A new Our land and Water paper suggests that New Zealand can reach its freshwater goals, but it will come at the expense of the sheep and beef industry and its surrounding communities.
The paper, Why Pines, is a summary of four recently completed pieces of research on land use change. It was funded by the Our Land and Water National Science Challenge.
The research looked at what sort of land use change would be needed to reach New Zealand’s freshwater goals.
Speaking in an online briefing, paper co-author Dr Jenny Webster-Brown said while they were confident a transition to pines would improve freshwater, she questioned the cost of such a move.
“That cost may be way too high for New Zealanders in general. Does everybody want to see a landscape that’s 100% pine trees?
“Do we want to have a New Zealand without rural communities? Because it will certainly impact on the viability of rural communities. Do we want to see that whole way of life disappear from New Zealand? These are the decisions that we have to make.”
There needs to be an accounting of these costs and disadvantages when looking at achieving water quality outcomes, she said.
While the results were not unexpected, the extent to which pine forests are being put forward as the best and easiest option was surprising. The paper should be seen as the foundation for a future conversation.
“We appreciate that having more pine trees is not the solution to New Zealand’s problems in terms of our freshwater.”
Lead author and principal economist at the NZ Institute of Economic Research Dr Bill Kaye-Blake said conversions would actually increase revenues in the primary sector because of the premiums they receive for selling their land into forestry.
The modelling in the four pieces of research all came to the same conclusion, he said.
“To get cleaner water, the easiest solution is to plant a lot of pine trees. That’s probably not acceptable to a lot of people in New Zealand, to a lot of rural communities in New Zealand.”
Around 20% of forestry conversions are done for economic reasons, including low profits from sheep and beef farming. Half are done because of carbon policies and 15% because of water quality policies.
“Each one is contributing to this massive shift from sheep and beef into pine trees. It’s combining these drivers that are leading to this really stark result.”
He highlighted the example of the Tukituki catchment in Hawke’s Bay, where water quality bottom lines could be met if all of the sheep and beef land was converted to pine forests.
“It also found if the region did that it would actually increase profit to landowners in the area, so you have both a water quality benefit and an economic benefit in that large-scale transformation.”
The research is also a catalyst for a much-needed conversation about what communities want for their lifestyles and landscapes, and whether current policies can deliver this.
Beef + Lamb New Zealand principal science adviser for farm systems and environment Dr Jane Chrystal welcomed the continuation of that conversation.
“Beef + Lamb has been saying that for a while and I do find it slightly ironic that they were surprised by the results, because we’re not.
“We are seeing conversions and we are seeing the impact when you focus purely on financials.
“It’s bigger than just farms converting. The impact is much wider than that.”
Chrystal said a more holistic approach is needed than just looking at financial data when looking at land use change into forestry and that approach should include the flow-on impact on rural communities and the additional benefits that sheep and beef farms provide, such as biodiversity and eco-corridors.
“Those vistas and those beautiful mosaics of land use that we can see driving around New Zealand, I know I wouldn’t want to be just looking at pine trees.”
Chrystal was also concerned about how it will impact industry morale.
“We have got low prices, and these modelling results aren’t a prediction of the future, they are just an indication of what could happen if we go into this blind and we keep going on the path that we’re on without considering where we are heading and the full implications.”
More: This article was made possible by Our Land and Water.
