December 5, 2024 • 9 mins
The NZ Forest Owners Association chief executive responds to the Government's new rules limiting farm-to-forestry conversions under the ETS.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
A big farming announcement this week, if you excuse the
ten dollar milk price came from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon
on Wednesday down in South and regarding I guess carbon
farming moving farmland to forestry. Now, while it's been greeted
with glee by the likes of Federated Farmers, not everyone
is pleased, including the chief executive of the forest Owners Association,
(00:23):
doctor Elizabeth High. She said the government is treating rural
land management like it's playing with lego by restricting the
amount of trees that can be planted on farmland. Elizabeth,
that's a nice picture you've conjured up in my mind,
lego and forestry.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, our concern with the policy as it's been announced
is that it's presuming that these different land use classes
are all very clear in the landscape and in practical reality.
That's just not how it looks when your boot's on
the ground and when you're looking to make these land
management decisions.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Yeah, but let's just get down to bear bones here.
And I've been an outspoken critic of carbon farming, not
on more marginal land or what I would call forestry land,
but I'm seeing examples of pine trees being planted, not
for future harvest, by the way, just for carbon credits
on land that is suitable for almost intensive pastoral farming
(01:23):
or even worse, arable cropping. Surely that's indefendable.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well, so I just should prefer a point of clarity.
I represent production foresters. So the forest Owner's Association is
all about the people who produce timber, and we participate, well,
some of my members participate in the ETS as a
way to supplement the income they get from timber.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
But isn't that a really good thing for the production
forestry industry, The fact that you can grow some pine trees,
harvest them, send them on a slow boat to China
or whatever, and clip the ticket on some carbon credits
along the way. It's just given forestry another bite at
the time cherry. That is good. So what are you
complaining about.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, not complaining about having an ETS in any way,
shape or form. I think we we welcome that ability
to be recognized for the contribution that we're making to
the climate crisis, and that additional income actually really helps
foresters to to you know, make their financial model work
(02:25):
when you you know, especially for the smaller scale foresters
you may not get a timber income for you know,
twenty to thirty years, and so having that carbon income
means you can, you know, have some additional income for
your past and predator control, for your biodiversity, et cetera,
et cetera, for your forest management. So that's that's been
(02:45):
really helpful in terms of how we manage our forests
as well.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So your gripe is the way that they've classified where
and when you can plant forestries. Basically at US.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Said, yeah, well, the concern that we've got with what
was an this week is that a it looks complicated,
but there's not enough detail to really understand how it
would work. And when you look at all the kind
of different So the fact that for LUC six you've
got this fifteen thousand hectare cap and that's in principle
(03:20):
going to be first come, first served, I guess the
whole picture just looks complicated enough and difficult enough that
the forestry folks that I've talked to either want more
detail or they're like, ugh, this to me just looks
like I'm going to have to wait on any kind
of planting decisions or decisions until the government gives us
(03:41):
some kind of further.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Okay, so how you see acronym for land use classification.
The government doesn't want forestry planted on classes one to five.
It's set an annual cap of fifteen thousand hectes, which
isn't that much for exotic forestry registrations on class six,
there's the government basically trying to drive production forestry to
(04:02):
the hills.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, that's what it looks like. And I guess to
an extent, we already you know, we already. I think
the examples you had about are we are there plantings
that are going in on more productive land. I mean,
it seems to me like there's there's a few folks
in the rural community that have specific examples. On a
(04:26):
larger scale, we're struggling to see any data that would
suggest that that's the case. And don't get me wrong,
I've asked my team to go out and get some
more information because we want to make sure that we've
got that right.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Doctor Elizabeth, you need to take a trip down to
Southland or Southwest Otago. I'm sure the locals will show
you some examples. Just coming back to the carbon farming,
and I know it's not that's not your area of interest,
but the we've incentivized planting pine trees in the wrong place.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Well in terms of the carbon income. I think it's
is that incentivizing planting in the wrong place, or do
we need to look at that whole picture of in
a catchment? What's the spatial planning that we need to
have in place? I guess the other question is should
we be trying to address these spatial planning issues through
(05:16):
the emissions trading scheme or should we be trying to
address them through the Resource Management Act, which is where
we would argue this kind of thing should be addressed,
especially when the whole thing's getting cracked open over the
next couple of years. So I worry that. So we've
got some examples where people have said, look, that's obviously
(05:39):
not the right tree in the right place to use
an expression, I think I want to understand is there
a systematic problem there or are there a few people
that are making a choice that long term is not
economically sensible and that there needs to be a regulatory
intervention for And I don't think right now we've got
evidence that there's a system problem there. We might have
(06:01):
a few bad actors, but I don't at the national scale,
this could have a chilling effect on planting full stop.
