Perhaps unsurprisingly, I do find at this time of the day, a useful number of interesting topics that could form the basis of a blog - which others may also enjoy debating.
This morning’s news has raised two important issues which relate to the previous Government’s incentives that were used to encourage the ‘best’ use of our pastoral land. One is about the cost of rural wildfires to the economy and the other about eliminating the threat of absentee ownership to the country's economic survival.
Almost without exception, farmers have traditionally responded to Government farm development incentives or improved livestock schedule pricing when deciding the best way to earn a buck from the grazable land they own.
Unfortunately, not all of these Government incentives have resulted in the best outcome for the national economy.
I can remember breaking in some of our marginal scrub covered hill country based on the Muldoon era “Land Development Encouragement Loan Scheme”.
While the incentive was based on the benefits to the National economy that would hopefully follow as a result of the huge increase in stock numbers, the scheme quickly became ill judged in hindsight as the resultant overstocking actually reduced the per head productive capacity of the national flock. And, as a consequence, when our overseas markets collapsed, we struggled to get more than $15.00 per head for the light lambs that survived to sale. It is interesting to note those disastrous prices from yesteryear are in contrast to the prices received today - some of the heaviest gradable lambs being sold for up to $300.00 per head. What a turnaround.
No surprises then to read this morning of farmers making decisions, based on current historically high red meat prices, to return their (once highly profitable) pine forests back into pasture. Times have certainly changed!
Which brings me to another example of ill-judged Government promoted incentives - this one to encourage the planting of pine trees on some of our most productive pastoral land.
I say “ill-judged” advisedly, but in hindsight - because the original concept was a sensible development of our marginal hill country and the practice was originally restricted to classes 6 and 7 marginal land. However, in a rush to meet self-imposed greenhouse gas emission targets, those Local Government bylaw restrictions were lifted resulting in the blanket planting of pine tree forests on some of the country’s most highly productive grazable land.
It became an unstoppable tide that unfortunately, appears to be never ending.
A desecration for want of a better term.
Alas, it gets worse!
According to a Wairarapa farming mate of mine, who finds himself surrounded by plantations that were originally planted by overseas owners - who bought the properties based solely on the “carbon credits” available at the time of purchase – the process is now having dire consequences not only for him living next door but also for the community at large.
The forests have become a harbour of pests and associated animal diseases, let alone the fire hazard threat to the surrounding highly productive, grazable farm land and dwellings.
Livestock farmers will also know that in order to insure oneself against the cost of extinguishing fires in forests we don’t own but are proven to have had their origin on our property, we are required by law to own multi-million-dollar insurance policies - just in case.
I hope the examples of "ill-judged" Government promoted incentives l have used to illustrate the folly of introducing ideologically based legislation that has had the opposite effect of what was originally intended has helped influence voters when turning up to the ballot box at the November General Election.
We need to put a stop to this madness and the only way to do that is by rejecting the authors of these failed destructive policies - whoever that might be.
Will they ever learn?
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
7 comments:
Clive , NZ will be better off when we have some old style real farmers in Government, rather than people whose only experience is in an office shuffling paper.
Will they ever learn? To anyone who thought at all, the planting of pines in the middle of cropping land was completely daft. We let this happen Clive. We can't avoid the stupid, but the apathetic are as much to blame. Good on you for keeping on!
I think there are some legitimate concerns buried in this post, particularly around whether government incentives can create unintended consequences. But I think the argument goes too far in turning a complicated land-use and climate-policy issue into a simple story of “ideological government incentives gone wrong”.
First, the comparison between the Muldoon-era land development schemes and forestry incentives isn't quite as straightforward as you present. Government incentives influencing farmers' land-use decisions is not new phenomenon, and neither is the possibility that those incentives can have unintended consequences. That is an argument for designing better incentives and monitoring their effects—not necessarily an argument against the underlying objective.
Second, the claim that pine forestry has resulted in the “blanket planting” of some of the country's most productive pastoral land needs considerably more evidence. There absolutely are legitimate questions about permanent exotic forestry, land-use change, fire risk and the effects on rural communities. But there is an important distinction between poorly designed forestry policy and forestry itself. Radiata pine has been an enormously important export industry for New Zealand, while forestry also provides carbon sequestration, erosion control and other environmental benefits.
