Farmers need to see the trees for the wood
Farmers need to change their mindset and consider the potential of forestry as part of a mixed land-use strategy. That’s the opinion of PF Olsen’s Richmond-based Sam Nuske, who says: “Forestry and farming are often viewed as rivals in New Zealand, meaning some landowners stubbornly persist with one or the other. “Farmers, landowners and rural advisors need to see the opportunities that forestry can provide as part of mixed land-use,” he says.
Sam says that The NZ Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has changed the game for how valuable forestry can be for farmers. “Farmers can now achieve annual returns significantly higher from forestry than sheep and beef on less productive parts of their farm, as well as the harvest revenue,” he says. Cashflow from carbon is positive as early as four years after planting and can provide excellent returns out to age 16 for radiata pine under ‘Carbon Averaging’. Under this accounting rule, there is no liability at harvest provided the forest is replanted. Sam recommends that farmers exploring forestry as part of mixed land-use should seek forestry advice to optimise farm profitability and resilience. Forestry assets, he says, can also help with family succession planning, providing valuable income and assets that can be easily separated from the land value.
“I’m encouraging landowners to be bold in their thinking when considering forestry. Don’t muck around with a few hectares here and there. Identify the least productive 20-30% of your farm, so you can spread costs such as machinery transportation and infrastructure construction,” Sam says.
“There may be parts of your farm that are less accessible for harvesting, and these areas are probably more suited to a longer rotation species for carbon revenue. There will also be areas that are more suited to native tree species.”
Native trees are a great option for permanent riparian and aesthetic planting. Planning these areas to meet the ETS requirements, he says meaning farmers can at least get some carbon or economic return on top of the environmental benefits such as property aesthetics, stock shelter, improved water quality, biodiversity, and soil and erosion protection. Sam says he doesn’t support large-scale permanent pine forestry converting to natives purely for financial investment. “Converting to natives just for financial investment will leave you very exposed to policy changes and carbon price movement. Iwi and landowners with a commitment to land custodianship are exceptions who can manage this transition.” Permanent exotics have a place along riparian margins, or with long-lived species like redwoods, in the right areas. But the advice from Sam is to almost always target a timber crop with carbon as a bonus.
“The ETS is not a silver bullet; land that was not suited for exotic forestry before is still not suited now,” Sam says. “Mixed land-use can increase the resilience of your property, as well as improve the aesthetics, water quality, and biodiversity in your environment, it’s really worth exploring.”