new zealand ideas - department of agriculture and...

1

© Australian Agroforestry Foundation. Submission. June 2015

Joint Submission

To the Forest Industry Advisory Council (FIAC) Discussion paper Meeting Future Market Demand

By the

Australian Agroforestry Foundation and the Otway Agroforestry Network 55 Main Street, BIRREGURRA, VIC. 3242,

The submission was prepared by

Rowan Reid (M. Forest Science, B. For. Sci.), Managing Director of the Australian Agroforestry Foundation and members of the AAF and OAN management teams CONTACT: Web: www.agroforestry.org.au

Andrew Stewart (AAF Board Member) explains to Hon. Greg Hunt how revegetation of 17% of his sheep farm with multipurpose trees and shrubs has helped reduce farm management costs and increase grazing productivity whilst also

diversifying the family’s cash flow though timber production and enhancing biodiversity.

About the Australian Agroforestry Foundation

The Australian Agroforestry Foundation is a not-for-profit company established to develop, deliver and support education and extension programs that advance, encourage and promote the wise use of trees and forests on farms and across the landscape. The work of the foundation is not new: It includes the existing Australian Master TreeGrower Program developed by the University of Melbourne and the Peer Group

personal contact detailspersonal contact details

http://www.agroforestry.org.au/

2


Mentoring concept developed by the Otway Agroforestry Network. Forming the foundation provides an opportunity to consolidate and expand these programs and explore new opportunities to support farmer participation in multipurpose tree growing to support agricultural production, protect and enhance farm soils, water resources and biodiversity, and diversify farm productivity though wood and non-wood tree products.

The Otway Agroforestry Network has more than 250 financial members who pay more than $50/year to access education and extension support. The groups is run by a team all of who are tree growers.

Submission

The Australian Agroforestry Foundation (AAF) welcomes the opportunity to make a formal submission to the Forest Industry Advisory Council (FIAC) discussion paper. We are pleased to see that the issues paper recognises the multifaceted nature of the forest industry and it’s relationship with other sectors of the economy and community. We are particularly interested in the potential role of the agricultural sectors as a significant and acknowledge player in the timber industry. As stated in the paper: The integration of forestry into farm landscapes—as opposed to the replacement of farms with broadscale forestry plantations—is more likely to be accepted by farming communities. However, this approach presents challenges in terms of achieving economies of scale for forestry activities on-farm and regionally. Other factors influencing the feasibility of farm forestry include: harvest and transport logistics and costs; knowledge of forest product markets and forest management practices; and regulations for establishing and managing on-farm plantations.

We do see a role for commercial timber production in supporting agricultural productivity; protecting farm assets from extreme events (drought, heavy rainfall, strong winds, plagues etc.); and diversifying farm family income through the production of tree products and services as well as servicing the conservation and farm tourism/education sector (nurseries, seed production, employment etc.). We argue that most past attempts to engage the farming community have largely failed because they have ignored the interests and aspirations of the landholder themselves.

Our submission addresses a number of the questions raised in the issues paper, in particular: 12. What opportunities are there to increase wood supply from farm forestry, private native forestry and Indigenous owned and managed lands? 13. What are the future research and development needs for Australia’s forest products sector, and which of these needs are specific to strengths and opportunities in the Australian context? 24. What are the skills and training needs of the sector over the coming decades, and where are the current gaps? 14. What are the current inhibitors to private sector investment in research, development and extension and what role, if any, does the Australian Government potentially have in addressing these?

Agroforestry is about fitting trees into a farming landscape for agriculture, conservation and profit: not replacing it.

3


In this submission:

We provide examples of how multipurpose tree growing on farms can deliver a range of outcomes relevant to the future of the Australian timber industry. These not only include forest products but also the opportunity to add diversity and resilience to the Australian timber industry and improve it’s public appeal.

We identify ways in which governments, and other stakeholders, can effectively encourage and support farmer investment in agroforestry and highlight problems that can arise as a result of inappropriate policy and interventions, such as direct incentives.

