Commercial worth of wildings, plus possible "deforestation" liability – in a nutshell

For timber and fibre?

Yes, money has been made from wilding trees. But this has nearly always been close to the parent source, where trees are dense (fringe spread). And, of the 600,000 ha identified in the South Island as being "affected" by wilding pines, it is doubtful if there are more than a few hundred hectares (at best) which could be harvested for timber and fibre at a commercial profit. This is because over most of their range, wildings often consist of widely scattered trees (distant spread) of less desirable species with very variable size and form, on sites which can be difficult to access.

To be sure, widely-spaced trees could be left to self-seed to produce higher stockings of better quality trees, but the question has to be asked - do we allow this to happen locally on harvestable sites over a number of years, when seed is also probably going to be blown some distance to give rise to wildings on inaccessible areas which will never turn a profit?

If it is decided that trees are wanted on certain areas for commercial reasons, lets act accordingly, and manage it wisely and more profitably by planting (or seeding) the species we want at the densities we want – rather than let a poor quality "wild" crop establish by default.

Just because some farmers have made the odd bob from wild deer, pigs, goats, possums (and even sheep), does this mean that we advocate that all these animals should be allowed to roam free and multiply at will? It is the same with wilding trees.

As a resource for biofuels?

This is the "new boy on the block", and we will see increasing interest from those who see wildings as a cheap resource of materials to be used for biofuel manufacture. Indeed, some areas of dense wildings could well be removed for such a use in the near future, but once again, the variability of wildings (age, size, number of stems/ha) means that most areas affected by wildings will not feature as the most attractive resource.

However, with the field of biofuels developing so rapidly, watch this space.

For carbon storage and C credits?

The same argument applies. Best prospects are on land specifically identified as suitable for such a crop, and then establishing the most appropriate species of tree – and this may well be possible by means of deliberate seeding.

Also, remember, that:

  • To register for C credits, you need to prove that you have deliberately managed the land with the aim of establishing a new woody crop, and
  • In many parts of the hill and high country, you will often need a resource consent to establish a large forest crop.
  • There are "start-up" costs involved, in terms of registration, tree measurements, insurance etc. These may be larger than you expect (are any such costs ever smaller?).

Will there be "deforestation" penalties for removing wildings?

Very unlikely. In the new Emission Trading Scheme legislation, forested land by definition must have a canopy of >30% cover. Therefore, most control of weed trees will not constitute "deforestation" because it is carried out on scattered plants which do not have an overall tree crown cover of >30%.

In addition, DOC has argued that the environmental benefit of high-priority weed control outweighs the economic cost to the Crown of deforestation liabilities. By and large, the Government agrees.

All the same, if you are wanting to permanently remove more than 1 ha of wildings where their crowns comprise <30% of the vegetation cover, then it would pay to contact DOC/MAF to obtain the OK beforehand.