This profound, and essentially permanent, change of our rural landscape has become alarming. What are we going to do about it? Should we? Can we? I think we should, and we can.
But it will need to be led from Wellington.
Land use is in a constant state of flux everywhere around the word. New Zealand is no exception. Now here that change is hastening, and in a way that will not just change the face of the land, but its social imprint too.
Our first land use change was the bush clearance to make way for grass.
Actually, this was the creation of a land use as the magnificent native bush that clothed our land was not a “use”, but the exploitation of the easily accessible magnificent timber trees.
Fire followed, taking with it much timber as well, where logs were irrecoverable given the technology of the day.
Land use initially was the production of wool, a sought-after commodity that was not perishable and thus able to be shipped across the world to the Bradford mills.
The arrival of refrigerated shipping added meat and dairy production to our exports.
Thenceforth, the use of the greater portion of the nation’s landscape was devoted to pasturage for sheep and cattle.
Today wool has lost its lustre, but dairy products and meat represent our two most valuable merchandise exports. The third, and it’s significant, is wood – read pine – products.
Pine plantings began following World War I, mainly in the central North Island, coming into production after World War II.
Since then, this has been added to with extensive plantings over land erodible under pasture, and woodlots on farms.
This pine estate has now been extended, and with alarming speed, with the acquisition of stable farmland of easy contour by forestry interests, largely foreign.
This is sweeping aside not just the farming industry in those areas, but the social foundation, with its resident communities and pride of ownership that goes with it. Gone too will be the open and scenic pastoral vistas unique to New Zealand.
Once planted, is this land use change irrevocable? As far ahead as we can see, I believe it is.
Over the life of our farming landscape we have seen usage change; maybe from sheep and beef to dairying, or to horticulture/viticulture, or intensive cropping.
This has not been frustrated legally beyond environmental imperatives. But the pine invasion is different.
A single rotation takes about 30 years, and given that the land is held by non-domiciled forestry interests, it will likely be replanted.
But there’s another factor driving this, and it is through the justifiable concern at global climate change.
This has led to the well-intended encouragement to get more trees on to the landscape through the Emissions Trading Scheme, where growing trees is rewarded in cash payments.
This is adding to the drive for blanket radiata forests. Well, climate change or not, the ever-growing world population needs to be fed.
Don’t get me wrong; radiata, given our climate and soils, is an extraordinary timber tree species. Our plantations are admired by global foresters. But we need to control their expansion. Currently they are controlling us.
There are ways of safeguarding our farming industry and integrating trees into it, thereby safeguarding our economy, environment, scenery and rural society. But that’s a case for another day. In the meantime, the need to control this issue is a matter of the utmost urgency.