We demonstrate that by engaging the farming community it is possible to significantly expand the forest resource base beyond the areas, species and silvicultural systems currently recognised as being viable, thus adding greater commercial, social and environmental resilience to the Australian timber industry.

Recommendations

1. Whatever the public good outcomes (carbon, timber, land degradation or biodiversity), the federal government should not rely on direct incentive programs – tax breaks, MIS Schemes, up-front cash payments, free trees, low interest loans etc. - that seek to encourage investment in timber plantations by landholders, industry or other investors. All these approaches have been tried, but have been unsuccessful in delivering widespread long-term farmer participation in timber production.

2. That government should continue to invest in education, extension, research and community development aimed at supporting farmer participation in the design, development and management of multipurpose forests (agroforestry) on farms and its potential to deliver benefits in agricultural production and farm viability.

3. Government and industry need to engage with the farming community through groups such as the Australian Agroforestry Foundation and the Otway Agroforestry Network, the landcare sector and agricultural commodity and research groups (cane growers, MLA, RIRDC etc.) to ensure that the expansion of timber production on farms is done in a way that reflects the interests, aspirations and opportunities facing the farming sector.

Role of trees in the agricultural landscape In our view, forestry by farmers is different to forestry on farms. Agroforestry is about adapting forestry so that it ‘fits’ the interests, aspirations and opportunities faced by farmers and the agricultural communities in which they live.

The wise placement of trees in our farming landscapes is key to sustainable agricultural production and sound environmental management.

Timber production from these same trees is a bonus that can help underpin the long-term viability of the family farming sector in Australia.

4


Long term rotations of up to 30 years don’t really present a problem to me because, well really…I think there’s an opportunity there because, whilst the trees are there improving the farm productivity and environmental

integrity of the property they’re growing into timber … we’re currently making our living from prime lambs and beef and the trees are assisting in that process so we have assured income, but the next generation, they’ll gain

the benefit of harvesting those trees then perpetuating the system by replanting (Andrew Stewart, 4th generation farmer and coordinator of the Otway Agroforestry Network and Master TreeGrower)

Forests are a capital asset – not a crop. We argue that, rather than just being a crop, trees on farms are a capital asset - part of the landscape or farm infrastructure. Like a new fence, the costs of a new multipurpose forest can be justified because it adds value to the whole estate by making it more viable, more attractive or less risky. There are few farms in Australia that would not benefit from having more of their land under trees/forests. Through the choice of suitable species and careful management targeted at improving the market value of the tree and its products, the potential to generate an income from the sale of timber or other tree products is a bonus. Once mature, being able to harvest trees - during a drought or immediately after a fire, flood or crash in commodity prices - provides a safety net for farm families and reduces their reliance on welfare.

Like a fence, road or building, multipurpose forests on farms are a capital asset. The additional benefit is that they appreciate in value over time.

5


When a forest is valued as an asset - part of the agricultural infrastructure of a farm or the ecological infrastructure of a landscape – the financial viability of growing timber and other products is less sensitive to rotations length, rainfall, soil type, economies of scale than conventional timber plantations. Hence, the encouragement of multipurpose forestry on farms is likely to result in:

a wider diversity of species and management options (often focused on high value); greater on-farm research and development of new tree-based commercial products including native

foods, mushrooms, flowers, improved seed etc. a wider diversity of investor types which reduced the sensitivity of the sector to changes in market

forces (such as the impact of the downturn in the MIS sector); a greater number of small and medium size businesses – more widely dispersed through the rural

landscape – operating in the market to provide trees, contracting services, harvesting and marketing mechanism and processing options (compared to very large corporate business prone to collapse);

greater emphasis on planting trees in the medium to low rainfall areas where conventional forestry is seen as being unprofitable due to low yields and slow growth; and,

more investment in the production of long rotations timber products (large sawlogs, durable timbers, specialty native cabinet species etc).

In essence, because farmers need trees to support agriculture and protect their soil, water and biodiversity assets they are able to invest in forests that might also provide alternative income during a drought, a lump sum injection of cash to fund generational transfer or the opportunity for the next generation to have more diversified income streams.

