A business case is simply a decision support and planning tool.  It is a projection of the consequences of a course of action – both physical and financial.   At its best, a business case is a systematic and logical argument intended to help persuade a decision-maker of the worth of a specific course of action by outlining the rationale for that action and by defining the parameters (assumptions), management factors, resources involved and likely outcomes of the action (a project).  A business case is intended to aid in the design, management, and evaluation of a project.

The business case for establishing native forests.

So, what is the business case for planting native trees?  The short answer is that there isn’t one.  Nor can there ever be a single generic business case for a project or an industry, which is site specific, targets different tree species and ‘markets’, must cope with differing management regimes, has differences in desired outputs and the importance placed on them in different parts of the country, and comprise a diversity of objectives amongst those wanting to consider establishment and management of native forestry.

Potential investors range from those who at least want to ensure some possibility of timber production in the future, through to others with no desire for any timber production at all. Even those who just want timber – or some other single significant output such as reducing erosion to an absolute minimum, or increased biodiversity – management options can range from ones involving clear-cut through to ones where the harvest is premised on maintaining a continuous canopy cover and possibly a changing forest species mix through time.  As for species, the options range from a forest of a single species – essentially a monoculture – such as beech, mānuka for honey, kauri (in some regimes) and possibly tōtara such as a managed Northland regeneration regime – through to ones which comprise a diverse mixture of species.

Returns based on timber production alone do not stack up.

Financial results are only one aspect of a business case; however, they are usually regarded as the major one.  If outputs of a project can be shown as likely to yield an acceptable monetary return for its investor(s) then this, rightly or wrongly, generally goes a long way towards making a business case.  However, as a rule, current modelling indicating an acceptable monetary return from wood production alone does not apply to native forestry.

A wide-ranging review by Tāne’s Tree Trust (TTT) of establishment costs, marketing issues and of the economic models/calculators that have been used, generally indicate rather poor returns – indicating that investing in planting for wood production alone is not a good economic strategy.

That conclusion becomes even more the case when it is appreciated that often the ‘analyses’ that produce these results are ones with relatively ‘optimistic’ assumptions over establishment costs, rotation age, growth rates, yields and what should be the appropriate interest rate/time value to use in a business case.  More expensive establishment costs, longer rotations, slower growth and/or a higher interest rate only serve to make a worse business case for growing natives purely for timber.  There is also the question of risk – and what that does.  More risky ventures will generally be associated with higher discount/interest rates as maintaining a native forest is a risky business.

Risk perception

There are diseases, old and new, and the potential impact of a changing climate on fire and wind risk to name just a couple of factors that might need considering – but which are often ignored.  In the last few years, myrtle rust has arrived in the country and perceptions about the seriousness of longer-term impacts of kauri dieback have increased.  While at this point it appears the consensus about the damage to mānuka and the mānuka honey industry from the myrtle rust variant which has established is it will be ‘relatively’ limited, some might contend there is still an element of ‘hope’ with this view. Knowledge is lacking about the longer-term impacts that the rust may have on other myrtle species that are more susceptible, and on the ecological ramifications of loss of susceptible species.  Other variants of the myrtle rust, not here yet, could perhaps have much greater impacts should/if they ever make it to New Zealand.

In the light of both the changing perceptions over the longer-term impacts of kauri dieback and the risks to the mānuka honey industry of myrtle rust, it is perhaps pertinent to ask about the type of risk assessment and adjustments that should be considered. This is not only relevant to any new business case involving kauri or mānuka establishment but also in developing a business case for any forestry.

Even without factoring more risk and greater uncertainty into a business case, in most cases timber values alone are insufficient (and likely always will be) to provide a complete economic/business justification for planting native trees. Timber values can contribute to a case but on their own will generally be insufficient to make a compelling case.  Despite this, data shows that (small) areas of native forest have been, and continue to be, established.  Moreover, interest in expanding the native forest estate is, if anything, increasing rather than decreasing.

If the first conclusion is that there is no single standard recipe or calculator that can, albeit it with ‘adjustments’, be used to make a business case for establishment of native forest based on a timber output alone, then given the continued interest in planting natives, the second conclusion is that this type of forestry must have more than a timber income to make the case work.

Non-timber values

Any credible business case for establishing native forests is dependent on non-timber values (NTVs).  The need for NTVs to make the business case is yet another reason for the business case to always be site specific.  A few NTVs, such as the one associated with greenhouse gas mitigation (GHG) and carbon storage (if based on the MPI look-up tables ), may have a generic value unaffected by locality.

