Being a professional suggests things such as being qualified and practising in a definable area, having expertise based on a deep level of knowledge, and having a commitment to the area of practice – possibly (but not necessarily) through being a member of a relevant professional body.

 

The New Zealand Institute of Forestry (NZIF) exists to advance the profession of forestry within New Zealand by establishing, maintaining and improving standards; developing and recognising good forest practice; recognising, regulating and supporting those demonstrating competence; and acting as an independent advocate for forestry.  Members of NZIF recognise forestry as including all activities involved in the management and use of forests and their products, the purpose of which are the production of wood or other forest benefits and the maintenance of forest environments in their most beneficial form.  In other words as a professional forester we recognise all trees and forests as having value, we have the skills to establish and manage all forests in the New Zealand environment, and we will almost always advocate for more trees.

”most professional foresters in New Zealand get paid to grow trees for a competitive return on investment

While many would like to grow natives and other alternative species, the sad reality is, like the Beatles song Money That’s What I Want….”your love gives me such a thrill but your love won’t pay my bills”. Most professional foresters are employed to grow a commercial crop and produce a product that people are prepared to pay for.

 

While the media, customers and consumers claim to want to buy sustainable products, presumably including purpose-grown native timber, in reality they pay no premium for certified trees. Notwithstanding forest managers’ commitments to biodiversity, the best water and soil management and improved prospects for local employment, the consumer seems to always buy on price when it comes to big ticket items  – for example, when purchasing the materials to build a house, despite saying climate change is a concern.

 

Almost all foresters I speak to love growing trees and would love to grow more of our native species, however native trees don’t stack up financially, partly because a generation of consumers see the use of native timber as a sin. They don’t stack up financially because New Zealand subsidises alternative uses (agriculture) of land so the land price rises to reflect that.  They don’t stack up because planting a native tree is a gamble on the right to harvest in 10 – 30 elections time.

Native trees contribute to our biodiversity and can enhance it. Regulators have a long and unbroken history of bias in regulation. They impose obligations on landowners generating public benefits, ostensibly to ‘maintain’ what is there but often in order to justify not imposing obligations on others. Just as forest owners lost the right to change land use because of greenhouse gas emissions by other parts of society, it seems the public desire for biodiversity will be turned into an obligation for forest owners.

Regardless of these opportunities and challenges, professional foresters do protect and will work hard to enhance native remnants within their estate. They more than most are very aware of the benefits of native forest, be this for recreation, biodiversity, clean streams, or numerous other values. Many larger forests are now managed under some type of forest certification scheme, meaning native remnants have to be protected. Many professional foresters do grow native trees on land they own freehold. However growing natives is currently a cost with little or no financial benefit, and

It is well known that our commercial forest plantations comprise virtually 100 percent exotic softwood.  The species we grow have the characteristics current consumers are willing to pay for.  The question is – will this be the case in 30 years time?  All professional foresters are partial ‘seers’, when we plant a tree we are trying to guess what consumers will want at the time of harvest (approximately 28 years for Pinus radiata, up to 100 years for other species).  With this in mind, I question the ongoing and longer-term demand for a low-cost commodity product.  As large parts of the world move from poverty to the middle class (think China) we are likely to see demand increase for specialty products including wooden furniture which will last more than 5 years, speciality decorative timbers to line houses and to put down as floors and use as solid doors.  Additionally as we move from plastics there will be demand for natural products to replace it, and wood is one solution.

 

So the current professional forester has a decision to make when planting in 2021. Should we continue planting all our estate in radiata or other softwoods, or should we hedge our bets and add in some decorative species, some species which can be used in place of plastic, species which can be used to produce carbon neutral fuel.  Sadly while these decisions are being made, most foresters will not turn to our native species as they believe they will never be able to harvest them.

 

For professional foresters to decide to plant more native species, they will need to have agreement from government and NGOs that it will be possible to sustainably harvest them in future. We will need consumers to be willing to pay the price required for selective harvesting, and we will need to have confidence that policies agreed now will be consistent in 50-100 years when the trees we plant today will be ready for harvest.

 

I can hear the reader ask – what about planting for carbon? I agree there is a good long-term return from trading in carbon credits generated by a native forest.  However most of our native species grow very slowly, at least initially (especially when compared to radiata).  Most landowners are seeking a return within their lifetime, not within their grandchildren’s lifetime and therefore are instructing professional foresters to plant fast growing species on their land so they can maximise their carbon credit production over the next 20 years.

The NZIF represents professional foresters and has developed policies around forestry practice and its place within the New Zealand economy reflecting environmental, social and cultural, and economic imperatives.  The NZIF has created a Forest Policy for New Zealand which includes natives, but until now we have failed to achieve buy-in from successive governments or their advisors.  Simply put, forests to date have been seen as a hindrance rather than an opportunity for good.  However, this may change, for the recent report of the Climate Change Commission identifies the role forestry can play to help mitigate climate change.