Pruned eucalypts grown for sawlogs supporting agricultural production on farms in medium rainfall areas of WA (left, salinity control) and Victoria (Spotted Gum, shelter)

Hundreds of farmers = hundreds of opportunities for integrated commercial timber production

6


The problem with subsidies – Why progressive farmers do not want handouts Over the last twenty years a variety of tools have been used by Governments and NGO’s wishing to promote farmer participation in timber production. These have included the use of publicity, policy changes, technical support, research, tax incentives, rebates, subsidies, loans and grants. Although the role of subsidies is rarely questioned it is now clear that they do not support long-term farm viability or drive the adoption of sustainable land management practices. What are direct incentives? Direct incentives are direct in that they are focused on supporting selected, pre-conceived measures considered by the promoters as appropriate or desirable. They commonly involve a payment/rebate of cash or kind that reduces the cost of implementing the practice (cost-sharing, subsidised credit, free inputs or risk support). The payments are only available to a particular target group and only if they adopt the specific practices condoned by the promoters. In this respect, direct incentives are ‘in-put’ focused with the expectation that once the investor is committed the desired public benefits will follow. The perceived need for direct incentives for investments that are presumed to be economically viable (commercial plantations, solar panels, watering points, fencing etc) arises when the promoters come to realise that the target group are either unable, or are reluctant to commit their own resources to the task. What makes the options unattractive is usually obvious: high up-front costs; long investment periods; opportunity costs; high social, environmental or market risk; and, low perceived private benefit. Clearly, if the options were attractive then direct incentives would not be required! So what’s wrong with direct incentives? We have many concerns about the use of direct incentives by governments to encourage land management change. It is clear from the many examples around Australia that direct incentives can:

Stifle farmer innovation and adaptation by not rewarding those who provide the benefits using alternative technologies (there are many ways to skin a cat).

Reduce the number of potential recipients by pre-defining the target group despite the potential for others to contribute to the program goals (area restriction, farmer types etc).

Fund projects that landholders were going to undertake anyway thereby achieving no net gain.

Selectively benefit a minority within the target group or area who are in a position, at that time, to accept the requirements of the project (those not deriving an income from the land, tax situation, time of life etc).

Encourage over commitment by specifying minimum investments of land or time resulting in an inability or reluctance to maintain the infrastructure (e.g. minimum area to be eligible).

Reward mismanagement, neglect or inappropriate farming practices by targeting landholders whose past or ongoing management is contributing to the problem (e.g. grants to control erosion, weeds etc).

Undermine “early adopters” by not rewarding those farmers who have implemented similar technologies prior to the availability of the incentives.

Undermine the development of private local sector input suppliers (e.g. nurseries and contractors) by giving preference to suppliers that are able to deliver on large orders quickly.

Discourage partnerships between landholders and private investors by denying opportunities for private partners to draw direct benefits.

This list raises issues about equity and competitive neutrality that governments need to be particularly wary of. With respect to the long-term effectiveness of direct incentives there are other problems that are even more important:

7


A long history of projects offering direct incentives can result in a welfare mindset amongst landholders

to the point that many assume that managing for climatic, social and economic risk are public, rather than private, responsibilities. This discourages landholders from investing in risk management strategies irrespective of whether they think it is required or worthwhile because of the expectation that a future project may be available that will help cover the costs.

The potential of projects funded by direct incentives to act as a ‘demonstration’ is questionable. The

fact that the farmer involved required a subsidy provides a clear signal to other landholders that private investment is likely to be unviable or unwarranted. Indeed, those who do accept direct incentives for the establishment of demonstrations often express a perceived lack of ownership (‘they are the department’s trees’).

Despite this long list, what concerns us most is that:

Large, well-funded projects that provide significant direct incentives can undermine existing or

potential participatory extension initiatives focused on similar outcomes. Almost by definition, direct incentives are incompatible with participatory development because they influence the strategic behaviour and attitude of landholders.

