Report jim waterson

Farm forestry in New Zealand – what lessons does it offer when considering the future of farm forestry in the UK ?

Jim Waterson BSc., MICFor.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT This report is based on a study tour undertaken by the author in Summer 2005. The study tour was funded by a travel bursary awarded by the Farmers Club of Great Britain and its subject was farm forestry in New Zealand.

The purpose of the tour was to critically evaluate New Zealand (NZ) farm forestry and to identify systems, methods and techniques that could potentially transfer beneficially to UK practice.

The context for this evaluation is the authors contention that a revitalised and refocused farm forestry sector in the UK could potentially offer farmers and other landowners a further option for productive and sustainable future land use.

Such an option could be particularly appropriate for areas of marginal or lowgrade farm land in the UK, where national and EU support regimes are lesslikely to continue the assistance of conventional agricultural regimes in future.

A ’new’ farm forestry sector in the UK could potentially offer a range of tangible and sustainable benefits. Regionally appropriate forms of farm-based forestry could be used to help sustain rural employment, produce viable timber crops, ameliorate rapid runoff from upland catchments, reduce overgrazing in sensitive landscapes and potentially contribute to additional carbon sequestration in future years.

The 1980s and 1990s were particularly difficult and challenging times for agriculture and forestry in NZ. Farmers and foresters in NZ are used to dealing with change and uncertainty, as indeed are those in the UK. However, the NZ forestry and agricultural industries have operated without the direct and indirect state support for production and land management systems enjoyed by their British counterparts.

What can the UK learn from the New Zealand farm forestry sector ?

1

THE STUDY TOUR During July and August 2005, fifteen different farm forestry properties were visited throughout the North and South islands. At each property, the owner and their families were met and a combination of discussions and fieldwork allowed a very direct impression of each farm forestry operation to be recorded.

All the properties were owned and managed by members of the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association (NZFFA). The Association acted as an extremely competent and generous host organisation for the study tour, providing invaluable information, contacts and support to the author.

The majority of contacts were individual members and their families, but the author also met separately with a small number of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and ENSIS officers (ENSIS is a product of an association between part of the former NZ Forest Research organisation and Australian CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products). These officers all provided some excellent information and very useful informed commentary on the role and significance of the farm forestry sector in NZ. The author was also fortunate to spend time with two different private forest management consultants, who provided some important insights into how farm forestry operated at the business and commercial level.

The properties visited ranged in size from 80 hectares to over 800 hectares.

Agricultural operations were almost exclusively pastoral with substantial bullbeef and sheep enterprises.

The exceptions were a smaller unit in the Manawatu region (central-southern North Island) which had arable land in addition to pastures and the Woodside Forest property west of Christchurch, which was entirely forested and managed along continuous-cover forestry lines.

2

NEW ZEALAND LAND USE AND FORESTRY – AN OVERVIEW A basic comparison of NZ and UK land use and related statistics reinforces some of the similarities and differences between the two nations ; UK land area – 24.1 million hectares a UK agricultural area – 17.2 million hectares b UK forest / woodland area – 12% of total land area or 2.74 million hectares a UK population – 60 million c UK annual timber production – 11 million cubic metres (2004 figures, includes approx. 570,000 cubic metres of broadleaves). a (Sources; a Forestry Commission Statistics, b DEFRA Statistics, c National Statistics Online).

NZ land area – 26.9 million hectares NZ agricultural area – 11.8 million hectares NZ forest / woodland area - 30% of total land area or 8.0 million hectares (6.4 indigenous forest / 1.6 planted forest) NZ population - 4 million NZ annual timber production – 22 million cubic metres from plantation forests (2004 figures).

(Sources; MAF 2004) As the figures above suggest, New Zealand has extensive areas of indigenous forest. Some 77% of the indigenous forest is owned by the Crown and managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) principally for biodiversity objectives.

Though some licensed commercial logging continues in indigenous forests, notably on the West Coast of the South Island, it is relatively limited in extent and rigorously controlled. Less than 0.1% of NZs total forest production is now harvested from indigenous forests.

New Zealand has a well-established and substantial commercial forestry industry. Planted forests account for only 7% of NZ land area, but generate significant timber volumes from intensively-managed, highly productive plantations. In crude terms, compared to the UK, NZs planted forests generate twice the annual timber harvest from a significantly smaller land area dedicated to plantation forestry.

These planted forests are dominated by extensive areas of the introduced Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata, known universally as ‘radiata’ throughout the country. The story of commercial conifer-based forestry in NZ is synonymous with this species and its development (Sutton, 2005 a, Sutton, 2005 b).

3

Douglas Fir occupies some 6% of the NZ plantation forest resource, with a further 3% comprising exotic hardwoods, typically eucalypt species planted for the pulp industry (MAF in NZFOA, 2004).

Radiata accounts for some 90% of NZ planted forests and with its versatile and robust characteristics, its vigour and strong response to intensive silvicultural regimes, it has effectively become become the cornerstone of NZ plantation forestry.

Substantial sawmilling and wood processing industries have developed around the radiata resource. The vast majority of research, development and innovation in forestry, silviculture, wood processing, plant breeding and related areas in NZ over the last fifty years or so has all been based on this principal species.

Radiata has the ability to grow rapidly in both North and South Islands, with rotation lengths of only 22 years reported in certain regions. However, potential deficiencies with timber density and strength in such rapidly-grown trees has led many growers to aim for rotation lengths of 28-30 years.

The objective of growing radiata sawlogs with high proportions of ‘clear’ (knotfree) wood has been achieved through the widespread application of intensive pruning and thinning regimes. Pruning of side branches is carried out in a series of carefully-timed ‘lifts’, commonly three or four separate operations, usually during the first 5 to 10 years of the life of the tree. This pruning reduces the size of the knotty defect core in the final crop tree and extends the length of the clean stem, with clear-pruned stem heights commonly in the range 4 to 7 metres.

Thinning is the second key silvicultural task used to produce crops of optimum size and form. Thinning to waste (leaving felled thinnings in-situ with no timber extraction is commonplace and most crops are thinned twice during their production cycle. The often steep and awkward nature of many forest sites means that production thinning (thinning with subsequent extraction and utilisation of felled material) is less common, with only around 21% of radiata crops thinned in this way (MAF in NZFOA, 2004).

The most extensive areas of commercial forest are concentrated in the central North Island, particularly the Kaingaroa pumice country. Like much of NZ, large parts of this region were originally cleared of native bush vegetation and settled for agriculture in the late 19th century. However, widespread but undiagnosed cobalt and boron deficiencies in the region led to ‘bush sickness’ in livestock and subsequently many farming enterprises failed. Large-scale regional afforestation programmes followed, based largely on radiata, to add some economic value to these seemingly poor and unproductive areas. This region now carries around 33% of the total planted estate in NZ (MAF in NZFOA, 2004).

Biosecurity issues remain a major and constant concern for virtually all forms of forestry, agriculture and other land uses in NZ. The combination of island

4

biogeography and production systems based on the extensive use of nonnative plant and animal species means that continual vigilance is required to prevent or contain pest and disease outbreaks.

FOREST OWNERSHIP, INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AND A NEW CHALLENGE FROM NEW ZEALAND AGRICULTURE As far as commercial forestry is concerned, it should be noted that the scale, pattern and perhaps even the philosophy of forest ownership in New Zealand is often different to that usually encountered in the UK. There are several principal forms of commercial forestry and forest ownership in NZ. The NZ government was historically the main production forest owner, responsible for some 50% of the planted forest area in 1984. These forests were largely privatised in the 1980’s as the overall NZ economy was significantly restructured. Following several different phases of corporate ownership - initially by NZ and Australian forest products corporations - these forests are now mainly in the hands of large overseas-based investment companies, many of them American.

They are increasingly being managed with simple, relatively low-intervention silvicultural methods, an approach which some commentators suggest is being driven by short-term economic considerations to boost annual balance sheet figures (Anon, 2005). In many cases these methods have dispensed with the intensive pruning and thinning operations that have characterised conifer production regimes in NZ. The concept of investing in commercial forestry is well-established in NZ. Commercial forestry offers a diverse range of investment opportunities, owned or part-owned by a wide cross-section of groups, families and individuals. Different forms of joint venture investment in forestry are also commonplace.

The accessible and relatively-short term forestry investment cycles in NZ (compared to typical UK schemes) encourage many people to use a forestry investment as a pension or a longer-term income provider. It is not uncommon for people from all walks of life to have some type of forestry interests, some small-scale, others more substantial.

It should be noted however that the relatively-poor returns from NZ forestry in recent years have eroded some of the previous attraction of the industry.

After a high timber price ’spike’ in the 1993, driven by a surge in demand for NZ timber mainly from the Korean market, annual new planting figures grew significantly, rising from 15,000 hectares in 1991, to 50,200 hectares in 1992, 98,200 hectares in 1994 before steadily declining to around 37,440 hectares in 2000. New planting figures for recent years are even lower, with several commentators suggesting zero or negative figures for 2005 (Levack, 2005, and Hocking, pers. comm., 2005).

5

Since the 1990s , competition from other southern hemisphere plantation forests such as Chile, Argentina and South Africa has challenged NZ timber exporters. The restricted supply of affordable bulk shipping capacity (due to Chinese industrial demands) has also affected NZ export competitiveness.

These recent and continuing challenges for the NZ forestry industry coincide with a period of relative growth and prosperity in NZ agriculture (Blumhardt, 2005). Land prices have increased significantly and the search for affordable land to enable agricultural expansion, particularly dairy unit growth in the central North Island, has resulted in forest land being actively sought by farmers planning to develop and extend their operations.

Acquisition is followed by clearfelling and subsequent full-scale conversion to pastoral land. The significant operational and economic burden of dealing with forest residues, de-stumping, seeding and fertilising the cleared sites is considered acceptable and cost-effective, given the alternative cost of paying current rates for existing pasture land.

It is estimated that some 10,000 hectares of plantation forest land have been converted to pasture in the period 2002-2004 (MAF 2005 a). NZ commentators make the interesting point that the decline in new planting rates referred to above and the conversion of forest land to pasture are almost certainly creating a situation of net deforestation in NZ at present.

FARM FORESTRY AS A DISTINCTIVE SECTOR OF NEW ZEALAND LAND USE Whilst most of the timber grown on farms in NZ is marketed alongside that from conventional or mainstream forestry, farm forestry itself is in most other respects a distinctive and separate sector.

With a history that extends at least one hundred years, it was originally characterised by simple and straightforward timber production and land conservation objectives. In essence, farmers planted blocks of trees on some of their poorer land to grow timber and firewood, provide shelter and shade and to reduce or prevent soil erosion.

Many contemporary farm foresters still share the original objectives held by their predecessors and continue to take them forward with impressive vigour and commitment. The fundamental value of using trees for shelter, for soil conservation and for wood production continue to be major motivations for many farm foresters.

The relative youth of NZ geology tends to create thin, fragile soils and subsoils that are highly-prone to erosion, sometimes over extensive areas and with dramatic and damaging results. The physical impact of pastoral farming on land, soils and watercourses, in an environment where the native flora evolved with no native mammals, has been substantial and occasionally dramatic.

6

The East Coast region of the North Island, for example, has been so severely affected by large-scale erosion and soil loss that a specific regional land conservation initiative based on forestry has been established. The East Coast Forestry Project offers targeted funding to encourage farmers and other landowners to use tree planting on their land to reduce soil erosion and prevent further losses. (MAF, 2005 b).

Shelter also remains a major objective for farm foresters as virtually all stock are outwintered and sheep lambed outdoors. Well-placed shelter belts and blocks of trees are used to give cover, shelter and shade to stock throughout the different seasons of the farming year (Prebble, 2005).

A further interesting silvopastoral system seen and discussed at several of the sites was the seasonal use of fodder cut from trees planted strategically for this purpose. In short, a simple form of pollarding, usually carried out with a small chainsaw, generated substantial amounts of fresh and apparently highly-palatable leaf and fine branch material for feeding sheep during drought periods when grass supplies were depleted. All the examples seen used hybrid poplars, cut at about 1.4 -1.5 metres above ground level. The farmers operating these systems all reported excellent results from this alternative form of supplementary feeding (Harris and Wills, 2005, Milligan, 2005).

Whilst the ‘traditional’ functions of wood production, shelter and land conservation remain major objectives for many of those growing trees on farms, the farm forestry sector today now encompasses a more diverse union of interests. Farmers probably still account for the majority of people involved in the sector and they continue to own or manage most of the land carrying trees on and around farms.

However, there are a growing number of other interests represented within farm forestry. These include landowners planting and managing trees for biodiversity, particularly where native bush is being conserved, restored or recreated, for landscape and aesthetic reasons and also for recreation and community or cultural reasons.

Some of these objectives were characterised in the term ‘lifestyle blocks’, referring to a growing trend of non-farmers (‘lifestylers’) purchasing and developing small-scale rural landholdings for aesthetic and non-agricultural purposes.

In short, the farm forestry ‘label’ covers a far-more diverse range of activities, objectives, owners and management approaches today than it did perhaps ten years ago.

Membership of the NZFFA is under 3000 but it is estimated that some 10,000 to 12,000 farmers have some level of tree planting on their properties (Hocking, pers. comm.).

7

The majority of farm forestry properties visited during the study tour did have commercial timber production as a primary objective. However, most also created or maintained additional non-timber benefits as described above, to varying degrees.

DEFINING THE NEW ZEALAND APPROACH TO FARM FORESTRY Virtually all of the farm forestry properties demonstrated a series of key characteristics, which are described and discussed below. Whilst it is perhaps overly-simplistic to characterise this as “the New Zealand approach to farm forestry”, these themes, issues and land management processes were consistently seen and discussed with farm foresters during the tour.

Several recurring land management themes emerged when visiting the sample properties and meeting their owners. Listed in no particular order or priority, these themes are : •

Integrated land use – farm forestry being used as a significant component of integrated land use on pastoral farms. Farmers had taken a strategic and entirely common-sense approach to planning their land management, with forestry on the steeper, more difficult, less productive and potentially more dangerous parts of their farms and pastoral operations concentrated on the better quality and more easilyworked and managed land.

•

Asset creation and management – farm forestry producing valuable and substantial timber crops on previously marginal or moderatelyproductive land.

•

Land protection and conservation – farm forestry being used effectively to ‘heal’ previously damaged or disturbed land and to reduce or prevent damage to sensitive land areas. This obviously links directly to the wider conservation and protection of river systems and their catchments.

•

Environmental conservation – protection and active conservation of native forest habitats and significant planting of native tree and shrub species at many properties.

•

Other non-timber benefits – farm forestry for shelter, amenity, landscape and other cultural values.

As well as these land management themes, there is a further set of factors that deserve mention and some discussion. These encompass more subjective areas and issues - people, attitudes, communication and knowledge. Again, in no order or priority : •

Silvicultural knowledge, understanding and experience. NZ farm foresters met during the tour showed substantial and detailed knowledge of many aspects of the tree growing cycle, from seed 8

sources, through establishment, tending, harvesting and timber markets plus a clear understanding of timber properties and characteristics. This level of knowledge and understanding was taken as read by active farm foresters, many of whom are the second-generation tree growers on their properties.

•

Strong and active representation and good external / internal communication skills. Clearly the NZFFA is an unusually-effective and well organised association. Its ability to speak for so many when at the table of the policy makers, regulators and larger forest industry bodies is important – we have no similar organisation in the UK that enjoys such access to the power bases of land use policy and practice. The level of communication between members and the organisation is high, with a strong regional network, many useful and relevant field events, a well-established range of active special interest groups and a top-quality quarterly journal which is clearly.a valuable source of more information for members.

•

An active commitment to sharing information and experience.

Closely related to the two points above, but worthy of separate mention due to the significant benefits it clearly brings to the sector.

This healthy and essential process includes an open approach to discussing successes, failures, costs, prices, threats to the industry and a positive approach to constructive criticism. In the authors experience, this particular attitude is not unique to forestry or farm forestry in NZ.

•

Innovation, development and quality. Based on an albeit brief and incomplete assessment during the study tour, it appears as if the sector showing the highest levels of applied innovation and development in NZ forestry is indeed farm forestry. Discussions with MAF officers and the forestry consultants confirmed this impression.

The conventional or mainstream forestry sector appears to be moving away from active silviculture and tending, in favour of lowerinput systems for bulk timber production and relatively little substantial development of new or improved species. In contrast, farm forestry appears to have many excellent examples of practical, applied research, development and innovation.

The properties visited included several where significant species and cultivar trial work was being carried out, involving a range of tree species. These included fast-growing, high quality stringybark eucalypts in the North Island and extensive field trials of cypress varieties in the Southern Otago region of the South Island.

The sector has also retained a widespread and major commitment to growing quality timber, rather than simply focusing on maximising yield. Given the large and increasing scale of the plantation resources of so many competitor nations in the southern 9

hemisphere, a focus on quality silviculture and the practical development of higher-value crops appears to offer a sound strategy for the future.

The specialist groups within the NZFFA itself accurately reflect the range of development areas that members are actively involved in ; • • • • •

Indigenous Forest Section AMIGO group (promoting the silviculture and utilisation of Acacia melanoxylon – the Tasmanian Blackwood) Cypress Action Group Eucalypt Action Group Sequoia Group

A further overriding impression gained from all the visits was of the genuine commitment so many people had to their farm forestry. The clarity of purpose was very obvious – farm foresters were not only committed to growing trees per se, but to growing the best quality trees they could. There was a palpable sense of people getting much more back from their forests than simply the timber they produced.

The concept of forest asset development is perhaps more straightforward and accessible in NZ , where well-established silvicultural systems can produce a mature tree crop in less than thirty years. Several of the farm foresters visited were using or planning to use their maturing timber assets for pension provision, to enable farm development and expansion or to provide future income after transfer of the farm to their children.

Clearly, all is not sweetness and light and there are examples of poor farm forestry in NZ as well as all the fine examples seen by the author. In fact one farm forester made sure that the author saw at least one example of a partially neglected and under-managed forest. Bizarrely though, despite the silvicultural deficiencies evident at the site, this ‘neglected’ forest had recently become attractive and sought after for recreational use rather than for its original timber production function. This new value had developed to the extent that the local council was seeking to acquire the property in a ‘forest-swap’ arrangement, in exchange for a nearby area of well-managed production forest.

We share some common challenges and issues when British and New Zealand farm forestry are compared – the economic challenge of timber prices depressed by competition from timber grown more cheaply in competitor nations, damaging exotic pests (possums in New Zealand, grey squirrels in the UK) and increasing environmental challenges, constraints and regulation. In both nations social and cultural issues are presenting challenges and constraints - forestry is expected to generate an ever-wider range of benefits to society.

NZ enjoys relatively short crop rotation lengths compared to most conventional forms of silviculture practised in the UK. However, NZs 10

geographical location, relative isolation from some major potential markets and the logistical challenges this brings are all significant issues.

The inherently complex carbon sequestration and climate change agenda is beginning to affect both UK and NZ citizens, in different ways admittedly, as national governments make their first slightly hurried plays in this new global game.

Many NZ forest owners are indignant at the way privately owned forests have been included in the national governments commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, with few apparent benefits yet for forest owners and the prospect of potential deforestation liabilities where forest land is not restocked after felling. (Levett, 2005).

IS NEW ZEALAND FARM FORESTRY A MODEL FOR POTENTIAL APPLICATION IN THE UK ?

In short, probably not, or at least, not as a simple formulaic approach to silvicultural practices that could be replicated and applied over significant areas of UK land. A range of obvious differences and challenges make it unlikely that a ‘classic’ NZ system would transfer effectively to the majority of land areas that may in time be available to farm forestry in the UK. The prevailing uncertainties in UK agriculture understandably continue to produce essentially conservative responses to farm planning and development, or the maintenance of the current status quo. The incentives to manage existing woodlands are considered too inadequate by many to justify substantial involvement and commitment. The support available to plant new woodlands can be potentially attractive, but the prospect of substantial tree planting is then often flawed by the unwelcome concept of land tied up for generations, growing trees that may or may not be valuable or saleable in years to come.

Further considerations include the now well-established environmental designations that affect many UK land areas. These would potentially restrict the use of large blocks of exotic plantation species, principally on landscape and biodiversity grounds.

There is no obvious single candidate species to represent an equivalent to radiata, giving UK farm foresters a universal, known and proven tree species that would perform well, fit the requirements of the timber industry and be acceptable to wider environmental interests.

Sitka spruce, the key species in commercial UK production forestry is of course well proven in contemporary upland forestry, providing the core timber resource for most of the substantial downstream processing industry.

Despite its substantial presence in the uplands, a proven ability to produce viable commercial crops and a good ‘fit’ with product and processing requirements, its widespread use in new plantings on marginal farm land

11

would inevitably attract the interests and concern of environmental organisations, both statutory and voluntary.

UK forestry policy has evolved significantly over the past twenty years to the current position where new plantings are expected to offer significant nontimber benefits (access, recreation, landscape and biodiversity) to qualify for financial support (Forestry Commission, 2005). The system also selectively favours broadleaves over conifers through higher grant bands for new planting and restocking.

The relatively short rotation lengths in NZ farm forestry could at present only realistically be matched by UK systems growing specialist tree crops such as hybrid poplars and cricket bat willows. Both these species require relatively good quality land to prosper and intensive silvicultural attention to produce quality crops. Unfortunately, proponents of poplar also face the difficulty of encouraging growers to plant the species at a time when the sawlog markets for its final product are depressed and static.

It should also be noted that with notable exceptions, the majority of UK farmers inevitably have either limited or no silvicultural knowledge and little positive experience of growing timber on farms. Despite the availability of funding to assist the management of existing farm woodlands and the creation of new ones, on the whole, farm woodlands remain a low priority for the vast majority of farmers in the UK. TOWARDS A BIGGER FUTURE FOR FARM FORESTRY IN THE UK – WHAT ARE THE MAIN TASKS ?

To give farm forestry the opportunity to make a more substantial commitment to sustainable land management in the UK, a series of key tasks and challenges will need to be addressed.

Long-term landscape and biodiversity policies need to considered at regional and national levels. If changes to agricultural support mechanisms result in farming being less likely to maintain the distinctive, traditional landscapes that many people value and consider to be established and permanent features of the UK countryside, new approaches to sustainable land-use may begin to generate changes in these landscapes.

The perceptions and opinions of regulators, policy makers, statutory agencies, the conservation sector and a large number of people who enjoy the marginal farmed landscapes of the UK will have to be considered, but more importantly, informed and influenced.

The argument that many of the dramatic and beautiful landscapes of Britain are former forests that have been cleared and grazed for centuries may not be enough to convince many people that they should by right carry trees again in the 21st century. A wider case of issues and implications will need to be skilfully presented and argued.

12

Within this case there will be social matters - the need for rural populations to be maintained, for rural jobs to be created and for the continuation of family occupation of farms and landholdings across generations.

There will be an environmental case to make, which could be complex and diverse, depending on the nature of the individual farm and its environmental context. The environmental case could work at different levels, from individual designated sites with species or habitat protection issues through to national and global environmental issues. Farm forestry could, for example, be the source of sustainable energy for rural settlements and communities in the future, if the real price paid to the fuel provider is economically viable. As the policy and practice of valuing carbon sequestration evolves and matures, a new generation of farm forests could potentially produce both carbon credit income and sustainable timber crops.

These of course are potentially part of the next set of considerations - the economic issues.

To function effectively, farm forests will need to make an economic contribution as quickly as possible. In NZ the author was able to visit an exemplary property which was growing excellent quality, mixed species timber on different rotations and providing access and recreation facilities for walkers, backpackers and family groups in the form of trails, camping huts and picnic areas. All of these functions were effectively integrated with a pastoral farming business.

The development of this type of approach may be particularly compatible with the existing use of many UK farmed landscapes by walkers and other recreational visitors – potential customers who would appreciate and use such facilities and their developing forest setting, whilst the income generated would help sustain the wider farm enterprise.

In the longer term however, the economics of the case must hinge on timber production in farm forestry. Even if an individual farm forestry enterprise is potentially able to generate income through other routes such as recreation or carbon fixing, the ultimate value and marketability of its main crop must be sound and viable. This comment should be considered in the context of the overall quality and typical condition of many existing farm woodlands and other smaller-scale privately-owned woodlands in the UK. There have been a significant number of regional woodland initiatives over the last twenty years and one national example, in the form of Coed Cymru.

Most of these initiatives have been funded with regional and national government monies and have also accessed European funds whilst these were prevalent. Most of these initiatives or projects shared the objective of encouraging and assisting farmers and other landowners to manage their marginal, often neglected woodlands. Much work, money and effort has gone into these initiatives and some excellent results have been achieved on a range of individual sites and properties.

13

However, in general terms, the problem they were all seeking to address remains – the UK is full of neglected woodlands, and a lot of them are on farms. They are neglected for a range of reasons – low value, poor quality timber stands, limited working access, environmental sensitivities and a low priority afforded them by their owners. All of these factors contribute to making these types of woods uneconomic to manage and locked into a cycle of neglect. Even with targeted funding through the woodland initiatives, bringing such woods into management remains a marginal operation in many cases.

This overall condition of many of the UKs existing farm woodlands cannot be ignored or denied. If a new generation of farm woodlands are to be encouraged and created, they must be planned, established and managed with economic sustainability as a primary consideration. Only then are they likely to be successful and become a valuable part of a farm enterprise and have the opportunity to contribute some of the wider, non-timber benefits that are required to justify public funding.

This planning, establishment and management will require a significant amount of expertise and technical input. Farmers will need to develop silvicultural skills and knowledge. The existing professional and technical forest management industry is well-placed to deliver this expertise, but effective mechanisms will need to be developed to encourage and support farmers as they develop new forestry enterprises, providing information, technical advice, training opportunities and fostering active communication and information exchange between practitioners..

Practical, applied research and development should be a priority – this could begin to identify best practice approaches to achieving viable farm forestry enterprises and disseminate information effectively to farmers, relevant agencies and interest groups.

Targeted support should be made available for well-planned and appropriate farm forestry pilot or development schemes that satisfy the requirements of potential funding agencies and the wider aims of sustainability.

Monitoring such schemes and publicising the results will begin the process of establishing a body of knowledge and practice in the UK to inform future developments in farm forestry.

14

CONCLUSION New Zealand farm forestry has an identity, scale, direction and track record that does not yet exist in Britain. As land use issues change in the UK and the likelihood of further change in agriculture become a reality, there are opportunities to raise a new, sustainable approach to farm forestry much higher up the agenda for farmers and landowners.

A close look at New Zealand practice reveals some fundamental characteristics that appear to have enabled the sector to develop into a strong, viable and dynamic form of land use, during periods of change and uncertainty in overall NZ land use policy and practice.

The New Zealand approach has been successful for New Zealand – attractively straightforward and robust, perhaps refreshingly so to the generation of farmers and foresters in the UK who take environmental and social constraints and obligations as read in their work.

The challenge in the UK is to develop a related but different approach that achieves economically sustainable farm forestry enterprises, but fits the wider environmental and social expectations of a crowded island in the 21 st century.

Jim Waterson MICFor. Rural Affairs and Environment Group Harper Adams University College Newport Shropshire TF10 8NB jwaterson@harper-adams.ac.uk

15

REFERENCES Blumhardt, S. 2005. Worldwide Agriculture – the issues. Conference Paper presented at the National Farm Management Conference, Bedford, UK. In Journal of Farm Management Vol.12. No. 4 April 2005.

DEFRA. 2005. Quick Agricultural Statistics.

Accessed online 22.1.06 at ; http//www.statistics.defra.gov.UK/esg/quick/agri.asp Forestry Commission. 2005. a Forestry Facts and Figures 2005. A summary of statistics about forestry and woodland in Great Britain.

Forestry Commission. 2005. The England Woodland Grant Scheme.

Harris, M. and Wills, B. 2005. Poplar fodder trial. New Zealand Tree Grower.

February 2005.

Levack, H. 2005. The NZFFA as the main agency for practical forestry knowledge ? New Zealand Tree Grower. August 2005.

Levett, A. 2005. Debate on the Kyoto policy. New Zealand Tree Grower.

August 2005.

MAF. 2005. a A National Exotic Forest Description as at 1.4.2004. MAF. MAF. 2005. b 2005 Review of the East Coast Forestry Project. MAF Milligan, G. 2005. Fodder crops - learning from experience. New Zealand Tree Grower. August 2005.

Prebble, J. 2005. A planned shelter system on the Hunter property at Maheno. New Zealand Tree Grower. February 2005.

NZFOA, 2004. New Zealand Forest Industry – Facts and Figures 2004 / 2005.

Sutton, W. 2005. a Radiata Pine in New Zealand. Quarterly Journal of Forestry. Volume 99. No. 1. January 2005.

Sutton, W. 2005. b Lessons from our plantation history. New Zealand Tree Grower. November 2005.

16