Speaker 1: Kyota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The government's
Speaker 2: likely to pass a law banning farm to forest conversions
Speaker 2: to protect productive farmland for food production. It'll mean a
Speaker 2: restriction on planting forests on high quality land and it's
Speaker 2: a response to the previous government's emissions reduction plan. Agriculture
Speaker 2: Minister Todd McLay has emphasized the need to protect productive farmland,
Speaker 2: maintain food security and ensure that forestry expansion doesn't come
Speaker 2: at the expense of agriculture and rural livelihoods. But have
Speaker 2: we placed too much importance on planting trees anyway? And
Speaker 2: should we be focusing on other efforts elsewhere? Today on
Speaker 2: the front page of Canterbury Emeritus Professor David Norton is
Speaker 2: with us to break down what this all actually means
Speaker 2: and whether we'll be able to meet our ambitious climate targets.
Speaker 2: First off, David, can you tell us what farm to
Speaker 2: forest conversions actually are?
Speaker 3: Yep. But it's a good question because it's often quite
Speaker 3: confusing and essentially a company that could be a New
Speaker 3: Zealand company, it could be an overseas company purchases a farm,
Speaker 3: typically a sheet and beef farm, and they plant the
Speaker 3: whole farm up in fast growing exotic trees, usually pineous radiata,
Speaker 3: for carbon sequestration purposes.
Speaker 2: And so what is carbon farming? Is that the planting
Speaker 2: of the pine to offset carbon emissions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not to offset carbon emission. So carbon farming
Speaker 3: is basically the process of planting up a farm in
Speaker 3: fast growing exotic trees with the objective to seque to
Speaker 3: carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and to earn money
Speaker 3: from doing that. And yeah, it is called offsetting because
Speaker 3: somebody who is producing emissions, a company that's using petrol, diesel, whatever,
Speaker 3: can then buy those credits to offset their emissions.
Speaker 2: So what's the main evidence for the government wanting to
Speaker 2: restrict farm to forestry conversions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the reason why they brought the restrictions in
Speaker 3: is because of concerns within the farming sector that good
Speaker 3: quality farmland was being taken out of farming and put
Speaker 3: into carbon forests. The difficulty with carbon forests is that
Speaker 3: they are a permanent land used they have to be
Speaker 3: there forever, because once you've drawn that carbon down from
Speaker 3: the atmosphere, it needs to stay in those trees and perpetuity,
Speaker 3: so it rules out any opportunity to go back into
Speaker 3: farming on that land again. So I think the biggest
Speaker 3: concern that drove this change was that desire to restrict
Speaker 3: that that sort of locking up a potential farmland for
Speaker 3: the future. In the proposal, it restricts it that you
Speaker 3: can't do it on land News classes one to five,
Speaker 3: and there's a limit on land News Class six as well.
Speaker 2: Well. That leads me on to my next question, Actually,
Speaker 2: how do we determine what is high, medium and low
Speaker 2: quality land?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's a national system that ranks all land
Speaker 3: in New Zealand on its productivity essentially, and so the
Speaker 3: most productive land would be land that's used to say cereal,
Speaker 3: you know, wheat growing and other crops horticulture, right through
Speaker 3: to the least productive land, which would be land that is,
Speaker 3: you know, might only graze one or two stock units
Speaker 3: per hecta. That's very very low productivity. And so the
Speaker 3: idea of the regulations was to limit the conversion of
Speaker 3: high quality or highly productive farmland to pine trees and
Speaker 3: restrict that largely at lower productivity hill country, steeper hill
Speaker 3: country farmland.
Speaker 2: That doesn't do anything to alleviate the fears of beef
Speaker 2: and sheep far as though, does it.
Speaker 3: It shifts it more to the least productive end of
Speaker 3: the spectrum. So the better downlands lower hill country lands
Speaker 3: has certainly got much more restrictions on it. Yes, so
Speaker 3: it does alleviate it to some degree, but there is
Speaker 3: still a lot of concern in the farming community. I understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I saw in October last year, we saw
Speaker 2: the closure of alliance groups meat processing plant and Timoru,
Speaker 2: affecting about six hundred jobs, and fed farmers at that
Speaker 2: time pointed to land use changes, including the conversions to forestry,
Speaker 2: as a contributing factor. Obviously the forestry industry disputed this.
Speaker 2: But in a situation like this, do the environmental gains
Speaker 2: outweigh I guess the jobs in rural communities.
