Farm groups argue law change to save farmland from the spread of forestry is insufficient, foresters think it goes too far

Two farming lobby groups say government moves to prevent farmland being taken over by pine forests could fail, after a key piece of legislation came back from Parliament’s Environment Select Committee.

Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ) and Federated Farmers say a danger persists of small-town facilities such as shops and garages dying out because the regular earnings from farmers that keep them going will no longer be there.  Instead, swathes of forests will grow which employ people only occasionally during their 25-year growth period, leaving small communities without regular customers.

Their concerns follow a unanimous report from Parliament’s Environment Committee endorsing a law change intended to restrict forestry conversions. 

The Bill, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill was intended to make it harder to convert land to forestry.  

Farming groups always thought the changes were inadequate when they were first introduced.  They now say their worries have not been addressed by the Bill that came back from the Select Committee.

“There was widespread feedback from the farming community during the select committee process that the proposed restrictions did not go far enough,” says B+L NZ chairwoman Kate Acland. 

“It is incredibly disappointing that these concerns have not been listened to.”

Federated Farmers forestry spokesperson Richard Dawkins is also critical.

“The so-called ban on carbon forestry doesn’t go far enough to stop the march of pines across New Zealand’s productive farmland,” he says.

"This is an incredibly disappointing result and many farmers will be feeling a total sense of betrayal.”

When it was introduced, the Bill set out to meet farmers’ concerns by thwarting afforestation of the best farmland.  It would do so by restricting foresters’ access to the income-generating Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) if they operate on all but the worst quality land. Their methodology is based on a system known as Land Use Capability (LUC) 1-8.   This classification ranges from flat, fertile land, to steep, rocky or inaccessible ridges.  

Under the Bill, LUC 1-5 will be limited to afforestation of no more than 25% of a land owner’s property.  LUC 6 land would be limited to 15,000 hectares of ETS compliant forestry annually, which would be allocated by ballot. 

In reality, LUC 1-4 land does not matter, because it is too expensive for forestry and only makes economic sense for dairy or crops and horticulture. But LUC 5-6 is often rolling hill country which is used for sheep or beef farming and is a prime target for carbon farmers and other forestry companies.    

The Bill was introduced specifically to deal with this problem.  But Acland says it won’t work.  

“The legislation will stop LUC 1-5 land from entering the ETS and cap new registrations on LUC 6 land, but this doesn’t address where the bulk of damage is being done.

“Eighty-nine per cent of whole farm conversions to date have occurred on LUC 6–8 land. This land is highly productive and vital to our sector. Without extending the moratorium to all land classes, productive sheep and beef farms will keep disappearing into carbon farming or be sold to foreign multinationals.” 

Acland says since 2017, at least 300,000 hectares of sheep and beef farms have been sold to forestry interests, with another 50,000 hectares expected before the rules take effect. 

“Without fixing these gaps, we will likely lose a million hectares by 2050, slashing stock numbers by more 20 percent, and rural towns across the country will be hollowed out.”

Federated Farmers’ Dawkins agrees. 

“The report sends a clear message to rural New Zealand that the march of permanent carbon farms across productive farmland won’t be stopping any time soon."

Dawkins concurs with Acland’s view that the changes would not affect land where the majority of forestry conversions are taking place. 

What foresters think

Meanwhile, if farmers think the law change does not go far enough, foresters think it goes too far.

“While the Bill aims to balance environmental goals with land use, these restrictions create significant uncertainty for forest owners,” the Forest Owners Association says.

“The 25 percent cap and random ballot system will discourage investment in forestry, especially for long-term forest owners and investors who rely on stable, predictable returns. This undermines confidence in the ETS, making it harder for forestry to attract the investment needed for growth. 

“For small-scale forest owners and farm foresters, the random ballot system introduces a level of unpredictability that could directly impact their ability to manage their land effectively.

“With limits on how much land can be registered, smaller owners face the risk of being excluded from the carbon market altogether, making it more difficult to achieve sustainable income from their forests.” 

The Association says the law will undermine forestry’s ability to contribute to New Zealand’s climate goals, and questions the argument that forestry is displacing farmland in significant amounts.

Meanwhile the Select Committee did not remain deaf to all the farmers’ concerns. It has raised the burden of proof on companies that intended to start forests as of last December but had not yet done so. Federated Farmers has welcomed this move to raise the bar on companies claiming an intent to grow forests.

Paralleling this debate is a long-standing concern that planting trees is not a proper solution for the greenhouse gas problem. There should instead be a reduction of emissions at source, especially from those that come from fossil fuels, the argument goes. Increasing those emissions will simply require more tree planting.  And those trees are not a dependable solution, since they eventually die and are  vulnerable to forest fires or attack by insects or disease.