… about 72 per cent of pine forests were foreign-owned, with United States companies owning about 35 per cent and Asian companies about 12 per cent. –Keith Woodford, Professor of Farm Management and Agribusiness at Lincoln University, 2010
by Tony Orman
Rivers drying up
In April last year, I went trout fishing to a stream that is a tributary of the Wairau River. It is also an important spawning stream for both brown trout and probably some salmon. It is also a habitat for native fish.
At the road bridge just above its confluence with the parent river, it was a mere trickle. A couple of kilometres upstream it was dry river bed, whereas in previous decades it always had a healthy year-round flow.
The reason was not hard to identify.
There was once a fine trout fishing and trout spawning stream here
A thirsty catchment of pines
The catchment in the main is covered in maturing pine trees and as the trees grow, sucking more and more water out of the ecosystem.
A study in 2005 showed “about 30% less water flowed from the mature pine plantation than the pasture.” Further information says each day a 12-inch [30 cm] plant will absorb nearly 120 gallons of water. There are also records that the average pine tree can absorb up to 150 gallons [600 litres] of water a day when there is unlimited water.
Government policies and ETS
Global Warming or, as it’s now called, Climate Change, is a major part of recent government policies. New Zealand especially so. In the lead-up to the 2017 election campaign, Labour leader Jacinda Ardern called climate change “my generation’s nuclear free moment”.
An Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was the tool devised to combat the perceived global warming.
It was back in September 2008 New Zealand’s ETS was first legislated in the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 by the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand led by Prime Minister Helen Clark. Labour was defeated at the election in late 2008.
The ETS was then amended in November 2009 and in November 2012 by the Fifth National Government of New Zealand led by Prime Minister John Key.
The ETS under amendments then devolved (degenerated) into a free market trading system where carbon credits could be “wheeled and dealt” – in other words an arena for investing speculators, intent on maximum profits and dividends to shareholders.
Playing politics with the environment
Environmental considerations like diminishing bio-diversity, wilding pines and depleted river and stream flows are not of concern.
Big business which emit carbon – a factor in climate change – can choose to reduce carbon emissions at source or they can offset those emissions by buying carbon credits.
The latter is their preference. That has led to the method of planting trees in large quantities, to act as a carbon sink.
Pine trees are the obvious answer from a speculator’s viewpoint, as they’re quick growing – compared to native trees – and quickly attain a height of five metres. Why five metres?
Therein lies the first hint of a lack of logic.
ETS grossly flawed
ETS’s basis is grossly flawed as “to qualify as forest land in the ETS, the trees in the forest must be species that can reach at least 5 metres in height.” That’s double the height of a standard ceiling. Why five metres?
With native vegetation on this criteria, some 70 species would be excluded from carbon sequestering assessments. Examples are the many species of coprosmas, hoheria, manuka, muehlenbecka, the several species of pittosporums and others.
As such, the basis for the ETS is grossly illogically and absurdly flawed.
Five metres?
Despite asking in “letters to the editor” I have not been able to ascertain the reason for the illogical exclusion of vegetation under 5 metres in height.
I did happen to ask a Ministry of Primary Industries person who told me it was “an international ruling.” What she meant was United Nations.
Even grass must have a carbon sequestering value? Farmers frequently plant trees for shelter or environmental reasons or out of aesthetic considerations. But under 5 metres in height – they don’t count. Under the ETS, farmers are being unfairly lumbered with costly dire consequences. The dice is loaded by the impractical 5 metre height rule.
Climate change is natural
But even going back to the convenient new title of “climate change” there’s an obvious flaw in its assessment. Climate change is constant, dynamic and cyclic – for example New Zealand’s once experienced ice ages.
In Marlborough, probably some 15,000 years ago, the Wairau River’s upper and middle reaches were a glacier extending down to the Branch River confluence. As climate naturally warmed, the glacier retreated. Today no glacier exists in the Wairau watershed because of natural climate change and warming from an Ice Age.
The question is how does natural climate change relate to any human induced change?
Conveniently it seems to be ignored.
Therefore the equation to be solved is Natural Climate Change plus or minus Human Induced Climate Change equals the Actual Climate Change.
The problem with pine monoculture
Let’s return to “large scale exotics”, i.e. monocultures of pines. Pine monocultures are environmentally disastrous with an insatiable thirst for water depleting streams to dry beds, wilding pines spread, loss of bio-diversity and acidic runoff.
Wilding Pines growing in Marlborough’s Leatham valley on public lands. The Department of Conservation has shown no visible concern
The UK’s Trout and Salmon magazine said “conifers are highly efficient at taking and filtering acidity so that it flows through the soil and water beneath them. Thus acidic loading increases as the trees grow”.
