Forestry’s ‘green’ status overlooked

01-09-2008 | Denis Hocking

Over the years I have harked on at some length about the environmental credentials of forestry and wood.

This is, at least in part, because these environmental advantages have drawn me deeper into farm forestry, combined of course with an appropriate mix of land classes.

As everyone knows, or should know, compared to pasture, trees and forests sequester carbon, reduce soil erosion, cut nutrient leaching, enhance indigenous biodiversity and can also provide shelter and very versatile material available with a wide range of properties - if we can be bothered to grow the different options.

So if forestry and wood are so green, they should be lauded and encouraged by environmental interests - right? Wrong! They are both subject to environmentally based restrictions, regionally and internationally, that would put most other land uses out of business.

Why should this be?

It seems to reflect a variety of motivations. At regional council level we see a somewhat schizoid approach - recognition that forestry is needed on erosion-prone land and sensitive lake catchments, but in most cases a requirement for resource consents to harvest forests but not grass. This may well reflect Kiwis' strong preference for the ‘pastoral culture'.

But the international environmental pressures are even more questionable, leading to some very perverse outcomes. A meeting of forestry interests last month emphasized how difficult some of these pressures are. In part, this is because the world, and not least environmental groups, are still struggling to accept plantations and plantation wood. NZ's practices do not fit with the international norms.

Internationally, the majority of wood still comes from natural forests, and tropical rainforests in particular continue to be under severe pressure. Deforestation may have eased somewhat in recent years, but there is now evidence that it is increasing again in South America in response to rising food prices and, in the case of central Africa, improved political stability leading to more roading and Asian investment.

Deforestation is still estimated to be contributing 20% of global CO2 emissions. Thus, there is justifiable concern about global forestry and wood supply issues and it was this concern that led to the international drive for environmental and social certification.

Now certification, especially Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is becoming a requirement in many markets.

But, in reality, certification has had depressingly little effect on tropical deforestation, so almost as a substitute, ENGOs have devoted their considerable energies to raising the bar ever higher for forestry in developing countries.

In NZ the majority of the big players are FSC certified, but it is a very onerous and frustrating process with the bar constantly being raised and serious questions as to whether it is worth the effort.

The battle for derogation (ie permission to continue using) a small number of key chemicals has been protracted, and scientifically and procedurally questionable. In essence, FSC is pushing for something akin to ‘organic' production with no synthetic chemicals, despite the very limited use of chemicals in forestry compared to agriculture (I can vouch for this - a single releasing spray for forestry versus normal drenching, dipping, weed spraying etc for livestock).

There is also a strong, and increasing social element in FSC where all the locals can have their say.

Timber wholesalers and retailers have a special problem when the 24 timber grades dictated by the Building Code suddenly become 48 with FSC certification added to the mix.

Finally, the local ENGOs have demanded that in the FSC national standard for NZ there should be a set-aside of "restored natural ecosystems" amounting to 10% of the area of any certified plantation.

Currently, the FSC national standard is stalled and the big players are certified under international rules. But for small players, certification is very difficult to well nigh impossible, though a study is just getting underway to look at this issue.

I do expect some movement here, especially when you consider that in the decade since NZ phased out most indigenous forest harvesting, our demand for tropical hardwoods has increased markedly. We have "solved" the local problem but at the expense of the global problem.

However, another pseudo-environmental barrier has been erected for wood in the form of the Green Building Council (GBC) with its star building code.

About a year ago, I described how the GBC has been taken over by the much better organised steel and concrete lobbies, but unfortunately, it has been endorsed by the Ministry for the Environment (who thus find themselves in opposition to MAF who have been trying to promote wood for construction).

The GBC penalizes wood in two ways. Firstly, it quite explicitly ignores the embodied energy in buildings on the grounds that it only constitutes 10-20% of the lifetime energy consumption. Secondly, it then demands that all wood be FSC certified. There is no such demand for steel or concrete.

Perhaps the best illustration is a story told by one sawmiller. A green star building in Auckland had timber on site for the job, but it was not FSC certified. So a desperate hunt for FSC timber resulted in wood being carted from the central North Island at very short notice, obviously for a very important part of the building. Yeah right, it was concrete boxing!

So forestry, and not least farm forestry, is battling some perverse signals, and food politics may well compound this. All that I can ask is that people treat green politics with appropriate skepticism and look for solid science to support their conclusions.

Footnote: In the August issue of Country-Wide, my somewhat disparaging remarks about Eucalyptus nitens wood properties contrast with Marie Taylor's excellent article on the Aussies' success with Eco-Ash made from E. nitens. I stand by my comments. Anything you can do with E. nitens can be done more readily with stringybarks and E. fastigata if you have a resource.

Author: Denis Hocking is a member of the Middle Districts Branch of the NZ Farm Forestry Association.

  Printable View