in that plan is a strategic direction for the NES-PF to ensure that it is fit for the future and integrated with broader government reforms,” Weston said.

“This will involve careful consideration of what right tree, right place, right purpose means for New Zealand.”

Forest companies encouraged by a high carbon price are outbidding pastoral farmers and purchasing some classes of land, according to Real Estate Institute of NZ rural spokesperson Brian Peacocke.

He has had reports that depending on the location and topography, forestry companies are paying between $4000 and $12,000/ha.

The areas experiencing the greatest growth are Otago, north Wairarapa, southern Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, Wairoa, coastal Taranaki and Northland.

“It is quite widespread,” Peacocke said.

However, Peacocke says the profitability of sheep and beef farming, and banks being more willing to lend to the sector, has made farmers more competitive when buying land.

But that may only last until the carbon unit price, currently around $37 per tonne, starts rising, as it is widely predicted to do so.

Hoggard’s criticism of the spread of forestry and its impact on rural communities and jobs has been rebuffed by forest owners.

The Forest Owners Association says planting restrictions will intrude on farmers wanting to plant trees on their land and make it difficult for NZ to reach its climate change targets.

Association president Phil Taylor says last year’s PricewaterhouseCoopers Report, commissioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries, found that, on average, the value-add for forestry per hectare was many times higher than it was from the average hill country property.

Taylor says foreign forestry investors cannot invest in carbon forest planting and he notes the rate of new forestry planting in the 18 months to the end of last year, was 500ha a month and has since fallen.

The Climate Change Commission has calculated 380,000ha of new plantation forests are needed within 15 years for NZ to reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets, which Taylor says represents about 4% of existing sheep and beef farmland.

“If we fail to get that modest area in trees because of planting restrictions, then the Government may have to reduce livestock numbers instead. And I don’t think Federated Farmers would want that,” Taylor said.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading