Need an internet presence? Discuss your aspirations and goals with us...we create beautiful sites that you can change easily yourself. Any project from catalogue or showcase sites through to community networking environments and on-line stores.
Please visit NZ Web Designers for more information.
One of the characteristics of German forests, and I believe other European countries where the ethic and traditions of forestry are strong, are family forests. This offers continuity, a sense of pride (“I’m the sixth generation to own the forest”) and the commitment that owner operation ensures.
New Zealand has a similar tradition – but it applies to farms. Given the urgent need to convert much of our hill land to forestry for environmental reasons, and surely economic reasons also (which is not to say that forestry is on the crest of a wave) should we not consider here the concept of the “family forest’?
The problem, and undoubtedly it is a formidable one, is to bridge the start-up period, which is a good generation of about 30 years - the rotation of a radiata tree, and other fast growing species. Indeed, by global forestry standards this is a very short time, but in the mind of a banker, its eternity.
What are the advantages?
The commitment and pride of owner occupation/operation.
The preservation of the rural social and economic infrastructure.
The hastening of the conversion of land under unsustainable pastoralism to forestry.
The likely prospect of a range of species better tailored to soil type, ecology and landscape, while relying on the underpinning role of prolific radiata.
The involvement of the family in the physical and managerial role of running the enterprise.
What might your hypothetic family forest look like? Maybe -
50% in radiata;
10% in other fast-growing species on suitable land (e.g. redwoods);
10% in slower growing high value species (e.g. Blackwoods, oaks, walnuts, etc);
10% in native reversion;
10% in silvopastoralism (managed poplars);
10% of the flats remaining in pasture upon which (with silvopastoralism) the forester can farm his own or his neighbours sheep & cattle, or graze a cow cockie’s heifers.
The problem is; how do you financially bridge the first generation when it will become self perpetuating? A challenge certainly, but not an insurmountable one. Probably the most likely avenue would be joint venture involvement with public bodies, forestry interests or private investors, or a combination. Carbon credits could provide a helpful supplement.
This is not farm forestry, it is forest farming. But it is not to venture into new landuse territory as it would capitalise on the enormous experience and skills we have in this country on the cultivation of a range of tree species for harvest. Apart from the financial undertaking of establishment of this landuse change, the likely challenge is the acceptance of a cultural change in the life of rural New Zealand.
I believe this is concept involving public debate, and perhaps the establishment of a demonstration enterprise or two. Funding from such sources as the Sustainable Farming Fund, regional councils and forestry interests to jump-start this could be worth investigating.