Healthy freshwater ecosystems are usually associated with alkaline (pH) readings. The pH level (degree of acidity) is important to both bottom fauna and, subsequently, trout. If the pH drops below 5.5 (increased acidity) then long-term damage to the fishery, both native and trout, occurs.
Thirsty Pines
Then there is the insatiable thirst of pines for water. A pine tree is said to use 85 litres of water a day whereas a native tree, dependent on species, uses considerably less. Water from a pine forest with a “bare” pine needle forest floor has quicker runoff compared to a typical native forest area with shade-loving undergrowth. In a few words, native forest has a higher water retention factor leading to natural, more consistent stream flows.
Anecdotal evidence points to streams much reduced in flow once monocultures of pines have been established. For example, bach owners and residents in the Marlborough Sounds and the North bank of Marlborough’s Wairau Valley have observed the same diminished flow in creeks after extensive monocultures of pine forests are established.
But planting trees is the way to combat climate change and the free market ideological system of carbon trading is seen as the way of combating global warming.
CAFCA to the fore
Murray Horton of “Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa” (CAFCA) in its latest “Watchdog” publication, December 2022, writes “The preferred means (for Big Businesses) to offset those emissions is by buying carbon credits — by planting trees – an awful lot of trees – to act as a carbon sink.”
“In 2018 the Labour-led coalition government introduced a special forestry test allowing overseas buyers to purchase sensitive farm land without having to prove it will benefit New Zealand – a requirement when buying sensitive land for other purposes. By the end of 2021 according to figures supplied by Radio NZ, 212,346 hectares had been sold to foreign buyers,” writes Murray Horton.
Foreign owners
“An Austrian countess snapped up a sheep station near Masterton for carbon farming of conversion to pines. Swedish multinational furniture manufacturer IKEA secured a 5,500 hecate sheep and beef farm in the remote Catlins while German insurance giant Munich Re bought large parcels of land near Gisborne and in Southland.”
The fear is that the ETS won’t lead to actual emissions being reduced – that large emitters (polluters) will simply plant more trees to meet their ETS obligations instead of reducing their reliance on fossil fuels.
Consequently some of New Zealand’s biggest emitters – Air NZ, Contact Energy, Genesis Energy and Z Energy – have formed a company called Dryland Carbon which plans to acquire 20,000 hectares to plant in forests over five years. In 2020 it got approval to plant a permanent pine forest of one million trees south of Gisborne.
The Overseas Investment Office has a foreign ownership threshold criteria of 24.9%, but Dryland Carbon’s foreign ownership is well above that with a foreign ownership factor of 35%.
Invariably carbon farming is being practised by foreign corporates. And with carbon prices high, more and more speculative carbon farming is erasing valuable, productive sheep and beef farm lands.
Foreigners are the biggest private land owners
Radio NZ in 2019 identified that the four largest private landowners in New Zealand are all foreign-owned forestry companies.
“Despite a clampdown on some overseas investment, including a ban on residential sales to offshore buyers, the Labour-led government has actively encouraged further foreign purchases of land for forestry through a streamlined “special forestry test”.
Since the Labour coalition government was formed in 2017, the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) had approved more than $2.3 billion of forestry-related land sales – about 31,000 hectares of it previously in New Zealand hands.
Even further back the foreign ownership of the forestry sector was well underway. In 2010, Keith Woodford, Professor of Farm Management and Agribusiness at Lincoln University, wrote about 72 per cent of pine forests were foreign-owned, with United States companies owning about 35 per cent and Asian companies about 12 per cent. More recent data is incomplete but foreign ownership appears to have further increased, he added.
Figures in February 2022 from the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) show in the last three years 36,000 hectares of farmland has been approved for sale to overseas investors under the special forestry test.
Then there is outdoor recreation. Invariably foreign investors install locked gates and deny public access. That’s understandable since pine forests are potentially highly inflammable. The fault lies with successive governments and their failure to look after the public interest.
Footnote:
For further information refer to “North and South” magazine June 2022 https:northand south.co.nz/2202/05/14/you-have-now-entered-carbon-country/
(Tony Orman is an agricultural journalist and author, trout fisherman and conservationist.)
A stream bed, once with year-round full flow, now rendered dry in summer by the pine trees in background
Lew said:
The mass plantings of pines is a disaster in the making. Also the selling off of our land into foreign ownership I thought was supposed to stop.
Picker N Grin said:
Labour and the greens are environmental idiots with no concern for what they are doing in all areas in NZ
gaire0a55c0ab55 said:
Very well said Tony and let us hope that the next government puts the brakes on what has been allowed to happen. The foreign owners won’t be worried about NZs best interest.
