However, like the rural lobby group 50 Shades of Green, we have major concerns about the Government’s climate change policies. If the policy direction continues we will see changes to our landscapes and rural communities of a scale not seen since the land clearance subsidy days pre-1980.
The Billion Trees programme and Emissions Trading Scheme are heavily weighted in favour of pines over other trees, particularly natives. These policies fail to take into account the more challenging and costly establishment regime required for native plantings verses pines.
Weeds and pests pose a significant threat to native vegetation and even native reversion is not easy because excluding stock often leads to an explosion of weeds like broom, gorse and blackberry. Without significant funding and resources large-scale native planting on hill country is impractical.
Many farmers in North Canterbury plant poplar poles that deliver a range of benefits including erosion control, stock shade and carbon sequestration. However, the illogical Billion Trees criteria knock poplars out as a viable, funded option and pines win again.
Livestock farmers face significant increases in compliance costs and many are looking at other options including exiting farming altogether. Add in the revenue options of carbon farming and the much easier compliance and reporting regime and exotic forestry is increasingly attractive. Like those on the North Island hill country, farmers in Canterbury are being approached by forestry interests looking for farms to buy.
One has only to look at another agriculture-dependent country, Ireland, where its Billion Trees policy equivalent has led to large areas of ecologically barren, introduced conifer forest and concerns of wildlife extinctions and the demise of rural communities.
We urge our Government to hit the pause button on its climate change and environmental policies and offer the following suggestions.
In the 1970s and 1980s voluntary catchment farm plans and QEII covenants resulted in many hill country farmers protecting extensive areas of native forest. Managing these areas for weeds and pests comes at a considerable cost to farmers while delivering many benefits.
The irony is under this Government’s policies farms that have lost all native vegetation are paid subsidies and carbon credits to plant trees, including pines, while those proactive in protecting native forest get nothing.
It is a national disgrace that farmers who have protected native forest delivering biodiversity, freshwater, erosion, landscape and carbon sequestration benefits over a long time receive no recognition and are burdened with the most regulation.
We fear the impending National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity will deliver even more headaches for our most conservation-minded farmers.
There is increasing concern among farmers and conservationists about the exploding numbers of deer and spread of weeds like old man’s beard, particularly from riverbeds.
These pests have a major, detrimental impact on existing native vegetation and native plantings to the extent we are losing regenerating native forest.
We believe it is much more effective to direct the Billion Trees funding to protect existing native forest rather than trying to establish a lot of new native plantings, particularly in areas with weed and pest issues. Either way, a more co-ordinated, nationwide action plan is urgently required for weeds and pests and it must include Crown land.
The new climate change policies represent a significant lost opportunity to help farmers protect our native biodiversity.
A much fairer system that rewards farmers for their past conservation efforts is required.
Options include an increase in QEII Trust covenant funding and allowing pre-1990 native forest to be included in the ETS. There needs to be more flexibility and support for farmers who are prepared to increase planted buffers around streams and wetlands or pursue novel solutions like re-establishing totara, matai and other podocarps in existing native vegetation.
The Government’s fragmented approach to environmental policy has different legislation for freshwater, biodiversity, forestry, weeds and pests and now climate change.
That leads to conflicts such as one farm planting conifers under the ETS and Billion Trees while a nearby farmer is removing the same conifer species under the pests legislation. Fifteen years ago there was a huge outcry among environmentalists and rural communities about the impacts of forestry on landscape values and yet the Government’s policy settings are encouraging massive landscape conversion to exotic forestry.
We support Environment Minister David Parker’s recent announcement of a comprehensive review of the Resource Management Act. This needs to be wide-ranging and incorporate all other environmental policies including climate change. The amount of duplication is a massive burden on people and our economy and is a high priority for reform.
From an individual farm and catchment scale we point to the success of the catchment board model – one environmental legislation where every farm or catchment of farms has access to trained advisers who take a holistic view to decision-making incorporating environmental, economic, social and cultural considerations.
Any climate change tree planting proposals would consider other factors like biodiversity, water quality and erosion. Only then will we truly achieve the right tree in the right place.
