Dr Elizabeth Heeg New Zealand Forest Owners Association chief executive
Forest owners are concerned that the environmental and socioeconomic benefits of pine forests have been misrepresented by rhetoric in a new land use report. The report, Why Pines?, produced and published by Our Land and Water (Toitū te Whenua, Toiora te Wai) National Science Challenge (OLW), details the results of four research programs which looked at future land use under the current economic incentives and policies. Source: Timberbiz
In each of the programs, all modelling indicated that increasing areas of exotic pine forest and decreasing areas of sheep and beef farming would be the most viable way of improving New Zealand’s environmental performance while achieving an acceptable level of economic return in future.
New Zealand Forest Owners Association (NZFOA) chief executive, Dr Elizabeth Heeg, says while the sector welcomes the science and modelling behind the report, a more critical examination of land use evidence is needed.
“The recommendations lack scientific evidence, and the narrative fails to frame forestry as an important land use,” Dr Heeg said.
Water quality was a core focus of the research program, with forestry found to outperform other land uses, particularly where farmland had been converted to pine.
“Well managed pine is hugely beneficial to water quality, improving water nutrient levels and sediment yields,” Dr Heeg said. “The report’s findings mirror years of credible science analysing water quality in pine forests.
“Paradoxically, that evidence doesn’t seem to be the outcome the OLW were looking for, with the authors raising more concern over forestry’s water quality than other land uses detailed in the report.
“It is disappointing to see the results interpreted in such a dramatic way when pine is evidently a tool New Zealand can use in its policies and practices tool kit.”
Dr Heeg says concerns over a loss of biodiversity from conversion to pine is also unfounded.
“New Zealand’s pine forests house incredibly rich and healthy ecosystems that should be considered a valued part of New Zealand’s landscape,” she said. “They’re home to many invertebrate communities and 120 native fauna species which have been documented using pine forests as habitat. Species, such as the kiwi, are well protected by the high degree of pest management and monitoring carried out by forest owners too.
“Pine forests support a rich mosaic of biodiversity, including protected areas of indigenous forest within the estate and riparian planting.”
A mosaic approach to land use will be increasingly important given modelling indicating that around half the sheep and beef farming area will convert to forestry by 2050. New planting is also expected to expand the forest estate to an estimated 3.5 million hectares.
Expansion of the estate won’t be as exponential as the report suggests however, noting that the OLW’s modelling is at odds with the Climate Change Commission’s 1.4-million-hectare prediction.
“Transport costs, energy costs and a range of other factors have caused a downturn in new planting in recent times,” Dr Heeg said. “These inputs don’t appear to be accounted for in the modelling.
“While expansion of the forest estate will be inevitable if New Zealand is to meet its climate change targets, forestry would need to multiply its new planting area by at least 25 to achieve that sort of growth by 2050.”
Dr Heeg says the report’s emphasis on forestry’s expansion needn’t mean other land uses won’t be accommodated.
“Forest owners are generally supportive of integrating a range of tree species on land, not just pine, to improve the landscape while returning benefits to the community,” she said.
“Planting more trees – be that native or exotic species – helps diversify farmland, improve environmental performance, provide timber for construction and reduce emissions.
“Landowners looking to exit sheep or beef farming or wanting to diversify their land by planting more trees should have the mandate to do so.
“Forestry provides landowners with options, particularly for hillside landscapes that are ill- suited to other land uses. This integration benefits the community through jobs and generation of regional GDP too.
“It needn’t be a one or the other approach as the report implies. Forestry and farming can co-exist.
“What we wouldn’t want to see is a restriction of land uses and growing activities to slow conversion where there is a lack of science to justify it.”
