Government’s farm-to-forest ban doesn’t go far enough - Richard Dawkins

Federated Farmers wants stricter reforms to protect rural communities. Photo / Duncan Brown

THE FACTS

• The Government’s “farm-to-forest” ban is expected to become law later this year.
• Farmers are concerned that permanent pine forests will replace productive hill country.
• The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill aims to protect valuable land for food production while limiting tree planting under the ETS.

Despite repeated promises to rein in carbon forestry on productive farmland, the proposed changes from the Government don’t even come close to meeting expectations.

Farmers and rural communities will quite rightly be feeling a deep sense of betrayal this week – particularly with so many rural MPs sitting around the table making the decisions.

Across New Zealand, productive hill country is being swallowed up by permanent pine forests at an alarming rate.

Things aren’t slowing down. In reality, they’re rapidly accelerating.

This isn’t production forestry that creates jobs or stimulates rural economies.

It’s carbon forestry, generating credits so big urban polluters don’t have to reduce their emissions.

Federated Farmers has consistently raised concerns about the impact on rural communities and the economy, calling for the Government to tighten up its reforms.

Despite strong feedback and clear cross-party support, the draft rules still leave massive loopholes that will most likely see just a minor reduction in whole farm conversions.

The Environment Select Committee’s recommendations this week are extremely disappointing and send a clear message to rural New Zealand: either we don’t understand this issue, or simply, we don’t care.

Despite desperate pleas to “save our sheep” and small country towns, the march of pine trees across productive farmland won’t be stopping any time soon.

One small win is the committee’s decision to adopt our call to tighten the “intent to plant” test.

We argued that simply buying seedlings before December 4, 2024 – with no land to plant them on – shouldn’t count as a valid intention.

The bill will now be redrafted to make that crystal clear, and that’s welcome progress.

But the rest of the report completely misses the mark.

As it stands, the bill allows a lottery system for Land Use Capability (LUC) class 6 land, with up to 15,000 hectares a year still eligible for full conversion.

Meanwhile, classes 7 and 8 remain unrestricted. It’s open slather.

Eighty-eight % of previous conversions were on classes 6 and above - that means for those carbon farming, it’s likely to be business as usual.

The gradual decline of our productive farming base is set to continue.

Two-thirds of sheep and beef farms sit on LUC 6 and 7 land – the very categories exempted from the 25% carbon credit restriction.

Richard Dawkins is Federated Farmers' forestry spokesman. Photo /Federated Farmers

So, the vast majority of our sheep and beef farms, which are the productive base of our industry, are still exposed to the risk of full conversion to carbon forestry - and once those farms are gone, they’re gone for good.

This is a permanent land-use change. It’s not like switching from sheep to dairy or trying your hand at an orchard.

Once you plant a forest for carbon, the economic and environmental cost of reversing it is huge.

The solution is clear: the rules must apply to all land classes, including the hill country where most Federated Farmers sheep and beef members live and work.

Every single farm should face the same 25% credit cap, regardless of LUC rating.

Otherwise, the damage just shifts – it doesn’t stop.

Minister Todd McClay now has a simple decision to make.

Will he back our hard working farmers who get out of bed each morning to produce world class food, generate export income for the country, and care for the land?

Or will he instead choose to support a badly broken carbon market that, in our view, is being exploited by big businesses and polluters, often with foreign investors?

He can’t have it both ways. I just hope he makes the right call.

New Zealand is at a crossroads.

Will our future be shaped by sheep and cattle grazing our hills, or by blankets of pine trees as far as the eye can see?

Let me be clear: we’re not anti-forestry.

When timber prices were strong in the 1980s and 2000s, we saw the right tree planted in the right place.

Many farmers utilise farm forestry for diversification and environmental benefits.

Federated Farmers does not oppose commercial forestry of this kind.

But there’s a big difference between genuine timber production and permanent carbon forests.

This is about more than carbon farms. It’s about communities, unintended consequences and favouring polluters over producers.

We cannot afford to keep losing good farmland to bad policy and a subsidised industry.

The Government needs to urgently close the loopholes, protect the land, and back our farmers, before it’s too late.