MEMBERS VOICE
Kia ora Andrew McEwen and fellow NZIF members
Thank you, Andrew, for your letter in the NZIF Newsletter (1st November 2021) calling out misleading statements in the NZFOA News Media Statement (released 15th October 2021).
Phil Taylor is a skilled radiata-pine forestry leader, but he knows little to nothing about native species. I respectively request that Phil either ‘sticks to his knitting’ or becomes better informed about native species. And ditto several other radiata-pine forestry representatives who are actively promulgating misinformation that undermines forestry with native species.
A forestry leader should support all aspects of our nation’s forestry industry, not put down one part of the sector. This is particularly important in an era of climate change when a concerted, united front is needed. It is counter-productive having conflict between the radiata-pine and native forestry industries – there is room for both. Indeed, as part of wise, sustainable land use, there are roles for different types of forestry with different species in Aotearoa, New Zealand.
As suggested by Andrew, those wishing to become more informed about forestry with native species can check out the resources at Tane’s Tree Trust - Read more. Also, an evidence-based article on carbon sequestration in native species has recently been published Read more. It is written by Mark Kimberley, Dr David Bergin, and Prof Warwick Silvester, who are subject experts. It rightfully questions the reliability of the MPI look-up tables for native forest, which are based on unmanaged, regenerating shrubland, not on managed native forest. Mark Kimberley is a biometrician who has developed forest growth models for both exotic and native species and contributed to our national inventories of exotic and native forests.
Tane’s Tree Trust has the only comprehensive databases on native species. Data is collected across the full gamut of poorly managed through to well-managed stands. Most are on relatively unproductive land.
Some people would be surprised (given the look-up table data) about the true capacity of native species to sequester carbon. And native forestry has been extremely under resourced compared with the many millions in funding spent in developing the radiata-pine industry. Just think what is possible with more investment into R&D with native species!
Thanks, Andrew, for your advocacy for native forests and your wise, balanced leadership on all aspects of forestry in Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Nga mihi nui
Dr Jacqui Aimers
Research Analyst, Forestry Scientist
Aimers Consulting
021-1507883
jacqui.aimers@xtra.co.nz
(Declaration of interest – I am a Trustee of Tane’s Tree Trust and have a professional background in forestry research with exotic and native species. I do not own or manage any forest, either native or exotic species).
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir,
I note the letter from Dr Andrew McEwen of a week or so ago, which I fully support but which stands very well on its own. The correspondence raises another issue, somewhat peripheral but relevant to both the professionalism of our institute and of its members.
The article to which Dr McEwen refers appears to be a statement from the President of the NZFOA (who is also a member of NZIF), although I doubt that he prepared it in full and of course it is a statement in his capacity as President of NZFOA. However in some respects it is not too different to other letters, contributions and submissions I have seen and which are also written by NZIF members (possibly including some I have also contributed to). Sometimes our enthusiasm for particular outcomes can be at the expense of wider analysis and can quite unwittingly lead to unintended conclusions.
The NZ Institute of Forestry was founded almost 100 years ago by Leon McIntosh Ellis, its first President (and also the first Director of the then NZ State Forest Service) with some clear objectives including acting as an independent advocate for forestry, improving standards of professional forestry and supporting its members. The articles of the Institute (Constitution, Code of Ethics, etc) have developed and been updated at intervals since Ellis launched the organisation although the principals are essentially the same, and they provide good guidance to its members.
Forestry is defined in part as “all those activities involved in the management and use of forests and their products” and the attendant matters, such as advocacy for forestry and improving professional standards remain. And it is entirely appropriate that the wider community should look to us, New Zealand’s professional forestry association and its members, for commentary and expect relevant and carefully considered and weighted advice. Again our Code of Ethics provides sound advice, requiring that amongst many other things “members uphold the reputation of the Institute”; “maintain the high standards of their profession”; “no member shall prepare or certify any statement which is known to be or ought to be known to be false, incorrect, misleading, deceptive”; “exercise the utmost care and good faith to ensure the maintenance of the highest standards in the preparation of statements, reports and certificates and other documents”; “not undertake any work ……. where the member is in any doubt or ought to be in any doubt as to the adequacy of the member's professional competency”. The corollary is that providing leadership on forestry matters to the full extent of our capability is appropriate, but there is also a caution about speculating on matters where competency may be less.
Presently there is a focus on forestry as a potential saviour insofar as NZ meeting some of its climate change alleviation targets is concerned, and the initial submission of NZIF to the Climate Change Commission was in my view extremely good – we all know that when you plant a forest it’s going to be around for a long time and meanwhile it will transform landscapes, it will transform the environment and it will certainly have other social and cultural outcomes. So counting credits is only a small part of the discussion, it’s important that we also lead on the other effects, opportunities, and implications of forestry that will arise while the credits accumulate. This is important to ensuring the best decisions are made for a robust forestry future. As I indicated at the outset these comments do not relate to any particular event or advice, rather they acknowledge the opportunity that Dr McEwen’s letter has provided for me to start a discussion about an aspect of our performance which I think sometimes lets us down.
Collegial regards,
Peter Berg
(Chairman Tane’s Tree Trust, Member NZFOA, Member NZFFA Executive Committee).
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Andrew
Well done to you on the support of native forests and clarification of the costs in the NZIF newsletter. Comparing native planting with radiata pine, and using the stupidly higher figures is just that, stupid. We all know natives cost more, but as Tane’s Tree Trust shows, it is all relative.
The problem so often is the mantra is that if whatever you do does not earn money with an obvious dollar value, then do not do it. Radiata pine is the money earner, natives are just a waste of time. This may be true if all you are after is a return on dollar investment to suit the economists’ internal rates of return. However, when you are looking at the bigger picture, the environment, ecosystem services, the benefits to the planet in the long term, natives have a lot more than just a dollar value. This means that when objections to planting them are made, just applying a dollar value of cost is as short sighted as you can get. This is not to forget that kauri, totara, and other native species, planted to grow in plantations in the right place, can produce timber which will have be a good commercial proposition.
As Andrew notes we need to ‘ …focus on the ways forest products can be used to replace or reduce the use of fossil fuels. Let us listen to the public who would rather see more native forest instead of pine forest, and engage in research to reduce the cost and increase the growth rates of native forest. Our profession needs to listen to the public …’ The social licence to operate is very easy to lose, and very difficult to get back – just think of logs on the beach.
For those of you who have not seen the Beef and Lamb greenhouse gas calculator for farmers, I suggest you do so. The farmers are able to claim virtually every native bush and tree to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, all outside the Emissions Trading Scheme. This is whether the native trees are recently planted or have been regenerating for decades. They will have a significant value to the farmer.
The forestry industry has to stop trashing natives. They have their place, a very important one.
Regards
Julian Bateson
