I’ve planted and harvested a forest and since planted more. I’m also a firm believer in the right tree in the right place. I’m not a fan of blanket planting good farmland with pines.
Most of my colleagues share my view and many marched on Parliament on November 14.
The forestry sector obviously considered that march and the group 50 Shades of Green as a threat they should counter. Their arrogance has been eye-watering.
Before the march the Forest Owners Association, surprisingly the Farm Forestry Association and the Lake Taupo Forest Trust issued a media statement, which I found inaccurate.
They started by telling me the march deliberately created confusion about the true nature and recent scope of forestry expansion.
How, they didn’t say though Farm Forestry Association president Hamish Levak did say 50 Shades of Green’s demands on the Government to restrict forest planting wouldn’t be supported by many farmers he knew.
Two points from that. The first is to wonder how many farmers the association actually surveyed to establish the point. The second is 50 Shades of Green isn’t trying to restrict planting but wants the right tree in the right place and not on good, productive, flat land.
The rhetoric is then stepped up by Levak who told me if farmers want to plant their whole farms that is fine and shouldn’t be stopped by some misinformed fringes of the farming community.
I suggest he takes a deep breath and has a glass of water. To suggest the 1200 on the march were some misinformed fringe is somewhat arrogant, I’d have thought.
Mind you, that paled into insignificance with his accusation 50 Shades are climate deniers. They’re not.
He then said he couldn’t understand what 50 Shades has against the Billion Trees programme. He really should have done some basic fact checking. They’re not against programme. In fact they welcomed it.
Moving into top gear Levak gets even more eloquent.
“It is also ironic that some of the leaders of 50 Shades of Green identify with the wool industry, yet then criticise logs because timber can’t be eaten.”
I think all sheep and beef farmers identify with the wool industry.
Levak then goes on about timber being worth more in exports than wool is.
“Timber exports are worth ten times the total value of the wool industry to New Zealand,” he proudly told us.
Maybe he’d like to compare the wood industry with dairy and meat.
I’d politely suggest wool has largely become a by-product of the meat industry, a bit like slash is to forestry.
An advantage of wool is it doesn’t make the mess slash does, as I’m sure the good people of Tolaga Bay would agree.
Looking at export value, as Levak brought the subject up, is interesting.
The latest export figures from Statistics NZ are for September when the value of exports increased over September 2018 by $216 million to $4.5 billion. The value of dairy and meat increased while forestry decreased.
Dairy increased by $200m and meat by $100m while logs, wood and wood articles decreased by over $60m.
What that means is that if NZ had planted the countryside in trees we’d be well and truly stuffed.
Forest owners president Peter Weir then accused one of my favourite magazines of being misinformed and misinforming by claiming billions of dollars will flow into NZ farms from overseas to convert them to carbon farming.
He says the Overseas Investment Office requires investors to harvest.
The reality is it can’t make them. The investors can just spray and walk away. What can the OIO possibly do when that happens.
My point is that forestry, planting trees and harvesting wood, can be a profitable pursuit, sometimes it isn’t.
Planting trees for carbon is highly profitable and government-guaranteed.
At Parliament Pahiatua farmer Lincoln Grant made the point his 600-hectare sheep and beef farm, if blanket planted in pines, would give an annual return of $400,000 for doing nothing.
A 400 hectare farm down the road was blanket planted by imported workers. Despite forestry advertisements claiming to employ more labour than traditional farming that will be the only labour that farm employs – ever.
That means forestry is on a carbon farming gravy train and they’re keen for that to continue.
I would humbly and respectfully suggest, however, they have a rethink from their position of giving the fingers to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They might even like to bring some science and fact into their arguments.
That would be a radical move wouldn’t it.