Third, I think the argument about overseas ownership needs more scrutiny. If the problem is absentee ownership, then the relevant question is what behaviour or land-use practices we want to regulate - not simply whether the owner happens to be from New Zealand or overseas. A New Zealand-owned plantation that creates exactly the same fire, pest or land-use problems isn't somehow less problematic. This is xenophobic rhetoric that undermines your concerns around fire hazards and pest control.
The wildfire argument is also worth separating from the broader forestry debate. Wildfire is a genuine and increasingly important risk thanks to climate change, but attributing that risk primarily to pine plantations oversimplifies the issue. Fire behaviour depends on vegetation, weather, topography, land management, proximity to communities and how well plantations are designed and maintained. The appropriate response is better fire prevention, access, management and liability arrangements - not treating all forestry as inherently irresponsible.
And finally, I think the discussion would benefit from distinguishing between a policy failing and a policy objective failing.
If a government policy encouraged forestry in inappropriate locations, then that policy should be changed. If carbon incentives have encouraged land uses that don't produce the outcomes New Zealand actually wants, then those incentives should be redesigned. If permanent exotic forestry creates unacceptable risks in particular landscapes, regulate it accordingly. But that doesn't require us to conclude that climate policy itself is “madness”, that forestry is a “desecration”, or that the answer is simply to reject whichever political party introduced the policy.
Farmers respond rationally to the incentives and prices in front of them. That's actually the central lesson from your examples. If government changes the relative returns from farming, forestry, carbon sequestration or other land uses, landowners will respond. So the lesson that should be drawn isn't “stop government incentives”. It is that in order to ensure farmers make good decisions for their businesses and national interests, we need to ensure policy and incentives are designed to reflect those aims, and be willing to change them when the science and evidence is to the contrary. Rather than blaming any particular government, as these issues will persist regardless of who is in power in Wellington.
Thank you Anon 12.31pm
Your points are well made although l have never promoted the more extreme responses to these obvious unintended consequences - simply pointed them out as failures of a system that should have been designed to keep us safe.
But generally speaking, l think we might agree with my identification of things that have caused unnecessary damage to our economy that could be rectified by either changing laws that govern rouge steer activity back to a position where it is no longer permitted or by introducing new laws and by-laws that will stop the acts of desecration that have already taken place.
Every tree on the planet has a finite life - the carbon at some point in the next few hundred years at maximum, will be released back into the atmosphere.
We have the same amount of carbon on Earth as several billion years ago, we are not making more of it, just shifting it to somewhere else more or less " permanent ".
Anything we do in NZ to mitigate the always changing climate is futile.
Wake up, don't be pushed around by ignorant eco warriors who have no idea what they are doing, and they don't care about the consequences.
Both the article & comment (x Anon 5 Aug. @12.31PM) have expressed valid points, and counter points.
Forestry. If one looks at the Forestry that was planted, from Muldoon onward and who was 'the owner's' one can see that NZ has been "the target" for this industry.
Lets us add to the "pot" -
- a Govt's response to carbon credits, and the best way to achieve this - trees.
- both China & Japan their individual demands for timber (be it logs or defined timber) >
> China using the local "trade' to develop this, just look at the export of logs from NZ
NB - just look at the re export of timber related product (cabinetry - go visit Bunnings or Mighty Ape) from China
> Japan - buying into timber mills for both logs & defined timber - now we see this 'agents' of this Country now selling a Timber Mill - no longer profitable for them.
Like Wool, we were led to believe 'timber was gold' - can that now be seen as "fool's gold". Me thinks not when IKEA can go buy up productive farming land for one reason - trees (pine) and I wonder how many logs we will ship to Sweden, to be converted into furniture for them to re-export (to the many Countries they have their stores in)- OR will we see them create their product locally - think jobs [maybe] with exports.
With all our forests, we have a rapid decline in Timber Mills across the land - an interesting point.
Yes sadly we also see an increase in forest pests, deer now being the lead contender there.
You are right Clive.
Verbose responses from those not familiar with, or of the land , don't recognise the practicalities of a politically created problem.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.