Speaker 3: From my perspective anomen ecologist, that there are no environmental
Speaker 3: gains in doing this. I actually think carbon farming is
Speaker 3: a flawed process. It's basically a small group of people
Speaker 3: trying to make a lot of money in a short
Speaker 3: period of time with zero consideration for the future.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because you've made a good point before, as well,
Speaker 2: to my understand my very basic understanding is that when
Speaker 2: you come in and plant these pine forests, it's like
Speaker 2: one hundred year commitment. You have to be doing it consistently,
Speaker 2: cutting them down regrowing for it to be any good.
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, Two, there's really good question, and there's two
Speaker 3: important points in there. A lot of these farm to
Speaker 3: forest conversions are not being managed for sustainable timber supply.
Speaker 3: They're simply being planted for carbon and then basically the
Speaker 3: owners walk away and leave them. That's very different from
Speaker 3: a production plantation forest that's been managed on sustainable rotation
Speaker 3: to produce timber every thirty twenty five thirty years on
Speaker 3: an ongoing basis. So most of these farm to forest
Speaker 3: conversions are simply being planted up. They sequest a carbon
Speaker 3: for twenty thirty forty years, and then they have to
Speaker 3: be in the ground because that carbon has been sequested.
Speaker 3: They're not being managed into the future, and they impose
Speaker 3: massive economic and environmental liabilities on us as we move
Speaker 3: into future generations.
Speaker 2: Why aren't they planting native species? Why is it always
Speaker 2: pine and exotic species.
Speaker 3: That's a great question, and the reason is that the
Speaker 3: whole emissions trading scheme that this is all working through
Speaker 3: is set up to make pines the favored outcome, and
Speaker 3: the incentives are all completely twisted and counter against native forests.
Speaker 3: And I mean, I think it's really important to recognize
Speaker 3: that people are getting rich, making a lot of money,
Speaker 3: getting rich over a short period of time from carbon credits.
Speaker 3: They get their credits and they can forget about that forest.
Speaker 3: But someone's got to make sure that carbon stays in
Speaker 3: the ground in the future. And if the investors are
Speaker 3: taking their money and gone, then it's going to be
Speaker 3: future generations in New Zealand that are responsible for looking
Speaker 3: after that carbon that's been stored there, because it's supposed
Speaker 3: to be storedly. But at the same time, we know
Speaker 3: that these pine forests are not adapted to the New
Speaker 3: Zealand environment. They won't maintain themselves, they will collapse, They
Speaker 3: will be sources of diseases, of dare of pa species.
Speaker 3: And you know, we saw what happened in cyclone Gabriel,
Speaker 3: We saw what happened to Nelson Tasman a few weeks ago.
Speaker 3: You know, these forests are imposing massive environmental liabilities on us.
Speaker 3: And what we need is we need diverse native forests
Speaker 3: established across the landscape into woven into farming systems, not
Speaker 3: replacing farming, but into woven's farming systems. Unfortunately, the ETS
Speaker 3: is stacked against that. It just doesn't make it possible
Speaker 3: at the moment. This is what the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Speaker 3: the Environment said and his report recently. You know, the
Speaker 3: whole system is wrong. It's set up against natives.
Speaker 4: So what you're saying is we are going to have
Speaker 4: higher emissions leading up to twenty thirty because of your
Speaker 4: governments policies.
Speaker 1: We're going to have that accurate?
Speaker 3: Nor what is that?
Speaker 4: Is that accurate? What is that is that accurate? Will
Speaker 4: New Zealand have higher emissions than we would have under
Speaker 4: the previous government? Under your government in the period leading
Speaker 4: to twenty thirty?
Speaker 3: What is accurate?
Speaker 5: It is to say that the missions profile, the plan
Speaker 5: that we have put in place will enable us to
Speaker 5: meet our budgets for the period ending to it.
Speaker 4: It's not the question I asked though, But the question
Speaker 4: I asked is under your government's policies, will our emissions
Speaker 4: leading up to twenty thirty be higher than they would
Speaker 4: under the previous government.
Speaker 5: Technically, in the region of about one point five mega
Speaker 5: tons of point of difference by the end, So thirty.
Speaker 2: Does our emissions reduction plan rely too heavily on forestry.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. What we're doing is we're basically saying, keep producing emissions,
Speaker 3: you can offset them. But actually what we need to
Speaker 3: be doing is cutting our emissions, and the emissions reduction
Speaker 3: plan isn't doing that, is just relying on fast growing
Speaker 3: trees to push the problem out into the future, not
Speaker 3: addressing the missions reductions at all.
Speaker 2: So the coalition brought in the removal of agriculture from
Speaker 2: the ETS, and that was welcomed by farmers, criticized by environmentalists.
