28th March 2022 Newsletter
PRESIDENTS COLUMN
As you are aware a small team of council and co-opted members have been working with MPI on the formation of the Forest Advisors registration scheme. It would be fair to say this has been a slightly frustrating process.
MPI have also put out for consultation a document on cost recovery for the scheme. Submissions are due for this by 01 April. I have been asked by many members to comment on this consultation. NZIF will be making a submission on behalf of members, but I am aware many members intend to submit in their own name or their company’s name.
It is important therefore to be clear the proposed cost recovery fees do not seem to include any NZIF costs, if we were to accept an offer of delegation. The NZIF costs would cover Professional Services quality assurance processes which you currently can see in other professional bodies. In fact, it seems the proposed fees only cover the cost of the registration database MPI are building along with the cost of MPI entering people into the database and running a complaints committee.
What MPI are currently proposing doesn’t seem to fit with the contents of the initial offer letter which members voted on to proceed with working on delegation with MPI. MPI seem to be viewing registration of Forest Advisors as more of a record of advisors along with the ability to put in place penalties for bad behaviour. It does not seem to be a scheme to improve professionalism as NZIF would define it. In fact, I see a scenario where the Forest Advisors registration scheme will give some advisors legitimacy when they actually don’t deserve it. Yes, the scheme will have a fit and proper test but currently this will be along the lines of have you a criminal conviction. It will not be a judgement by your peers or involve an interview.
We continue to work with MPI on the formation of the Forest Advisors scheme as we do believe it could be used to grow professionalism; however, the team has some major concerns about NZIF’s role. NZIF exists partially to grow professionalism in forestry. If we believe the scheme won’t do this, we would need to consider if we would wish our brand to be associated to it. However if we feel the Forest Advisors Registration Scheme would enable greater professionalism, including a strong code of ethics, continuing CPD, well articulated professional service standards and a strong fit and proper person test then we would consider the role of delegated authority if offered it and as discussed at last years SGM, and we would bring the decision to members via proposed rule changes at a SGM before August this year.
So, in summary we have concerns but we feel we may be able to overcome them. For those submitting on the cost recovery, we feel the proposed fees do not cover the actual cost of running the scheme and are in fact likely to be higher, in the order of double the proposed fees.
It is likely NZIF will have to continue to run our own registration scheme, if only to ensure registered members can work under the real estate exemption NZIF have in place for registered members. However, I currently feel we will also need to continue the scheme to ensure growing professionalism and to enable members to show they are at the top of their game, have high standards of professionalism, have been prepared to be judged by their peers and undertake CPD annually to continually improve their knowledge and understanding. It would show professionalism and ethics above what is currently being proposed for the Forest Advisors registration.
We will keep you informed of progress.
Thanks
James
MEMBERS VOICE
HISTORY REPEATING A CENTURY LATER
Reflecting on the Climate Change Commission’s recommendations reminded me of events one century ago, so I went back to Michael Roche’s History of New Zealand Forestry to check the details.
In the 1920s, the newly established State Forest Service (SFS) (which later became the first NZ Forest Service) conducted a national forest inventory that showed the indigenous forest would be unable to supply all the domestic timber needs of the country beyond the 1950s. A goal of establishing 300,000 acres of new plantation forest by 1935 was announced as part of a national forest policy to ensure NZ remained self-sufficient in timber after 1965, when it would be largely dependent on exotic plantation timber. The initial goal was achieved by 1931, when SFS plantations amounted to 307,000 acres. This had been assisted by experience with plantings of a range of introduced species over previous decades that had demonstrated those species, particularly radiata, that were likely to be successful and whose timber was suitable for building. There had also been advances in nursery and planting techniques, which meant planting could be undertaken by a well supervised but comparatively unskilled work force, Crown land was available and SFS had purchased more land. Seasonal labour was available during winter months. After 1931 as unemployment increased due to the depression, planting continued and by 1935, SFS had established 406,000 acres.
The role of the private sector was not spelt out in any detail, but it was envisaged by 1965, it would provide about 21% of total production. However, Roche notes that it became “to some more entrepreneurially inclined members of the business community, a wonderful opportunity for profitable investment, both directly and indirectly by generating revenues through company promotion schemes”. In 1925, Ellis, the Director of SFS, was concerned about ‘wild-cat’ operations when describing unrealistic land prices and a lack of forest management skills. He called for statutory controls on the private sector with a view to protecting investors against incompetent management and loss.
