Forestry employs 40,000 people, a substantial number being tangata whenua. Photo / Supplied, File
Forestry employs 40,000 people, a substantial number being tangata whenua. Photo / Supplied, File
Opinion by Penetaui Kleskovic
OPINION
As Māori landowners meet in Rotorua to address forestry matters, certain issues dominate the horizon. The recent Minister of Forestry, Stuart Nash has gone from politics. The Associate Forestry Minister, Meka Whaitiri has traded colours for a different parliamentary tribe.
Given the pervasiveness of politics throughout Māori economic endeavour, eyes are on Peeni Henare, the mahuri or the fresh face, on the block. He has announced a financial package of more than $50 million to debt fund forestry processing.
However, he has yet to show what he understands about Māori landowner rights and the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Cabinet papers have been prepared which contain options to alter the carbon credit regime.
Apparently, these papers are highly confidential. Only been seen by a tiny group of well-paid Māori consultants, presumably as a proxy for the various iwi across the motu. A very odd way to consult.
Tai Tokerau iwi believe growing trees for carbon sequestration is a critical component for an affordable decarbonisation journey. There are differing opinions however including those from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, former National minister Simon Upton.
Consistently, he has stated that forestry offsetting should be confined to dealing with emissions from the agricultural sector. Major industrial emitters under this view would probably wither and jobs would disappear overseas.
Having been away at the OECD and nestled in the Wellington beltway, Upton is inconspicuous on the marae. This is a pity because being absent from the Treaty circuit generally means iwi put you on the menu.
Upston’s indeterminate status is in contrast to the brashness of Climate Commission chair Rod Carr, more intent on purging the ETS and preventing landowners from growing pine trees for offsetting purposes. He fears too much productive land is disappearing under pine needles.
His criticisms about net zero carbon targets and gross carbon targets have a passion not dissimilar to what is heard from the pulpit.
When our northern tūpuna were told to cease their heathen ways and look upwards to heaven, our land disappeared from under their feet. Pulpit thumping is not a recipe for driving mitigation or funding adaptation.
Perhaps his kōrero reflects the views of the Māori he has been working with. There is no single iwi view. Many whānau now realise that coping with climate change is best achieved via adaptation. The mitigation rewards have to be contrasted with the costs to our economy and social impact.
Meanwhile, Climate Minister James Shaw is considering nationalising all carbon forestry credits. We are told this is being done to build a safety net.
These three climate torch-bearers are not so much thought leaders as professional mourners. Māori do not get a sense of optimism from them. They expect Māori landowners to do what they are told, rather than whether we should do it at all or who will pay for it.
Take, for example, Minister Shaw’s proposal to purchase global carbon credits. The sum apparently is $16 billion. Why not keep that money in New Zealand and develop our own remedies?
Forestry gives jobs to 40,000 people, a substantial number, tangata whenua. However, you are likely to strike ill-humoured hapū as much as smiling whānau when pine trees are discussed.
Te Aupōuri is an iwi with a vast forestry estate in their rohe. The trees are predominantly owned by foreigners. The land is held in collective Māori hands. There is no alternative use for this whenua that makes economic sense.
Penetaui Kleskovic. Photo / Supplied, File
Foreign investment in forestry on Māori land is critical. As the call for more domestic processing increases the value of Māori forestry grows. We need options beyond sending raw logs to China. A major barrier to this outcome is the uncertainty around the RMA. It deters development expenditure.
If one looks overseas, there are special economic zones that exist to speed up manufacturing investment. They have relaxed planning laws and tax incentives. Such initiatives would assist Māori forestry in areas such as Tai Rāwhiti and Tai Tokerau.
There is a strong call to increase the canopy of native forests. The Department of Conservation has over 6 million hectares of forest cover in its management but does not have the capacity to manage the pests.
The government policy of Whānau Ora should marry ngahere ora, our rangatahi should be roped in to undertake such mahi. Planting native trees has some momentum in the Māori network.
The costs however are enormous and the growth rate is slow for carbon sequestration purposes. A massive improvement in pest control in areas such as the Raukumara Range would yield more benefits.
Māori forestry needs options; the land we have has limited potential. Offsetting as a part of the ETS is essential. It also needs Māori MPs who understand the economic impacts of policies on the ground. Not in the air, jetting to yet another global talkfest.
They say the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best is now. However, in the absence of collaboration between Wellington and Māori landowners, further tree planting may not be worth the effort.