Speaker 2: What do you make of this move?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I think what we need is we
Speaker 3: need to separate out methane, which is what livestock are
Speaker 3: producing from all the other all Carton dixide, which is
Speaker 3: from petrol and diesel and all that stuff. And I
Speaker 3: think we need to have a separate biogenic system where
Speaker 3: farmers can offset their own emissions in their livestock on farm.
Speaker 3: Methane behaves very differently to CO two and that should
Speaker 3: be done in one system, and then there should be
Speaker 3: a separate system that is focused on reducing our overall
Speaker 3: CO two emissions from hydrocarbons, and the two should be
Speaker 3: separated out and dealt with quite separately.
Speaker 2: What alternatives are there and it should we be focusing
Speaker 2: on more?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think what we should be doing in New
Speaker 3: Zealand from my perspective is quite simply. We should have
Speaker 3: a standalone biogenic methane system for farmers and they can
Speaker 3: plant woodlots on their farmers, they can use native vegetation
Speaker 3: to offset their methane productions. We need to have genuine
Speaker 3: tools in place that guarantee we reduce emissions. We're not
Speaker 3: reducing emissions. We've got to bring our emissions down less
Speaker 3: fossil fuels, and we need to be building landscape resilience,
Speaker 3: and that by building landscape resilience, by planting diverse native forests,
Speaker 3: by establishing more native wetlands, we can sequest a draw
Speaker 3: carbon down from the atmosphere. But we can also make
Speaker 3: sure that we don't get the damage we've got in
Speaker 3: cyclone Gabriel and damage we've got in Nelson and other
Speaker 3: parts of New Zealand. I'm involved with a project called
Speaker 3: rec Cloak and papatuar Nuku which pure advantage are not
Speaker 3: for profit has been developing which is aiming to restore
Speaker 3: two million hectas of native forest and wetland across New Zealand,
Speaker 3: interwoven into our primary production landscapes and not replacing farming,
Speaker 3: but part of farming. Are rewarded for looking after native
Speaker 3: forests and establishing new native forests for all of those benefits,
Speaker 3: you know, cultural biodiversity, resilience, carbon draw down and so forth.
Speaker 2: Well that kind of sounds like a win win, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: Why aren't we making So if I was a dairy farmer, say,
Speaker 2: is there a way that so I've got my fifty cows?
Speaker 2: Say I obviously have never visited a dairy farm, so
Speaker 2: I don't know how many cows there are, But say
Speaker 2: I've got fifty, probably.
Speaker 3: A few more than fifty.
Speaker 2: Can I then measure how much methane that they're producing
Speaker 2: and then be like, right, it's this much. I need
Speaker 2: to come up with a way to offset that on
Speaker 2: my land, say with native forests and stuff, and then
Speaker 2: kind of try and balance it out myself. Could I
Speaker 2: essentially do that?
Speaker 3: Absolutely? Look, the science is very very easy to use.
Speaker 3: I mean, we know how much methanea cow producers, so
Speaker 3: you could do that definitely, and I must say some
Speaker 3: of the innovative dairy farmers are actually putting that information
Speaker 3: out there in the public. They are acknowledging how much
Speaker 3: they produce them. You can do the math, and you
Speaker 3: may not be able to do it on your land
Speaker 3: because your dairy farm might be too small, but you
Speaker 3: could work with says sheet and beef farmer and you
Speaker 3: could do it in a collaborative way.
Speaker 2: Why don't we make farmers do that?
Speaker 3: Then it's a good question. The politics. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 3: have the answer to that one.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't mind my tax money going, you know, giving
Speaker 2: a few bob to farmers to create native farmlands.
Speaker 3: Well, I think, you know, I mean, I think there
Speaker 3: are lots of avenues that we could fund it through.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's a lot of interest internationally in high
Speaker 3: quality carbon and biodiversity credits, So people would be really interested,
Speaker 3: I think in investing in New Zealand. We're a stable democracy,
Speaker 3: We're a reliable country for that sort of work. But
Speaker 3: farmers themselves, I mean, you know, they will at some
Speaker 3: point need to offset their methane production so that the
Speaker 3: incentive is for them to invest into their own land.
