So, not for the first time, I’ll stick my head above the parapets and say I think there is a strong case for the Billion Trees and more on this country.
But I also believe it needs to be done with care and sensible planning and that depends on the actions, including sale habits, of existing land owners.
First, I will agree with the majority in saying I am not a fan of the permanent, boundary-to-boundary, carbon-sink forests.
However, I do believe there is space for such permanent sinks on land unsuited for commercial use, be it forestry or pastoral, and for environmental or economic limitations.
But this will seldom, if ever, be a whole property. Rather, it will be the most fragile land forms distributed through our landscapes.
I want to focus on production forestry where trees can still provide environmental services such as carbon sequestration, improved water quality and soil conservation along with a valuable product called wood.
Unfortunately, this carbon sink versus production forest distinction is not clearly made in the Government policy and in the recent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton’s report there was hardly a mention of the wood production role of forests.
Yet production forestry is a better tool than permanent sinks for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions.
In its fourth assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said “A sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks while producing an annual, sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest will generate the largest sustained (carbon) mitigation effect.”
And if we are looking primarily at production forestry then we farm foresters would argue everyone can win if it is integrated with existing land uses.
Forestry is a better, much better earner of export dollars than sheep and beef farming.
According to Statistics New Zealand in the period 2011-15 our 1.7 million hectares of production forestry earned the country, on average, $4.747 billion a year or $2819 a hectare a year.
Our 5.4m hectares of sheep and beef pasture land earned, on average, $7.033b from meat, wool and hides or $1470 a hectare a year. If you include the 2.7m hectares of tussock and danthonia land, forestry earns three times the export earnings of sheep and beef and that’s with minimal value added to most of our wood.
Not all farm woodlot harvests come out sunny side up but the recent Farm Forestry Association conference revealed many satisfied growers reporting forestry returns four to five times sheep and beef returns on classes five, six and seven land.
I have achieved $40,000 to $50,000 a hectare for 28-year-old trees on classes six and seven sand dunes but that looks pretty meek beside $60,000 to $70,000 a hectare returns in Bay of Plenty. Admittedly, on more difficult hauler country and where access is a problem you do need scale.
Put these first two points together and I suggest forestry doesn’t necessarily deserve the poorer land, it’s just that it doesn’t need the better land, so that’s what it gets.
People are, understandably, worried about further depopulation of rural areas with the rise of forestry but the main driver of depopulation in recent times has been the amalgamation of farms and the rise of rural commuters.
We don’t need to run our forestry according to the corporate model.
In my experience well managed, pruned and thinned woodlots (my recommendation because they provide more options at harvest) seem to be more labour-intensive than sheep and beef.
I have employed people only because of the tree work and forestry has paid the wages.
Today you can use Government subsidies and/or carbon to pay the wages.
Perhaps all sheep and beef trainees should learn how to use pruning loppers, planting spades and chainsaws to bolster employment opportunities.
If a monoculture of radiata pine bores or even repels you, rest assured there are numerous other production species with proven performance and excellent timbers that farm foresters are growing around the country.
There is certainly demand for alternative timbers though the necessary processing and marketing infrastructure is under-developed.
I think we could justify some Government assistance here – a small version of radiata’s support in the 1950s and 1960s.
My final suggestion is that if you want to keep the forestry corporates and carbon foresters at bay, get out and plant trees.
They want bare land not a mass of woodlots.
My property with 40 different woodlots of different species, age and silviculture might be more a mess of woodlots but would certainly scare them away.
So grab the opportunity. It’s never been easier.