That isn't in the best interest too.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Well, it's having a chilling effect on pastoral farming, but
I'm a bit biased on that one. If the government
does effectively drive production forestry to the hills, land class
is what's seven eight nine. That's steep, it's far away
from ports. It's not good growing country. It's not ideal
for growing good production forestry.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Yeah, exactly. Well, I think the way that we put
it is we're just getting squeezed out. So if so,
from an environmental even from an economic perspective, we're not
looking to do steep, steep slope stuff, right, So there's
areas around the country that maybe we're planted in the
eighties and nineties when those trees are coming out. Now
(06:52):
there's areas that are getting retired because it just doesn't
make sense from an environmental and from an economic perspective
for us to continue you to have that in production forestry.
So we're getting squeezed out of kind of the more
highly irrodible stuff just because you know, practice changes over
time and with the storm events, with climate change, we're
having to adapt right, just like just like farmers are
(07:14):
having to adapt to climate change. So there's areas that
we're going to have to come out of at the
high end of that LUC scale. Then if there are
there's constraints on where we're able to plant in that
LUC six space, really we're getting squeezed to the point
where having any kind of a forestation is going to
(07:36):
be You're going to have to thread a needle. It's
going to be problematic. I mean, don't get me wrong.
I think we'll find ways to do that, but we'd
like to work with the government to make it more
pragmatic so it's more obvious to people, even if it's
a farmer that wants to plant. I mean, what's twenty
five percent of your land? Like what's in and what's
out of that? You know what I mean. So I
(07:56):
think making sure that any rules that are put in
place are pragmatic, and you know, I would hope go
through a proper legislative instrument like the Resource Management Act.
I think would be a lot better.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Doctor Elizabeth Haige, I can understand your frustrations. Just a
final word on carbon farming. Once again, it's not your area,
but are you worried about some of these plantations that
are going to be a real problem to the environment
in twenty or thirty years time.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
So every forest should be actively managed, if anybody so,
and that's under local past and predator management.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
My understanding is the carbon farms are not being actively managed.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
So if that's the case, yeah, I'm absolutely worried because
it's given all the rest of us a bad name.
Every forest and I'm going to say that again should
be actively managed and if that's not happening, then I
think production foresters would be right in behind saying that
there's there's some compliant action that would need to take
place there.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Doctor Elizabeth Higue, thank you very much for your time
from the New Zealand forest Owners as social siation, I
don't envy your job at the moment. Happened to get
daily emails from Dennis Nielsen go well, thanks Jamie
A big farming announcement this week, if you excuse the
ten dollar milk price came from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon
on Wednesday down in South and regarding I guess carbon
farming moving farmland to forestry. Now, while it's been greeted
with glee by the likes of Federated Farmers, not everyone
is pleased, including the chief executive of the forest Owners Association,
(00:23):
doctor Elizabeth High. She said the government is treating rural
land management like it's playing with lego by restricting the
amount of trees that can be planted on farmland. Elizabeth,
that's a nice picture you've conjured up in my mind,
lego and forestry.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, our concern with the policy as it's been announced
is that it's presuming that these different land use classes
are all very clear in the landscape and in practical reality.
That's just not how it looks when your boot's on
the ground and when you're looking to make these land
management decisions.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Yeah, but let's just get down to bear bones here.
And I've been an outspoken critic of carbon farming, not
on more marginal land or what I would call forestry land,
but I'm seeing examples of pine trees being planted, not
for future harvest, by the way, just for carbon credits
on land that is suitable for almost intensive pastoral farming
(01:23):
or even worse, arable cropping. Surely that's indefendable.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well, so I just should prefer a point of clarity.
I represent production foresters. So the forest Owner's Association is
all about the people who produce timber, and we participate, well,
some of my members participate in the ETS as a
way to supplement the income they get from timber.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
But isn't that a really good thing for the production
forestry industry, The fact that you can grow some pine trees,
harvest them, send them on a slow boat to China
or whatever, and clip the ticket on some carbon credits
along the way. It's just given forestry another bite at
the time cherry. That is good. So what are you
complaining about.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Well, not complaining about having an ETS in any way,
shape or form. I think we we welcome that ability
to be recognized for the contribution that we're making to
the climate crisis, and that additional income actually really helps
foresters to to you know, make their financial model work
(02:25):
when you you know, especially for the smaller scale foresters
you may not get a timber income for you know,
twenty to thirty years, and so having that carbon income
means you can, you know, have some additional income for
your past and predator control, for your biodiversity, et cetera,
et cetera, for your forest management. So that's that's been
(02:45):
really helpful in terms of how we manage our forests
as well.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So your gripe is the way that they've classified where
and when you can plant forestries. Basically at US.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Said, yeah, well, the concern that we've got with what
was an this week is that a it looks complicated,
but there's not enough detail to really understand how it
would work. And when you look at all the kind
of different So the fact that for LUC six you've
got this fifteen thousand hectare cap and that's in principle
(03:20):
going to be first come, first served, I guess the
whole picture just looks complicated enough and difficult enough that
the forestry folks that I've talked to either want more
detail or they're like, ugh, this to me just looks
like I'm going to have to wait on any kind
of planting decisions or decisions until the government gives us
(03:41):
some kind of further.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Okay, so how you see acronym for land use classification.