However, the value associated with many NTVs, such as preserving/protecting a particular species in its current location or preserving/enhancing the biodiversity of a particular site or area or reducing erosion in a specific area to an acceptable level, or providing recreation for a large number of people, will depend on precisely where that forest has been established, the species planted and the issues of importance at that site.

Our very survival is dependent on the natural world – we all need food, clean water, and shelter. Natural ecosystems provide many services that most of us are not fully aware of until they are damaged or destroyed. A focus on short-term monetary returns has often prevailed over indigenous and local community viewpoints of the wider value of natural resources. This has resulted in an imbalance between those benefiting from short-term economic gains and those who suffer the long-term environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts from unsustainable use and destruction of natural resources.

NTVs are an essential part of the business case.

We rely on forests – natural and planted – for clean air and water, stable soils, providing habitat, meeting climate change commitments, providing the ambient environment for outdoor recreation and tourism, and for maintaining NZ’s international branding as a clean, green country – but too often the worth of these services are not included in the business or economic case.  Hopefully, that situation will not pertain for much longer.  The OECD recently stated that, largely due to intensification of land use (particularly dairy farming), New Zealand’s growth model is approaching its environmental limit.

There is a growing awareness of the importance of New Zealand’s natural capital, and ecosystem services in planning and policy matters. However, while there is increased awareness of non-market ecosystem services and their importance, mechanisms for assigning a defensible (monetarised) value to these services to stand alongside those outputs and services that do have a market value are both challenging and, in many cases, still being developed.

Valuing NTVs

Non-timber values, such as those associated with GHG mitigation and carbon forestry, have become much more familiar to people over the last few years and with that familiarity has come a greater willingness to put a (monetary) value on them.  But these are not the only NTVs associated with forestry, nor even in many cases the ones of greatest importance.

Tāne’s Tree Trust has recently reviewed published information and analysed current thinking on NTVs.^[1]  The focus of this work is New Zealand’s native forests outside of the conservation estate, sustainably managed for multiple purposes.

NTVs were classified and grouped under three headings:

(i) non-timber forest products,

(ii) environmental services and

(iii) socioeconomic, cultural, and spiritual services.

Knowledge gaps and deficiencies in methods quantifying the NTVs associated with these forests were identified, and recommendations made for further work.

With many of the non-market NTVs, there is a recognised conundrum of trying to ‘value the invaluable’, i.e., put a price/value on something that is crucial to human well-being but in a way that is not easily quantified.  There is also, in many situations, a lack of awareness of the full range of NTVs potentially provided by forests. And, in New Zealand at least, there is a lack of a full spectrum of forestry management practices, beyond the quite simple dichotomy of exotic forest plantations managed under clear-fell regimes, and native forests protected in the conservation estate.

Conclusions

The wider benefits of forestry often fail to be properly accounted for in decision making, and this has resulted in a distortion of policies around land use to the detriment of all forestry and the nation.

Our country relies on forests for a myriad of environmental and cultural services, and timber products. Native forests are an integral part of our distinctive natural landscapes, spiritual well-being, cultural identity, and international branding as a clean, green country. They also provide unique non-timber products that are often culturally important.

Aggregated, the NTVs of native forests are likely to be greater than for exotic plantations – particularly when it comes to values relating to scenic, cultural, spiritual, biodiversity, water quality and diverse ecosystems in our landscapes.  Native forests managed for NTVs alone, or under continuous cover regimes, are likely to have the highest aggregated NTVs.

In many cases, the aggregated NTVs of a forest will far exceed any timber values. Native forests deserve a higher profile as an economically viable land use.  That higher profile can be achieved by ensuring that whenever a business case is developed for a native forestry proposal it must include relevant NTVs for both the site and the proposed tree management regime.

Gerard Horgan

[1] Aimers, J., Bergin, D., Horgan, G. (2021). Review of Non-Timber Values in sustainably managed native forest in New Zealand. Tāne’s Tree Trust bulletin, Hamilton, New Zealand. 110 pages. Pending publication.

New Zealand’s current growth model is approaching its environmental limits, largely due to intensification of land use. Our biodiversity is under threat according to an OECD report on our environmental performance. The report recommended land management measures to reduce water pollution, and a broadened use of economic instruments to provide incentives for conservation on private land. Extinction rates for our native fauna are among the highest in the world.

