Skip to main content.

2. Forestry-specific Issues

Forestry is the first sector to enter the ETS and the majority of discussion at the hui centred on questions about the impact of the ETS on the diverse range of land ownership arrangements that exist, and the variety of relationships between land owners and forestry owners.

There was some disagreement with when the government initially outlined its intention to introduce an emissions trading scheme-like regime:

There has been reference by you Bryan [Smith] to announcements made by the government since 2002. It seems that you are proposing that these ETS-like proposals have been around since 2002. We [Ngati Awa] have followed those proposals. The proposals in 2002 were quite different to what is being proposed now. What is now being proposed are things not contemplated in 2002. The detail of the ETS has only been available since September (2007) this year. The government can recognise pre-1990 exotic forests if it wants to. It can also comply with its international obligations. But the international obligations to the year 1990 should not be used as an excuse to deny proper recognition of the value of pre-1990 indigenous and exotic forests in this country. Most of the Māori forestry holdings are pre-1990.

(Paul Quinn, National Māori Forestry Hui, Kirikiriroa (Hamilton))

There were requests for modelling of the various options to be made available for land owners to better understand the effects of ETS policies on their situation. It was readily understood that the policies provided an incentive for lands to remain or to revert to forestry use, though this was balanced by a concern if the future price of wood products dropped too low.

It is very difficult to make the right decision. There is a duty of active protection on government with respect to Māori. It is up to government to advise Māori on the best options for their different land holdings – eg, SILNA lands [South Island Landless Natives Act 1906], lands returned under settlement processes with or without forests, lands where we own the land but don’t own the trees. We need to ensure equity exists, what is fair; we need to ensure that we are informed as to the best decision.

(Mike Skerrett, Invercargill Hui)

A lot of our Tūwharetoa tribal areas have large tracts of undeveloped land, forestry, and indigenous land. What I’m looking for is how can we best incorporate what we’ve heard today into plans for these lands? It appears that what we’re given on one hand will be taken away on the other. I would like to go away with some options as to what we may be able to do with lands like this and with our farms.

(Jim Maniapoto, Waiariki Hui)

We have 6000ha of exotic forests that we are locked into as the land is leased out. For us, we know that the land is more profitable and suitable for dairy farming. What is in store for us in the future?

(Paora Ammunson, Papawai Hui)

There is an assumption that pine trees are sustainable over time. I think that this is a fallacy. Some of our forests are built on sand dunes which were first stabilised and established by planting lupins. This is not sustainable and when such land is returned under claim settlements we will be limited in our ability to change the land use, even if there is a better land use. I don’t believe that indigenous forests are less effective than pine forests at sequestering carbon. The figures are stacked in favour of production forestry. We have the opportunity to do something visionary here with encouraging the regeneration of indigenous forests. There are too many unanswered questions and local scenarios that have not been considered. I think the timing is too rushed …

(Paul White, Whangarei Hui)

2.1 Equity and the proposed inclusion of pre-1990 exotic and indigenous forests

During the hui, the government officials sought specific feedback on whether pre-1990 indigenous forests should be included in the ETS. It was stated by participants that Māori have not had the same access to opportunity to develop land, or the land is still under claim and, in most cases, under forest. Much of the land was noted as being marginal and the harvesting of indigenous forests or land use change has been further constrained by other legislation or policies. So, notwithstanding other environmental or cultural imperatives, any allocation of carbon credits to pre-1990 indigenous forest was considered by some hui attendees to be inequitable if it were based on historical rates of deforestation alone.

I see that it is being proposed to give 39 carbon credits per hectare, estimated to be worth $585 for exotic forest, yet it has been stated earlier that the cost of changing from forestry would be around $13,000 per ha. Those Māori land owners who have not had the funds to clear and farm their land are going to have an additional obstacle put in their way.

(Harvey Bell, Whanganui Hui)

If we own indigenous forests, then we’re already impacted and disadvantaged. We are constrained by legislation and policies limiting the ability of owners to use their land. This seems to be more of the same.

(Dean Walker, Nelson Hui)

The Prime Minister has gone on record that New Zealand is going to be the first carbon neutral country. That is going to come at a cost. It is likely that the allocation model is going to be inequitable for Māori. The question of indigenous forest inclusion can only be made if there is full knowledge of the model and its implications. The Crown knows what some of the Māori views are on indigenous forests. For Māori the focus is going to be on equity in allocation.

(Roger Pikia, Nelson Hui)

Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Hikairo provided specific feedback at the Wellington hui on the issue of whether to include indigenous forests in the ETS. Allocation of New Zealand units were requested to be on an equitable land mass basis. So allocation in relation to exotic forests should be equitable with indigenous forests. It was requested that leadership and innovation in this space should not be discounted, and that biodiversity should be celebrated and rewarded, not exploited.

2.2 Allocation methodology – state-owned enterprises to be excluded

It was noted that the Crown would not allocate New Zealand Units to itself for its indigenous forestry on conservation estate. Any allocation methodology that allows a Crown-Government money-go-round was specifically opposed by Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Hikairo (TRONH). In the Wellington hui, TRNONH opposed state-owned enterprises being eligible to receive any free allocation of NZUs.

2.3 Rewarding the retention of indigenous forests

Views expressed during the earlier consultation round on climate change were reiterated, such as the view that: because Māori continue to own vast amounts of forestland, collectively Māori who have kept their land in forest (especially indigenous forests) must be low emitters, and ought to be rewarded for doing ‘the right thing’.

Our land is in native forests. The government is offering incentives to the polluters, but those of us who have been maintaining forests and doing the right thing – there is no compensation for us …

(Henare Ratima, Papawai Hui)

2.4 Restraints on Māori land and impacts on economic development

It was the consensus view that the management of Māori freehold land is already less flexible than of non-Māori land and results in an inability to make capital gains on corpus lands. Participants stated that there has been a history of restraints, and just as Māori feel they are turning a corner in terms of economic development, they face further constraints. Māori understood the intent of the policies but noted that the market is not level.

We lease a lot of Māori land. The costs may end up depressing the rentals that we are able to get, how will that be addressed? A lot of land is already marginal, that may depress it even further … there are timing issues as well for rent reviews … Part of the problem is in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 [the Maori Land Act] and how it is structured, the Act’s emphasis on retention restricts the ability to enter into JVs [joint ventures].

(Richard Wickens, Māori Trustee Office, Wellington Hui)

The lack of governance and management structures of some Māori land titles, the alienation provisions of the Ture Whenua Māori Act, and the resulting impacts on Māori development were also noted:

16,000 Māori land titles have no land management structure. A lot of that land is either in indigenous forests, or is marginal land. Credits will attach to that land and no-one is empowered to elect to enter into the regime. There needs to be a manager appointed, possibly the Māori Trustee. If you can’t alienate a credit (because of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act definition of alienation), then we won’t be in the game at all. These issues have been raised with Te Puni Kokiri, they are on record.

(Paul Morgan, National Māori Forestry Hui, Kirikiriroa)

2.5 Lands in the Department of Conservation estate

You mentioned the indigenous forests; my understanding is that most of these forests in the North Island are owned by DOC, even though the land is spiritually ours. Do we get the carbon credits off these DOC lands?

(John McLean, Whangarei Hui)

[ |