The method of assessing carbon credits needs a total review as Tony suggests as we are being unfairly treated under the current system and I believe that we don’t get enough credit for the vast areas of native Bush that we have.
cunning5tunt said:
I have been saying this for a few years now. That is a good article and it does mention that pines dry up the forest floor and create an acidic environment. This means that when it does rain heavy we get flash flooding in the rivers and streets below forestry. If it was native bush then it would soak up and hold heavy rain fall releasing it slowly reducing the risk of flash floods.
The reason why pine forest can’t soak up heavy rain is because of the acidic environment they create. Barely nothing can grow under neath a pine, save for the odd shrub or mushroom, The forest floor is hard, dead and generally brown. Pine forests themselves are massively devoid of birds and insects when compared to native bush. Native bush forest floor is spongy and packed with mosses, ferns and other plants living below the trees. They live together.
I fail to understand how a government can be so concerned about the Kiwi as to drop poison to control predators whilst promoting mono-cropping of pines, thus reducing rather than increasing the Kiwi’s natural environment. Money and good PR first right?
Then we also have the added risk of wild fires from pine mono-cropping. Dry pine forest floors during droughts shut off access to the surrounds of towns etc. for residents and increase the risk of whole towns and cities being destroyed by forest fires. Just look at how much wildlife was lost to the fires that swept Australia. Native bush during drought is still green and lush and releasing water into rivers and streams. We are not Australia so why is our government trying to turn us into Australia? They should be promoting the growth of Natural bush over everything else. Yes native trees grow more slowly but per square meter there has to be multitudes more carbon captured than with pine mono-cropping.
It is clear that environmental impacts of government approved industries and practices has nothing to with what is best for the environment, it is simply what is best for politicians, bankers and investors.
I still fail to see the logic of making visitors stop and show their footwear at customs check points in case a seed gets in when there is government approved mono-cropping of a tree that is not native and is taking over the NZ ecosystem.
Brian Johnston said:
The government has a policy to reduce stock numbers. That is sheep and cattle and approved by parliament, the very people we elect.
Planting pines is reducing farms by stealth.
Someone has to say it:
The parliamentarians – MP’s – dont care, they are there for their $200,000 plus perks and dont forget the superannuation. If they obey they get a portfolio and increase to $300,000.
They are contracted to obey.
They can and do look you in the eye and lie.
Someone knows what they are doing?
It all has to stop.
Vote MMP in 23
Have you joined?
Dave said:
I fully agree the planting of pines is just not doing New Zealanders any good whatsoever and who pays the credits? Not only the pine trees but the grapes which can take 7 liters for each plant of water a day and you count them up and work out what they take alone. There are grapes going right up the valley now, not counting all of them on the plains. It is just greed and to get our country back it has to stop
Rex N. Gibson said:
Once again Tony Orman proves the value of competent investigative reporting skills in protecting both the environment and democracy.
Jim Hilton said:
Geography and Biology were my best subjects at university.
I have an excellent understanding of natural processes.
So does Geologist Ian Plimer whose book “Heaven and Earth” I studied years ago. What are his conclusions about human induced climate change? It is so small compared to natural processes it does not count. If you don’t want to read his science watch one of Ian Plimer’s many videos. People making money by collecting carbon credits, (our tax money) for planting pine trees are white collar criminals. Main stream media are complicit in this scam. Easy stories for lazy journalists.
Teddy Roosterveldt said:
The carbon scam is one of the greatest economic crimes in history. But the premise upon which it is built is rapidly crumbling and the future is looking colder, much colder.
https://electroverse.co/grand-solar-minimum-the-future-looks-cold/
davidtranter4 said:
When I look back over such issues as mass fluoridation of water supplies, river pollution, the bureaucratic takeover of the public health system, the obsession with dropping over 90 percent of total world 1080 production on our tiny proportion of the world’s land area – and of course, the pine plantation/foreign takeover farce – I wonder, do our politicians read nothing outside of the prevailing political dogma? As most of them have university degrees I assume they can read.
Having spent 18 years on the fringes of New Zealand politics I recall many occasions when those well entrenched in “the system” were surprised when I produced written statements that I thought were just basic common sense.
Perhaps my university education was in the days when we were encouraged to think for ourselves?
Bud jones JonesQSM said:
One of my favorites for dry fly stalking trout, having been blessed with a job that allowed me time & travel freedom was the Selwyn River Cant. often finding the sections near Whitecliffs a superb challenge in clear small water spotting, good fish in short pools. Last visit 2004 it was dry , as is most of the entire length running only under ground. This is an indication of a massive suck up of water for farming & forestry in the entire catchment A mirror image of many of our fine rivers now rendering a dry roasted moonscape of lost habitat.