In addition to this, we will continue to see intense weather events which highlight major issues with clear-fell forestry operations in sensitive steepland catchments. The plantation forest industry’s social licence to operate is under question – there have been persistent calls for vulnerable hill country to be established in native forest.

Putting Nature into the economic equation

Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, or ‘natural capital’. This is an anthropocentric construct to help factor the value of ecosystems into the economic equation – to aid decisions about utilisation of natural resources, or undertake activities that may impact on ecosystems.

Non-timber values

Aside from timber production, New Zealand’s economy relies on forests for a myriad of non-timber values (NTVs), i.e., all elements of ecosystem services other than wood products.

Quantifying NTVs is vitally important for leveraging the business case for afforestation with native species. However, NTVs have largely not been factored into the economic value of forests because of the lack of awareness of the wider value of forests, as well as difficulty in tracking and quantifying the myriad of products and services.

NTVs in sustainably-managed native forests have been researched by the authors of this opinion piece. All statements are fully referenced in a much larger work. NTVs were evaluated under four main categories (note that there are overlaps with some values potentially falling into more than one category).

(i) Non-timber forest products

Industries associated with non-timber forest products are currently underdeveloped in New Zealand, except for mānuka honey, mānuka oil, and sphagnum moss. Many non-timber forest products are produced by small businesses that are often economically important for local communities and have potential for further development.

Non-timber forest products include:

• honey and other bee products (native forest species provide essential early-season nectar flow vital to the apiary industry)
• rongoā (traditional medicines), nature-based pharmaceuticals
• forest understory crops, including kawakawa
• wild foods, freshwater fisheries, hunting and trapping of wild game.

(ii) Environmental regulating services

Our economy relies heavily on forests (natural and planted) for environmental regulating services. However, they are widely regarded as ‘free of charge’ or a ‘gift of nature’.

These ecosystem services include:

• carbon sequestration – the only environmental service currently monetised
• habitat provision and enhanced biodiversity values (in terrestrial and aquatic environments)
• services provided by urban trees, including air quality, green infrastructure, and climate regulation
• stabilisation of soils, erosion reduction, catchment protection, and coastal buffers
• retention of nutrients, nutrient recycling, and water quality
• pollination services  – vital to the horticultural industry
• green firebreaks and fire risk reduction.

(iii) Socioeconomic, cultural and spiritual services

Forests provide general amenity and ambient environments for outdoor recreation and tourism, and have important spiritual and cultural values. Natural environments and native species underpin our unique sense of place and our international reputation. However, these services are particularly difficult to quantify in economic terms.

These ecosystem services include:

• ambient environments for tourism (particularly ecotourism), outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, and wild foods
• cultural values associated with native forests, including conservation of native species and kaitiakitanga, rongoā, mahinga kai (traditional food sources), and tūrangawaewae (sense of place)
• aesthetic/landscape values
• native trees, green space, and human well-being in urban areas
• forest-based livelihoods and training opportunities
• ‘Clean, Green’ NZbrand image, political and commercial reputations.

(iv) Underlying supporting services

The original concept of ecosystem services includes supporting services that underlie the rest of ecosystem services. This includes photosynthesis and soil formation, and several other services that overlap with environmental regulating services, including water and nutrient recycling. Care needs to be taken to not ‘double count’ overlapping ecosystem services.

The benefits of weaving native forest back into our rural landscapes

Sustainably-managed native forests deserve a much higher profile as an economically viable land use in New Zealand. This could legitimately be achieved with the inclusion of NTVs in economic analyses.

While many NTVs can be attributed to forests irrespective of whether they are native or exotic, in most cases, the aggregated NTVs of native forests would likely be greater than that for exotic plantation regimes – particularly for cultural and spiritual values, conservation of indigenous biodiversity, and protection of erodible land, water quality, and downstream infrastructure and ecosystems. Permanent native forests managed solely for NTVs or sustainably managed under continuous cover regimes, are likely to have the highest aggregated NTVs, which could potentially exceed timber values.

Native forests in riparian areas are likely to have the highest aggregated NTVs because of the following services:

(i) buffering of the negative impacts of plantation forestry operations, intensive agriculture and urban development through prevention of sediment loss, recycling of nutrients and protection of water quality;

(ii) decreased run-off and flood peaks, protecting downstream infrastructures;

(iii) increased biodiversity and cultural values due to habitat provision, creation of wildlife corridors, protection of aquatic habitat and traditional food sources;

(iv) creation of connections between ecosystems to enable seasonal migrations;

(v) pollination services for adjacent horticultural and agricultural industries; and (vi) increased landscape aesthetic values.