The government doesn't want forestry planted on classes one to five.
It's set an annual cap of fifteen thousand hectes, which
isn't that much for exotic forestry registrations on class six,
there's the government basically trying to drive production forestry to
(04:02):
the hills.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, that's what it looks like. And I guess to
an extent, we already you know, we already. I think
the examples you had about are we are there plantings
that are going in on more productive land. I mean,
it seems to me like there's there's a few folks
in the rural community that have specific examples. On a
(04:26):
larger scale, we're struggling to see any data that would
suggest that that's the case. And don't get me wrong,
I've asked my team to go out and get some
more information because we want to make sure that we've
got that right.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Doctor Elizabeth, you need to take a trip down to
Southland or Southwest Otago. I'm sure the locals will show
you some examples. Just coming back to the carbon farming,
and I know it's not that's not your area of interest,
but the we've incentivized planting pine trees in the wrong place.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Well in terms of the carbon income. I think it's
is that incentivizing planting in the wrong place, or do
we need to look at that whole picture of in
a catchment? What's the spatial planning that we need to
have in place? I guess the other question is should
we be trying to address these spatial planning issues through
(05:16):
the emissions trading scheme or should we be trying to
address them through the Resource Management Act, which is where
we would argue this kind of thing should be addressed,
especially when the whole thing's getting cracked open over the
next couple of years. So I worry that. So we've
got some examples where people have said, look, that's obviously
(05:39):
not the right tree in the right place to use
an expression, I think I want to understand is there
a systematic problem there or are there a few people
that are making a choice that long term is not
economically sensible and that there needs to be a regulatory
intervention for And I don't think right now we've got
evidence that there's a system problem there. We might have
(06:01):
a few bad actors, but I don't at the national scale,
this could have a chilling effect on planting full stop.
That isn't in the best interest too.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Well, it's having a chilling effect on pastoral farming, but
I'm a bit biased on that one. If the government
does effectively drive production forestry to the hills, land class
is what's seven eight nine. That's steep, it's far away
from ports. It's not good growing country. It's not ideal
for growing good production forestry.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Yeah, exactly. Well, I think the way that we put
it is we're just getting squeezed out. So if so,
from an environmental even from an economic perspective, we're not
looking to do steep, steep slope stuff, right, So there's
areas around the country that maybe we're planted in the
eighties and nineties when those trees are coming out. Now
(06:52):
there's areas that are getting retired because it just doesn't
make sense from an environmental and from an economic perspective
for us to continue you to have that in production forestry.
So we're getting squeezed out of kind of the more
highly irrodible stuff just because you know, practice changes over
time and with the storm events, with climate change, we're
having to adapt right, just like just like farmers are
(07:14):
having to adapt to climate change. So there's areas that
we're going to have to come out of at the
high end of that LUC scale. Then if there are
there's constraints on where we're able to plant in that
LUC six space, really we're getting squeezed to the point
where having any kind of a forestation is going to
(07:36):
be You're going to have to thread a needle. It's
going to be problematic. I mean, don't get me wrong.
I think we'll find ways to do that, but we'd
like to work with the government to make it more
pragmatic so it's more obvious to people, even if it's
a farmer that wants to plant. I mean, what's twenty
five percent of your land? Like what's in and what's
out of that? You know what I mean. So I
(07:56):
think making sure that any rules that are put in
place are pragmatic, and you know, I would hope go
through a proper legislative instrument like the Resource Management Act.
I think would be a lot better.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Doctor Elizabeth Haige, I can understand your frustrations. Just a
final word on carbon farming. Once again, it's not your area,
but are you worried about some of these plantations that
are going to be a real problem to the environment
in twenty or thirty years time.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
So every forest should be actively managed, if anybody so,
and that's under local past and predator management.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
My understanding is the carbon farms are not being actively managed.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
So if that's the case, yeah, I'm absolutely worried because
it's given all the rest of us a bad name.
Every forest and I'm going to say that again should
be actively managed and if that's not happening, then I
think production foresters would be right in behind saying that
there's there's some compliant action that would need to take
place there.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Doctor Elizabeth Higue, thank you very much for your time
from the New Zealand forest Owners as social siation, I
don't envy your job at the moment. Happened to get
daily emails from Dennis Nielsen go well, thanks Jamie
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.