The damage done by direct incentive programs is done quickly and can take years to undo. Projects offering attractive direct incentives rarely last more than a few years. When the money runs out, extension programs, like our own, are left to try and rebuild their own credibility and the community’s confidence in revegetation and forest management as a worthwhile private investment to reduce risk and enhance long-term farm viability. Some people say that if direct incentives are the only support we are able to offer farmers then they are better than nothing. We argue that there are alternative ways of investing in and supporting change within the rural community that reward innovation and encourage the development of locally appropriate solutions.

The alternative to direct incentives: indirect incentives and capacity building To be effective, rural development projects must support innovation, reward initiative, build confidence, stimulate private investment and encourage appropriately designed and managed forests. The arguments for a public contribution to the management of private land based on the external benefits and public goods provided are well founded. A simple alternative to subsidies is for government to invest in indirect incentives and capacity building. Whilst direct incentives encourage the adopting of selected practices that experts believe will deliver the public good outcomes, indirect incentives focus of enabling landholders and their investment partners to develop and implement practices they believe are in their interests. These ‘indirect incentives’ have also been called ‘policy-level’, ‘variable’ or ‘enabling’ incentives. We believe governments should fund projects that enhance community capacity, build the required physical and social infrastructure, and ensure policy and regulation that favour those willing to innovate and invest in practices that deliver public goods. Even a short period of investment in these areas can deliver fundamental changes in the social, political and economic environment in which farmers, investors and interest groups make decisions that affect how our land is managed and the values it provides. The main areas of government investment required to support quality long-term multipurpose agroforestry development are: Extension, Research, Infrastructure and Policy

8


Climate change and the role of timber production systems on farms Not surprisingly, given the emphasis on reducing CO2, almost all talk surrounding the value of planting trees for climate change has been driven by notions of carbon sequestration and trading. Unfortunately, this approach overlooks the immediate value of trees on farms and the role they might play in helping farmers remain viable. If we, as a community, can support strategic revegetation of farms in ways that help farming businesses survive and adapt to climate change – without forests displacing valuable farmland, increasing the fire hazard, or using up valuable water resources - then the carbon the trees lock-up would be a bonus. With ten to twenty per cent of every farm requiring revegetation in order to control land degradation and protect productive farming systems it is imperative that farmers are seen as the key to increasing forest cover in Australia. Every tree planted for shade, shelter, timber, food, biodiversity, erosion control and aesthetics locks up carbon. If governments and community groups want trees planted on cleared land for carbon sequestration the best starting point in any discussion with farmers may not be carbon at all but the many other values that make owning these trees worthwhile. The need for climate amelioration and income diversification will drive revegetation on farms – sequestration is what the community gains by helping landholders achieve these goals. In respect to climate change the priorities for agroforestry research and extension should be on the role that trees on farms can play in the:

1 Amelioration of the impact of climatic variability and extreme weather events on agricultural productivity and the resource base on which it depends

2 Diversification of farming enterprises by producing products and services that are independent of traditional agricultural markets, produce fewer emissions and are less susceptible to climatic variability; and, finally,

3 Sequestration of CO2 in living biomass, soils and woody products as a means of offsetting agricultural emissions and providing marketing and partnership opportunities. In addition to storing carbon these living forests deal with the complexity of climate change on multiple fronts by: • producing carbon-neutral green energy (bio-fuels) and carbon-storing/low energy building material (wood); • expanding and linking natural habitats to support biodiversity adaptation; • reducing the impacts of extreme weather events on agricultural production; • protecting communities from fire and flood; • trapping sediments and nutrients before they wash into sensitive aquatic habitats or out onto the reefs; and, • providing real long term locally secure ‘green’ jobs that are not dependent on short term government funding. Trees on farms are an important part of a low-carbon, sustainable future for rural Australia but they must do more than provide a once-only offset to support our continued reliance on fossil fuels. To pay our debt to future generations we need to be smarter than that and must ensure that the contribution made by every tree on every farm is acknowledge (not just those who receive payments). This can be achieved by supporting multipurpose forestry and the extension, communication and research required to underpin its development.

9


Extension Extension should involve supporting landholders and off-farm stakeholders through the design and implementation of practices that are in their own interest, yet are expected, on balance, to deliver public good outcomes. This is often described as ‘building capacity’ and is best done by involving the community (participatory development). The degree to which this investment will result in better public outcomes depends on the extent to which the aspirations and motivations of landholders, community groups and private sector stakeholders are compatible with those of the wider community. Fortunately, a high percentage of Australian landholders want to build farm resilience against environmental and market uncertainty as well as control land degradation on their land.

I want to pass on the farm in a better state than when I took over Rather than subsidising preferred options, government investment should focus on facilitating the marriage of the desired public good outcomes with individual’s private goods/aspirations/opportunities. This is the approach that AAF and our associated programs have taken for more than a decade. The results indicate that:

Landholders are willing to invest their own time and land into multipurpose forests that deliver both private and public good outcomes.

Many landholders are able to form mutually beneficial partnerships with off-farm investors (including family members, industry, NGOs) to help fund the establishment and management of their revegetation projects.

Landscape change takes time, but when delivered through community participation it is more acceptable to non-participants, more likely to be effectively managed, more complementary to other land uses and more environmentally sustainable.

One approach that has proved very successful in both rewarding innovation and engaging landholders is simply to acknowledge and pay innovative farmers and private service providers for their time supporting other landholders. Rather than fund a demonstration of trees on their land, the innovative farmers themselves should be seen as the ‘demonstration’ and paid to conduct field days and make presentations. Experienced or qualified farmers could also be paid to engage other landholders, manage local projects and represent farmer interests. Working in a team, with government project staff and scientists, paid landholders and industry members can enhance project credibility and strengthen community support. Our program Peer Group Mentoring initiative (currently being supported by an Australian Government Innovation Grant) trains leading tree growers and pays them to support others in their community through the development and management of multipurpose forests has proved popular with farmers and appears to be delivering real on-ground impacts.

The Otway Agroforestry Network Peer Group Mentoring team discuss the finer points of mentoring

10


Research Public investment in rural land management, aimed at providing sound, scientific knowledge that can inform landholders and investors (without promoting best-bets), is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways that government can provide indirect incentives for farm innovation and development. In our sector, the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (managed by RIRDC) and Land and Water Australia were very effective in providing value-free, practical knowledge. Their problem was that single-interest groups (be they agricultural, forestry or environmental) did not appreciate the value of supporting multi-disciplinary research. They thought they could go it alone. Interestingly, it is landholders, rather than the industry or interest groups that purport to represent them, which are left to balance the many values of land, forests and agriculture.

Policy and Infrastructure There is much that governments can do to change the environment in which landholders and investment partners make their decisions. In addition to funding the development and distribution of knowledge, government can develop public policy, support infrastructure and open new funding opportunities or markets. We would welcome the opportunity to explore these issues in greater detail.

Governments are a player. Governments must invest in rural landscapes to ensure that they deliver the full range of public and private benefits that we, as a community, require. Whilst some farmers will expect hand-outs and some interest groups will demand that the public dollar is invested in future plantations this does not make direct incentives the best option. We need only look at the success, or otherwise, of past programs to know that direct incentives will not be the catalyst for the long-term changes in farm management that we require.

11


Attachment 1 Case Study

17% tree cover with no impact on agricultural production – Andrew and Jill Stewart’s family farm

My family settled here over 100 years ago and my children are the 5th generation to live on this land. After studying, working and travelling I returned to the farm in 1992 with my wife Jill. We now have three children and supplement our farming income with part-time off-farm work. Today, our 230 ha farm looks completely different to what it was like 23 years ago. The property has been transformed from 3.5% tree cover (plantations and remnant vegetation) in 1992 to 17% tree cover in 2015 with the establishment of more than 40,000 trees and shrubs. The farm is not only a much more aesthetic and pleasant environment to work in, but more productive due to changes in stock and pasture management and protection of land and livestock with revegetation. The farm aims to turn off 1500 prime lambs per annum and agistment cattle are grazed over spring and early summer for cash flow and pasture management. The remnant vegetation areas have been fenced and maintained and more than half of the 35 ha of plantations are being managed for commercial timber production. These plantings are growing into a source of farm income whilst providing other benefits to the property and the sheep and cattle enterprises. The integration of farm forestry with landcare has generated some income by running tours for various groups including universities and international study groups. Other than the sale of Christmas trees, our first commercial timber harvest in 2007 of pulpwood grown under a joint venture yielded almost $30,000. We are now establishing indigenous food plants and banksias for cut flowers around fenced dams, which encourage pollinators and improve water quality in the trough systems. Due to the design of the integrated plantings and improved grazing management there has not been any reduction in the agricultural production, and the timber trees are getting fatter each year, growing at a rate of 200 green tons per year. Back in 1992 the area was essentially cleared of native trees and shrubs with just a few patches of remnant vegetation and some isolated areas of regrowth scrub. After being away for a few years I was able to look at the farm with fresh eyes. What I saw was salinity, gully erosion, stream bank erosion, waterlogging, a lack of shade and shelter and a lack of ecological balance. There was also a lack of land class subdivision, with paddocks being too big for effective grazing management. The farm system and the catchment were not sustainable. Without fundamental change it was not going to support our young family. There had to be a better way to manage the natural resource base.

12


Whole Farm Plan Having made the commitment to stay, our family developed a whole farm plan, which incorporated objectives of the East Otway Landcare Group’s management plan for the Yan Yan Gurt creek catchment. Agroforestry has been a catalyst for a wide range of landcare, water quality, landscape, habitat and animal productivity. The plan includes development of riparian buffer strips and wildlife corridors. We have added another dimension by moving the fences out wider than conventional landcare plantings and adding wide spaced trees for high pruning for sawlog production. A key element of the design is the land class fencing which largely defined the location and purpose of revegetation. Hence, the integration of commercial and non-commercial trees and shrubs tends to be along drainage lines and landclass boundaries. Stream sides and drainage lines have been revegetated with a choice of species and pattern of planting that provide environmental benefits as well as prospects for commercial timber production. The trees and shrubs provide shelter, land protection, enhanced aesthetics and improve the water quality flowing from the property. A long-term view has been adopted to achieve improved and sustainable agricultural production and to develop income security with commercial trees playing an integral role as superannuation. It was considered that strategic revegetation could halt the spread of dryland salinity in the lower parts of the landscape. What we have found Whilst we know we are receiving many benefits from the trees they are difficult to measure. With all the variables involved it has not been practical to establish experimental controls and besides we simply do not have the time and resources to perform rigorous scientific studies. However, we are confident about making certain statements based on observations and some real agricultural production measurements:

With 17 % revegetation our stocking rates have not declined.

The plantation system has offered considerable benefit to deep rooted, perennial herb summer fodder crops such as chicory and plantain by reducing evapotranspiration from hot north westerly winds. This allows us to better meet prime lamb production targets and hence improve marketing options and profitability.

106 species of birds have been recorded on the property including magpies and large numbers of ibis (Threskiornis spinicollis) which have been eating insects such as grass hoppers and cock- chaffer grubs.

We scan ewes 90 days after joining. Twin bearing ewes are placed in the best-sheltered paddocks with the best alpacas (to reduce fox predation of newly born lambs). Twin bearing ewes are gaining significant benefits from the shelter. The plantation system also gives us greater flexibility and confidence for choice of lambing time.

Fencing out creeks and drainage lines has made the property safer for stock, easier to muster and a healthier environment. The wet and boggy areas, which are more prone to harbouring diseases have been eliminated from the grazing system. Fortunately, these areas are often the worst places for productive pastures but the best places for productive trees because they are low in the landscape thus offering seedlings some protection and commonly have greater moisture and nutrient concentrations.

In wet years waterlogging is reduced, which makes the property more trafficable and healthy.