By the 1950s, availability of native timber was, as predicted, running short and exotic timber was increasingly being used - 50% of total production by 1955 and 80% by 1967. By the early 1970s NZ was exporting over 40% of the volume harvested. Clearly, the target of producing enough to be self-sufficient had been achieved, attesting to the foresight of those early SFS forestry professionals!
Now come forward 100 years to the early 2020s.
The newly established Climate Change Commission is charged with recommending to government what action it needs to take to meet New Zealand’s commitments for green-house gas emissions reductions.
The Commission made two recommendations regarding establishment of new forests by 2035 (exactly 100 years after the SFS target for new forest). Note also the symmetry with a century ago in the targets using 300,000 although this time it is hectares, not acres. The recommendations are:
- To establish 380,000 ha of new plantation forest in order to sequester carbon quickly to help meet net emissions reductions in the short term, while measures to reduce gross emissions are introduced – in other words to continue the policy of the last 20 years. However, the Commission did not want too much reliance on sequestration that would reduce the focus on the greater need for NZ to reduce gross emissions. The Commission also sees exotic forest providing feedstock for the bioeconomy and refers to it as production forest, although the role in erosion control, water quality, biodiversity and recreation is also acknowledged;
- To establish 300,000 ha of new native forest to provide permanent forest sinks beyond 2050. The Commission said it received a large number of submissions very supportive of establishing new native forests (80% of those who answered the question “do you agree with our approach to meet the 2050 target that prioritises growing new native forests to provide a long-term store of carbon” agreed or strongly agreed with the statement). The Commission also listed some of the range of benefits native forests provide. New native forests could be established by assisting regeneration and reversion or by planting, and there was much land considered not suitable for commercial forests that could revert to native forest with good pest control.
It is also interesting to note that the government is currently in the process of establishing statutory registration for log traders and forestry advisers, because of similar concerns to those Ellis had in 1925 on the quality of forest investment and management.
The Commission has recommended the government embark on a major forest project with clearly defined long term objectives, just as was proposed 100 years ago. Significant differences include that while the 2020s policy is directed at carbon sequestration and storage, along with recognising the other benefits of forests, the 1920s policy was focussed on domestic timber supply.
But there is another really important difference and one that must be addressed if the Commission’s recommendations are to be achieved. Today, as was the case a century ago, land, labour, research and funding are all needed. In the 1920s, the government through SFS provided the land, the research and the funding, while much of the labour was seasonal, supplemented by employment schemes, particularly through the depression years. With the current project, the government may be able to rely at least in part on the ETS to provide the incentives for the 380,000 ha of production exotic forest. In the ten years 1992-2001, the private sector established 587,000 ha of new exotic forest, so clearly the expertise and techniques are available.
But the second part, the establishment (by a combination of encouraging natural regeneration and by planting) of 300,000 ha of native forest, presents more of a challenge. There will be a need for incentives and funding for many private landowners to engage in native forest establishment. Labour will need to be trained and a lot of research will need to be undertaken and funded, in seed collection, nursery techniques, establishment (whether by regeneration or planting), pest control, forest management, etc. Over the last 100 years there has been considerable research, mostly funded by government into radiata pine and to a much lesser extent to a few other exotic species. This provides the platform for the expansion of exotic plantations. Sadly, there has been comparatively little research into the wide range of species and techniques that will be needed if we are to succeed in rapidly expanding the extent of our unique and special native forest. A good source of funding is going to be vital.
The challenge for today’s forestry professionals and for the government, is to see if we can rise to the challenge to expand New Zealand’s forest area by 680,000 ha, with 44% of it in native forest. The professionals a century ago achieved success with the challenges they were given. Do we, as today’s professionals, have the courage and stamina that will be required if we are going to be able to match those that came before us?
I hope so.
Andrew McEwen
NZIF Registered Forester.
Members Voice
Have something to say? comments? or just want to exchange idea's, then send an email to admin@nzif.org.nz