”Any policy developed must also recognise the importance of other values of forest including wood production, biodiversity, recreation, food protection and others.

There are various myths around plantation forestry, which are patently untrue – examples include that pines poison the soil, are the leading cause of asthma, that native trees cost $100,000 per ha to plant and are extremely slow growing. There is an urgent need for more research, training, and better dissemination of information to the public to ensure the country as a whole garners the best outcomes from forestry as a land use.  If New Zealand is to grow the forest estate (both exotic and native) we need to bring the public along with us. NZIF is taking a leadership role on these and kindred matters and believes we will only get the best from a broad, well-balanced and long term policy on forestry which provides for a wide range of forests in our working landscapes.

 

In summary, professional foresters would love to grow more native forest, but need a comparable return – be this from timber, carbon, or via subsidies – to exotic plantations.  If the public and government are better informed around the best strategies, there will be more acceptance of trees over food in some land-use areas, and there will be a concerted effort to set planting targets. Only then will more landowners instruct professional foresters to do more than continue with business as normal.

James Treadwell

The post Native Trees and Professional Foresters appeared first on Pure Advantage.

Forests’ role in New Zealand’s future requires a wider societal debate. The future of forestry in New Zealand depends on the community’s definition of clean water, sustainable agriculture and a low-carbon economy more than on the relative merits of radiata pine panels and rata honey.

All forests generate public and private benefits. Department of Conservation (DOC) administered native forest areas are publicly owned and funded forests which are managed almost exclusively for public benefits including watershed protection, visual amenity, tourist appeal, biodiversity, a long-term carbon store, or all five combined. New Zealand is unusual in this regard with most arboreal countries managing their native forests for timber production, regional employment and foreign earnings alongside the ecological values.

New Zealand is overdue a mature conversation about what a truly sustainable future looks like. More than just forestry professionals need to understand the multiple economic and environmental benefits of forests are sometimes mutually exclusive. Hard trade-offs are required between the different ‘returns’ (financial and ecological) from the same piece of land.

The Land and Water Forum (LAWF) was the last Government’s attempt to reconcile the differing public and private interests. LAWF’s brief presumably included finding a consensus between this generation’s economic and environmental interests without unfairly compromising the legitimate interests of future generations. To describe LAWF’s achievements as underwhelming may be harsh, but stagnating rates of afforestation and continued declines in water quality point to this conclusion.

LAWF has highlighted the significant economic and political interest in sustainable management of the environment. The fact the last Government felt compelled to facilitate such an expensive and protracted process suggests an underlying concern the promise and intent of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has yet to be achieved despite 25 years of trying.

The problem in a nutshell

Establishing and policing environmental limits is not a new problem. “The tragedy of the commons” is as old as social organisation itself, where the benefit to the individual from increased exploitation of resources in common ownership works to everyone’s collective disadvantage.

The Resource Management Act 1991 was supposed to address this problem.  The Act’s purpose of “sustainable management” allows resource use where environmental bottom lines are respected. The problem arises where those bottom lines impose costs including lost opportunity on politically influential groups and individuals. A stable climate, and good quality freshwater are like passport controls and speeding limits. For the individual they are an impediment to wealth and freedom of choice. Collectively they are essential for a healthy society.

New Zealand’s absence of material afforestation reflects the political reluctance to address New Zealand’s national and global environmental challenges. Regulatory bias in favour of agriculture has curtailed afforestation (and good farming practice) by differentially increasing the capital value of land in agricultural use. Put simply, the elevated financial returns from unregulated agriculture makes it too valuable to use for more regulated and therefore lower returning uses.

What have future generations ever done for you?

Sustainable management of the environment assumes individuals, communities and community leaders accept that there are ‘bottom lines’. The difficulty for regulators, and for the regulated, is societal expectation and natural ecology are in dynamic equilibrium. Today’s ‘priority’ is tomorrow’s ‘What were they thinking’, as attested to by the introduction of possums, Marginal Lands Board-funded deforestation, DDT-based pesticide, and cadmium levels in super-phosphate fertiliser.

New Zealand’s recent environmental history mandates regulators taking the longer, precautionary view. Precisely what future generations will value is unknown, but odds are clean water and a stable climate will have value! Being clear about the community’s ‘bottom lines’ is essential in determining the purpose and direction of land management. Clear bottom lines enables the accurate valuation of assets including the critical one for New Zealand: its productive land base. They give certainty to investors and encourage research and innovation in the right areas.

New Zealand’s recent environmental history suggests regulators are reluctant to take the long view. Perhaps past Governments didn’t  consider climate change, and declining water quality mattered to their constituents as much as the economic activity generated at climatic and aquatic cost. Perhaps we as individuals don’t or can’t value ‘the commons’ and ‘future generations’, whatever we might say to the pollster when confronted with the costless choice of ticking the pro-environment box.