A badly salt scalded area has now been transformed from a scar on the landscape into a bird haven and place of beauty as well as providing a safe haven for off-shears sheep; turning a problem into an opportunity. There are now a number of off-shears havens scattered through out the property ready for use when the big bad event comes; it is only a matter of time.

The aesthetics of the property has improved greatly over the past 14 years and the property is a far more enjoyable place to work leading to better psychological health and probably physical health for all those involved.

13


The next generation of our family have been involved with the transformation and are now young adults. They see further opportunities flowing from the farming landscape and are motivated to continue their involvement.

Strategic and biodiverse revegetation has had a significant effect on increased property value thus improving equity per cent and borrowing power.

The biodiverse plantations may increase the populations of predatory spiders that predate red-legged earth mite (Halotydeus destructor) that can devastate legumes such as clover. Parasitic wasps living in the plantations may be predating cock-chaffer grubs, which can destroy pastures.

I can remember a big blow shooting our topsoil out to the ocean. Now that we have 15% of the property revegetated with trees and shrubs it is far less likely to happen.

The web of plantations throughout the property reduces spray drift.

In drought times it is much easier to find a ‘stock sacrifice’ paddock that is low in the landscape and well protected by plantations from all directions.

Commercial trees can provide useful income and on-farm employment options whether it be from the sale of timber, seed, Christmas trees or from conducting farm tours for students, farmers, government agencies and international groups.

It’s really about Risk Management Traditionally, farmers consider risk management in terms of insurance, fodder and water conservation or alternative investments off farm. By the same token, farmers would generally view commercial tree growing as a risky investment that takes a long time to mature. We’ve found that by integrating multipurpose trees, agroforestry is a means of reducing risk and turning time into an opportunity. Given that we intend to stay and pass the farm onto our children in a better state we need to balance the short term need for income with the long-term goals of environmental sustainability, management flexibility and income diversification. We look to turn or current land management problems into solutions which address environmental issues and increase farm productivity in the short medium term whilst, at the same time, developing a resource (timber, seed, carbon, aesthetics or other tree products and services) that we, as a family, can farm in the future. By first identifying and reducing risk and then focusing on supporting agricultural production any future return from the trees is really a bonus.

Photos of the Stewart farm: Multipurpose shelterbelt and aerial view of part of the Stewart farm

14


Attachment 2 Case Study

Veneer logs harvested from a landcare planting along an eroded creek – Rowan Reid

In 1987, I established a mixed species (native) forest along an eroded creek on our degraded ex-dairy farm. No one would question that the site needed trees for conservation, aesthetics and shelter. As a forest scientist I was keen to explore if these same trees produce high quality timber and whether they would be viable to

harvest.

The creek on Rowan’s farm as it was in 1987 – trees were planted for conservation and shelter

Some of the tree species planted were selected for their timber potential and were pruned and thinned for high quality sawlog production. This kept the opportunity to sell timber alive in anticipation of the future closure of public native forest to logging, the halting of tropical timber imports and an increasing demand for sustainably produced hardwoods. Silvicultural management was a relatively small price to pay in order to be ‘in the game’ if indeed these things did come to pass (which they have).

Selective commercial harvesting of sawlogs began when the trees reached 40cm DBH (age 13, 14 and 16 years) although sawing studies on these logs suggested that selective harvesting would not be viable unless tree diameter was over 55cm DBH. So I waited – and the trees grew. Due to the wide spacing, native understorey flourished and native birds returned to the farm. We are now regularly harvesting high quality eucalypt logs from the Landcare planting for on-farm milling or sale. One sale involved a container of logs being sent to China for veneer production with the product returned to Australia for sale. Back on the farm, we are now inter-planting cabinet species and understorey to ensure an ongoing harvest – a perpetual forest (no clearfelling).

Rowan harvesting 22-year-old pruned eucalypt logs from a mixed species riparian forest. The harvest, though small, is viable because careful management, and plenty of time,

have ensured a high log quality.

new zealand ideas - department of agriculture and...

Documents