ETS Forestry Package Consultation: Permanent forests Public Information Sessions 31 August to 14 September 2018
ETS treatment of permanent forests Overview: Why do we need permanent forests Does the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative (PFSI) meet this need Key design features for the new policy to be determined 1
Permanent forests: long term mitigation Different forest species have different sequestration rates and total carbon stock The graph is an example only 2
Non-carbon benefits from permanent forest Erosion control Regulating water flows Biodiversity Adaptation for climate events 3
Current Policy: PFSI Introduced in 2007 using the Forest Act 1949, before the ETS Land owners can reconsider participation after 50 years Each uses a unique covenant on the land title: o Describes the forest that can get carbon credits o Details how the carbon stock change is calculated o Discusses what can be done on the land and to the forest Units issued to a PFSI forest can be tracked back to that forest Land owner can harvest 20% basal area 4
Does the PFSI encourage permanent forest? The cost of registering land in the PFSI is around $5000 higher than the same area in the ETS. Two previous consultations on PFSI: both supportive of the permanent forests moving into the ETS. 5
Detailed design decisions Discussion document presents 11 detailed design questions. Today we will focus on: o How units will be earned, and how permanent post-1989 forest will be treated in the ETS (design questions 1 -2) o Whether a covenant is needed (design question 5) o The restrictions on harvest: how we define this, and how can it work (design question 3-4) o Moving post-1989 (P89) forest into permanent post-1989 (PP89) (design question 9-11) o What happens after the restrictions end (design question 7) 6
Earning units and treatment in the ETS Majority of ETS treatment the same as P89, inc FMA. Two options for earning Pine Average units: o Averaging or o Stock change (preferred) We recognise the need to reconsider the default yield tables. 7
Whether a covenant is needed? No clear view from previous consultations: some support for an optional covenant or did not support one o Covenants significantly increase administrative complexity and cost for land owners and the Crown. o As covenants endure so does the administrative complexity, and may act as a barrier to land owner flexibility. 50% of PFSI land is covenanted with another organisation 8
The restrictions on harvest Key difference between P89 and PP89 is PP89 will not be able to be clear fell harvested for 50 years o The participant must maintain the land in forest and forest species for the 50 years i.e. 30% canopy cover and 5m tall o Will allow ability to remove some trees either to promote forest growth/management and/or use of the trees o Controls remain in place while forest is a permanent post-1989 forest in the ETS Please note we are also asking for views on the 50 year period o 50 years is the current term for the PFSI Simplifies access for Māori land o 9
Moving into permanent post-1989 Outside the ETS: o The participant earn units back to the start of the MERP the forest is registered in If first rotation and registered in the ETS: o The participant earn units back to the start of the MERP the forest is registered in (and does not need to repay any units earned as P89) If second rotation (or later) and registered in the ETS o Policy decision if carbon stock is between the minimum and the average: - Repay units between current stock and average (preferred) - Do not earn units until the average is reached 1 0
What happens after restrictions end? 50 years After the 50 years Area of Register Change forest as P89 to a P89 outside Repay ETS down to P89 may the register as PP89 average Prior to Repay Area of registering Register all units PP89 forest as PP89 forest outside the ETS Sign up 11 again
Recommend
More recommend
