Under pressure from Federated Farmers, carbon forestry is under Government scrutiny. Angus Kebbell reprises views on its costs and 'benefits' with both a farming and an environmental advocate

For years now, I have been highlighting the importance of farming in this country, while also sounding the alarm on permanent exotic forestry being planted solely for carbon farming at the expense of food production and rural communities. It is no secret that large emitting corporations are driving this agenda, using the ability to offset their emissions rather than confronting their own activities. This has left New Zealand farms bearing the brunt of pollution that should be addressed by those who caused it.

This week, Federated Farmers have stepped up, calling for change in this area, a stance that has generated some media attention across the country. While changes are already in motion, with new restrictions on permanent forestry set to take effect from December this year, the question remains: what happens between now and then? We know farm sales are continuing to permanent forestry buyers, and there is every chance this will accelerate right up until the end of the year.

To provide some historical context, I have revisited interviews with two professionals from a couple of years ago. Their reflections underscore why change is so critical, even as the Government’s approach continues to evolve.

As academic and environmental advisor Dave Frame put it plainly, “It’s actually farming, by and large, that keeps the export receipts flowing into the country that lets us maintain the lifestyle that we have. In spite of the fact that people keep saying, ‘Oh, we need to move away from that, we need to be this highly skilled country’, you know, our education system does not line up with delivery on that.”

Frame’s perspective on environment and emissions policy for New Zealand farmers remains essential. His work spans climate change science and policy, focusing both on extreme weather events and on using simple climate models to illuminate key policy questions. In New Zealand, this means a particular focus on methane and its role in climate targets and policies.

Frame believes the Government missed an opportunity to fully integrate the many aspects of farming systems, from soil and trees to fertiliser use and emissions, and that it was too narrowly focused on methane alone. “I would hope that the government and the sector would go back and try and do a bit more integration, so that the policy ends up being a little bit more rounded,” he said.

The conversation also turned to afforestation and the push for wholesale land use change for carbon farming. Frame was unequivocal in his assessment: “No, I don’t think it is the right direction. The fundamental problem from a policy perspective here is that something that should be a last option or a backstop policy, planting trees to offset what you can’t reduce is too cheap and it’s the first option people go for instead of being the last.”

Frame also offered a broader perspective, reflecting on New Zealand’s ongoing struggles to diversify its economy. Despite all the talk of becoming a high-tech, high-skill economy, the evidence simply is not there. “Our universities are not in the top 100, our schools are not having a blinder,” he said. “Until those highly skilled sectors step up, I wouldn’t expect things to change very much. And actually, I personally think New Zealand pays its way well with agriculture.”

He argues that instead of chasing unrealistic dreams of building another Silicon Valley, we should build clusters around what we already have, world-class farming and food production. It is farming that has consistently delivered for New Zealand and will likely continue to do so long into the future.

Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society shares a similar view on the need to rein in carbon farming.

Taylor’s organisation has been at the forefront of challenging this shift to carbon farming. “This whole notion of large scale permanent exotic forests is something that we need to nip in the bud,” he said.

Taylor is deeply concerned that this carbon farming boom is harming small rural communities. “These are essentially plant-and-walk-away forests,” he said, which bring no jobs and no life to these regions. His organisation is not an industry group or a farming lobby. The Environmental Defence Society is a non-profit dedicated to better environmental outcomes, yet even they see the clear dangers of carbon farming displacing real farming and food production.

Taylor also highlighted the environmental downsides of poorly managed forestry. He noted that large areas of hill country are being stripped of stabilising vegetation, exacerbating run-off and flooding, and increasing sediment loads that smother marine life. “Forestry plays an important role in farming systems without question,” he said, “but trees have their place and clearly the forestry industry has some way to go to improve its environmental footprint.”

It is interesting to see how we have arrived at this point. Large emitters have been allowed to run rampant in this country, planting pine trees that add no real value to our economy or environment and compromise our farming sector through the loss of productive farmland. Yet policymakers still stand up and proclaim how critical farming and food production are to our future. It is extraordinary.

So is the gate closing fast enough on carbon farming? When the gate finally shuts, will the parameters be secure? Let us hope we have the wisdom to put a padlock on the gate and throw away the key.

Have a listen to the podcast to hear the full story.

Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.