Speaker 3: But it's building resilience in their land, and it's helping
Speaker 3: make their land more stable. It's got other benefits out
Speaker 3: of it. I work with farmers dairy and she can
Speaker 3: be farmers helping them designeration programs for their farms so
Speaker 3: they can bring back native forest. I mean, there are
Speaker 3: really great people out there doing this already. We just
Speaker 3: need the national policy signals of a place to make
Speaker 3: this reality. And I think for that we need to
Speaker 3: acknowledge that we are being impacted by climate change. We
Speaker 3: need to acknowledge that we need to have a national
Speaker 3: resilience plan, of which, you know, putting native forests back
Speaker 3: into landscapes as part of farming systems is a really
Speaker 3: sustainable long term outcome. Pine trees a short term They're
Speaker 3: not doing anything for the future. Native forest, native wetlands
Speaker 3: are bringing all these other values and bi diversity who
Speaker 3: we are as New Zealanders, you know, all these other
Speaker 3: values back into our landscapes.
Speaker 1: Of the two hundred odd countries in the world today,
Speaker 1: it looks like we are the only one it's carbon neutral.
Speaker 1: Actually that's not quite accurate. Batone is not carbon neutral.
Speaker 1: We're doone is carbon negative. Our entire country generates two
Speaker 1: point two million tons of carbon dioxide, but a forest,
Speaker 1: they see question more than three times at amount. So
Speaker 1: we are a net carbon zinc for more than four
Speaker 1: million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Speaker 2: What about if we look overseas, are there any other
Speaker 2: countries that are focusing you know, not as much on forestry,
Speaker 2: I suppose, but are there any good projects that we
Speaker 2: should be really keeping an eye on.
Speaker 3: There's a range of different initiatives being taken in different
Speaker 3: countries and different ways of incentidvising and encouraging people to
Speaker 3: get involved in these sorts of projects. But I actually
Speaker 3: believe that New Zealand has the opportunity to show other countries.
Speaker 3: So turning it around, we have the opportunity to show
Speaker 3: other countries how we can do this sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: We're a small country, we're innovative. We just need to
Speaker 3: get out of this mindset at the moment of just
Speaker 3: focusing on today and actually think about the future. And
Speaker 3: we've got huge credibility, scientific background in this stuff. We
Speaker 3: know how to do it. We just need the political
Speaker 3: will behind that to support it.
Speaker 2: Do you think farming and forestry voices are equally represented?
Speaker 3: It's interesting, you know, I hate to think what's going
Speaker 3: on behind the closed doors in Wellington and who's influencing what.
Speaker 3: What's not being represented is the voice of the environment,
Speaker 3: and that's my real concern is that the environment has
Speaker 3: not been listened to. I think I work with a
Speaker 3: lot of farmers, and my impression is that farmers are
Speaker 3: really interested in looking after the land, are really interested
Speaker 3: in a sustainable outcome. They get the impact that climate
Speaker 3: change has on their businesses on their land, and they're
Speaker 3: in it for the long term. Farmers are in it
Speaker 3: for the long term, and I think we just need
Speaker 3: to have the right incentives there to help a system
Speaker 3: with even those sorts of outcomes that I've talked about.
Speaker 2: I mean, the Climate Change Commission last month warned that
Speaker 2: while we're making progress and emissions are on track to
Speaker 2: meet the first budget that's twenty twenty two to twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five, we still need to urgently do more work.
Speaker 2: At the rate we're going. Do you think that we're
Speaker 2: going to meet our Paris climate commitments?
Speaker 3: No? No, from everything I've seen, we're not. We're still
Speaker 3: consuming too much, We're still using too much, We're still
Speaker 3: we're still living in today. We're not thinking about tomorrow,
Speaker 3: and I think we're struggling, and I think relying on
Speaker 3: offsetting with short lived pine trees is just a massive mistake.
Speaker 3: It's just pushing the problem off.
Speaker 2: Has this latest move set us back a bit?
Speaker 3: I think it's just simply carrying us down a I
Speaker 3: think a Dedan street, and I think we need to,
Speaker 3: like Simon Upton said the Parliamentary Commission of the Environment said,
Speaker 3: we need to radically overhaul the ets. We need to
Speaker 3: shift fast growing exotics into the BID methane system, and
Speaker 3: we need to start putting in place an approach that's
Speaker 3: based around using native forest of long term enduring carbon
Speaker 3: sequestration is going to be there forever of all of
Speaker 3: the other benefits for the landscape, for people, for bid diversity,
Speaker 3: But the government doesn't seem to be interested in that.
Speaker 3: And that's a real tragedy, I think, because the people
Speaker 3: that are going to suffer are going to be the
Speaker 3: next generation and the one after that and so on.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, David, You're welcome, Thanks for inviting me.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzidherld dot co dot MZ. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Ethan Sells and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page
Speaker 2: on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
Speaker 2: in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.