The integration of sustainably managed native forests into rural landscapes provides opportunities for new and more appropriate primary production and business models for the future. For example, native forest could be woven back onto steep, erodible slopes and riparian areas on farms for all the benefits they provide. This could include sustainable harvest of high-value timber via continuous cover forestry regimes, while retaining the environmental and cultural services associated with high forest.

The farming community has come under increasing pressure regarding social licence to operate and is subject to increased regulation by local and central government. Restrictions on land use and nutrient run-off have recently been introduced to improve and protect water quality. Bringing native forest back onto farms – particularly in riparian areas and on erodible, marginal land – will improve environmental outcomes and regulatory compliance.

The draft advice from the Climate Change Commission recommends establishing new permanent native forests on steep, marginal farmland to offset the long-lived gas emissions in sectors with limited opportunities to reduce emissions from 2050, e.g., offsetting nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture. The Commission also recognises the many other benefits that this would bring, including improving water quality and erosion prevention.

NTVs in native forests on private land are currently difficult to monetise, other than carbon sequestration and some non-timber forest products such as mānuka honey. There is the conundrum of ‘valuing the invaluable’, i.e., NTVs with no direct material benefits and therefore difficult to incentivise, but critically important, nonetheless.

Incentivising native forestation – who benefits, who pays?

The One Billion Trees Programme signifies that the New Zealand Government recognises the wider value of forests; to date they have  committed to funding two-thirds in native species. Also, amendments to the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) have strengthened the carbon market, providing greater incentive for all types of afforestation. However, native forests have been handicapped by the ‘one size fits all’ MPI look-up tables, which in some circumstances under-estimate the carbon sequestration by  native species.

Protecting existing forest and increasing permanent forest cover are recommended as top priorities for climate change mitigation and adaptation in New Zealand and globally. In their draft advice, the Climate Change Commission recommended a shift from clear-fell radiata pine to permanent native forest in erodible hill country.

There is also the well recognised problem of under-representation of lowland natural ecosystems in the conservation estate, due to intensification of land use for agricultural and urban development . And the value of forest cover for human well-being in urban areas has increasingly become recognised. Aside from the many environmental and cultural benefits, there is scientific evidence that access to green spaces makes us happier and healthier.

Weaving more native forest back into our rural and urban landscapes will greatly benefit New Zealand’s economy and human well-being, as well as Papatūānuku. However, there is the question of ‘who pays, and who benefits?’ 

While in general, the majority of costs associated with establishing and managing native trees on private land fall to the landowner, the benefits of NTVs often accrue to a much wider community, including:

• locally, e.g., amenity services such as shade and shelter, increased soil stability, biodiversity enhancement, hydrological services, and landscape aesthetics
• catchment-wide, e.g., reduction in erosion and sedimentation, improved water quality and water flow regulation, and increased resilience to intense weather events including protection of downstream infrastructures and ecosystems, and biodiversity enhancement
• regionally, e.g., catchment protection, biodiversity enhancement, increased tourism and employment
• nationally, e.g., accumulative benefits associated with all the above mentioned NTVs, and New Zealand’s international branding as a clean, green country
• internationally, e.g., carbon sequestration and mitigation of climate change.

There is a compelling argument for compensating the efforts of private landowners who safeguard biodiversity in the wider public interest, which is the flip side of the ‘polluter-pays’ principle.  Native forests generally support a greater biodiversity of indigenous fauna and flora than exotic forests, with most fruit and nectar feeders largely dependent on native forest for habitat. Currently efforts are underway to create a biodiversity credit system to incentivise establishment of native forest in New Zealand.  Initiatives to increase biodiversity values will likely drag other NTVs up as well.

The opportunity for New Zealand is to incentivise afforestation with native species on privately owned, rural working lands, and reward landowners for providing NTVs, particularly with the high cost associated with successfully establishing and managing native forest. The models to do this urgently need to be developed.

The Climate Change Commission recommends that the Government implement measures to incentivise establishing and maintaining at least 16,000 hectares of new permanent native forests per year by 2025, increasing to at least 25,000 hectares per year by 2030. These levels of new planting could be assisted by extending grant schemes such as One Billion Trees or by developing ecosystem services payment schemes.  Another longer-term option is to invest in research and development in continuous cover forestry regimes, and development of a sustainable niche timber industry for high-value, farm-grown native timbers.

Dr David Bergin

Dr. Jacqui Aimers

Gerard Horgan