Agriculture vs Forestry on the same Piece Of Dirt (POD)

Agricultural land users enjoy (comparatively) secure property rights. The predominance of agricultural exports as a percentage of GDP coupled with the political influence of agriculture in the regions has resulted in limited regulation of the sector. Mortgage-backed capitalisation of the agricultural sector can be extrapolated as extending its influence to bankers and foreign investors. Combined, the level of influence could explain the adverse environmental effects of existing agriculture i.e. GHG emissions, water quality decline, increasing soil cadmium concentrations, etc.,  being ‘researched’ rather than ‘controlled’ under the RMA.

Agriculture is a land use choice. Commercial forests planted on private land is also a land choice. Commercial forests are planted and managed for timber. Just like agriculture, the return at harvest needs to cover the compounded cost of the capital invested in land, seedlings, Council rates, harvesting and transport to market. Unlike agriculture, forestry (in some regions of the country) is required to cover costs imposed under the RMA for managing biodiversity, providing setbacks from streams and neighbours, and providing recreational access for mountain bikers and hunters.

Compared to agriculture, forests planted on private land have proven themselves to be at ‘sovereign risk’. Past governments have been willing to expropriate the carbon storage value of private forests as a means of achieving Government’s international emission reduction commitments at lower cost to the public than would otherwise be the case.

There are cases when Local Councils have regulated to indirectly transfer to irrigators the value of the rainfall enjoyed by property which could be in forest. The irony of people questioning Maori’s Treaty of Waitangi Article II claim to an interest in lands, forests and waters on the basis water is not owned is not lost on the forestry community.

Regulation protecting publicly valued biodiversity has significant greater cost implications for the comparatively stable and complex habitat offered by forestry which gives rise to populations of native New Zealand falcons, endemic bat species and on occasion Kiwi. The same land in pasture, which is devoid of biodiversity, is also therefore spared the cost of protections imposed by way of consent conditions. The irony of costly regulation acting to discourage the creation of the very thing it is imposed to protect is similarly not lost on those managing forests.

One of the more significant impediments to investment in afforestation is its inflexibility. Land planted in trees is an act of faith. Harvest in 30 years hopefully will generate a return but will also be allowed at all by a generation of regulators who are in baby diapers at the time of the original decision to plant.

Where Have All The Forests Gone?

Differential regulation of land simply because it is used for forestry rather than agriculture has contributed to the situation of little or no afforestation. The distortion against forestry and in favour of agriculture is such the net deforestation would be continuing but for a 2008 change to the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Amongst other provisions, this imposed an emissions liability on permanent removal of forests planted before 1990. The warning to future forestry investors is clear; do good by the planet at the possibility of financial peril.

Ministry for Primary Industries statistics suggest afforestation rates have flatlined since 2008 following a period of rapid deforestation. Some deforestation might have continued but for government grants issued under the misleadingly titled Afforestation Grants Scheme (AGS). Under the AGS the marginal economics of afforestation eroding pastoral land is tipped in favour of trees using taxpayers’ money,  rather than the regulatory sanctions available under the RMA where ‘unsustainable use and development’ of the natural resource is occurring.

Punitive treatment of forestry under climate change legislation is mirrored in similar treatment related to agricultural nitrate. Foresters who have never contributed to nitrification of waterways are ‘rewarded’ by losing the opportunity-based capital value of land purchased on a ‘highest and best’ valuation. Even the farmers engaged in lower-N emitting land uses and those who invested to reduce nitrate leaching from their high-emitting operations by establishing wood lots and retiring riparian areas are penalised by restrictions on land use change targeted at nitrate. Those landowners who have done the least to reduce their nitrate pollution get to enjoy valuable grandparented ‘rights’ to pollute, those maximising the ‘opportunity’ valuation of their properties. It appears the polluter prospers rather than pays in NZ.

No forester seriously questions the right of Government to govern. No forester seriously questions the fact that scientific understanding and society’s needs change over time. However, any rational economist should question as oxymoronic the ‘sustainable management’ of environmental bottom lines achieved through grandparenting unsustainable land uses and increasing regulatory costs on the more sustainable ones. The perverse effects of such a short-term approach are seen in increased GHG emissions from agriculture, and little or no forestry investment.

An argument for politically expedient regulation of the sort described above is it is a short-term response pending research into alternatives. This excuse overlooks the rewarding of polluters by grandparenting rights and is a disincentive to them adopting even modest practicable improvements. It discourages the rapid adoption of the findings of research and it reverses the presumption in the RMA environmental costs of production are internalised rather than socialised.

It is a truism the best time to plant a forest is 30 years, 2 generations and 10 elections ago. The next best time is today, but this will only happen once community understanding and political consensus result in regulation which motivates rather than penalises the individual for his or her sustainable management of the environment, whether of a cow, a sheep or a tree.

James Treadwell

The post New Zealand’s foresters should not be punished for managing their forests sustainably appeared first on Pure Advantage.