Income Stacking
Carbon credits are just one potential income stream from your forest. Smart landowners “stack” multiple revenue sources — carbon, honey, biodiversity, and more — to maximise returns and reduce risk.
What Is Income Stacking?
Income stacking means generating multiple revenue streams from the same land:
- Primary: Carbon credits from ETS registration
- Secondary: Honey production (especially mānuka)
- Emerging: Biodiversity credits
- Other: Tourism, sustainable harvest, ecosystem services
Rather than relying solely on carbon, stacking diversifies income and can significantly improve overall returns.
Mānuka Honey + Carbon
The Opportunity
Mānuka is uniquely positioned for income stacking:
- Native species — no LUC restrictions for carbon registration
- Forest classification — MPI classifies mānuka as a forest species
- High-value honey — mānuka honey commands premium prices
- Carbon credits — eligible for ETS registration
- Biodiversity benefits — supports native fauna
Honey Income Potential
Mānuka honey returns vary significantly based on:
- Location (UMF potential)
- Site conditions
- Hive density
- Market prices
- Management quality
Indicative range: $500-2,000+/ha/year from well-managed sites in good locations.
Carbon Income
As a native forest species, mānuka earns carbon credits through the ETS:
- Permanent category available
- No LUC restrictions
- Lower carbon per hectare than pine, but still valuable
- Long-term income stream
Combined Returns
Example scenario for 100 hectares of established mānuka:
| Income Source | Annual Value |
|---|---|
| Honey revenue | $50,000-150,000 |
| Carbon credits | $20,000-40,000 |
| Combined | $70,000-190,000 |
Actual returns depend heavily on site conditions, management, and markets.
The Tension: Honey vs Carbon
Different Optimal Management
There’s a genuine tension:
For honey production:
- Maintain mānuka monoculture
- Keep trees at optimal flowering stage
- Regular management and access for beekeepers
- May want to prevent succession to taller species
For carbon maximisation:
- Allow natural succession
- Taller, denser forest stores more carbon
- Less management intervention
- Transition to diverse native forest over time
Balancing Act
Options include:
- Honey-focused: Prioritise honey, accept lower carbon
- Carbon-focused: Allow succession, accept reduced honey
- Zoned approach: Different areas for different purposes
- Phased transition: Honey first, then transition to carbon-focused
Native Regeneration Partnerships
The Model
Several commercial partnerships combine native regeneration with multiple income streams:
Example structure:
- Landowner contributes land
- Partner funds development
- Honey and carbon revenue shared
- Professional management included
Birch Hill/Comvita Model
NZX-listed Comvita partnered with MyFarm on mānuka development:
- Land company owns land and funds development
- Comvita manages honey production
- Revenue shared between parties
- Carbon credits add additional value
Biodiversity Credits
Emerging Market
A market for certified biodiversity outcomes is developing:
- Corporate buyers seeking beyond-carbon impact
- Premium pricing for verified biodiversity
- Stacking potential — carbon + biodiversity payments
- Early stage but growing rapidly
What Buyers Want
- Verified species outcomes (bird counts, habitat assessment)
- Native forest, not exotic plantation
- Pest control programmes
- Monitoring and reporting
- Third-party certification
Income Potential
Currently early-stage, but indicative values:
- Premium over carbon alone: 20-50% or more
- Depends on: Verification standards, buyer relationships, site quality
- Transaction costs: Can be high for small areas
Other Stacking Options
Tourism and Recreation
Native forests can support:
- Walking tracks
- Cultural tourism (with appropriate partnership)
- Accommodation (glamping, eco-lodges)
- Photography and film locations
Considerations:
- Requires investment in facilities
- Ongoing management needs
- Insurance and liability
- May conflict with other uses
Sustainable Harvest
Depending on forest type and registration category:
- Mānuka oil — distillation from leaves
- Native seeds — for restoration nurseries
- Rongoā plants — traditional medicine (with cultural protocols)
- Limited timber — under some permanent category rules
Note: Harvest options depend on ETS registration type. Stock change accounting requires unit surrender for any carbon loss.
Ecosystem Services Payments
Some schemes pay for:
- Water quality — catchment protection
- Erosion control — slope stabilisation
- Flood mitigation — wetland and riparian functions
- Pollination services — supporting agricultural production
Often through regional council programmes or catchment schemes.
Practical Implementation
Planning for Stacking
When designing your project:
- Identify all potential income streams for your site
- Understand interactions — where do they complement or conflict?
- Zone if needed — different areas for different purposes
- Design for access — honey requires vehicle access
- Consider timing — different income streams peak at different times
Partner Selection
For honey production, consider:
- Beekeeper reputation and experience
- Revenue-sharing arrangements
- Who provides hives and management?
- Contract terms and exclusivity
- UMF certification arrangements
Verification and Certification
For premium payments (biodiversity, high-quality carbon):
- What standards apply?
- What monitoring is required?
- Who pays for verification?
- Is the premium worth the cost?
Case Study: East Coast Native Regeneration
On the East Coast (Tairāwhiti), Māori landowners have successfully combined:
- Native reforestation of difficult-to-farm land
- Carbon credits through the ETS
- Mānuka honey income
- Fencing programmes funded by carbon
- Intensified farming on remaining land
This integrated approach:
- Generates multiple income streams
- Improves environmental outcomes
- Supports remaining agricultural operations
- Creates long-term asset value
Financial Comparison
Single-Income Approach
100 hectares of radiata pine (carbon only):
| Year | Income | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1-5 | Minimal | Establishment phase |
| 6-16 | $30,000-50,000/year | Carbon credits to averaging |
| 17+ | Minimal carbon | Timber at harvest |
Stacked Approach
100 hectares of mānuka (carbon + honey):
| Year | Income | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1-5 | $10,000-30,000/year | Early honey, some carbon |
| 6-15 | $70,000-150,000/year | Peak honey + carbon |
| 15+ | $40,000-80,000/year | Reduced honey, ongoing carbon |
Note: These are illustrative only. Actual returns depend on site conditions, management quality, and market prices.
Risks and Considerations
Market Risk
Multiple income streams mean multiple market exposures:
- Carbon prices fluctuate
- Honey prices are volatile
- Biodiversity markets are nascent
- Tourism demand varies
Management Complexity
Stacking requires:
- More expertise (forestry, apiculture, etc.)
- More relationships (carbon, honey, biodiversity buyers)
- More administration
- Potentially conflicting objectives
Site Suitability
Not every site suits every income stream:
- Mānuka honey requires suitable climate and UMF potential
- Biodiversity requires appropriate species composition
- Tourism requires access and attractions
- Some streams suit certain locations better than others
Key Takeaways
- Don’t rely on carbon alone — stacking improves returns and reduces risk
- Mānuka is uniquely positioned — both forest and honey value
- Biodiversity credits are emerging — position for future opportunity
- Understand the trade-offs — different objectives may conflict
- Professional management helps — complex arrangements benefit from expertise
- Site suitability matters — not every income stream suits every site