10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
What impact will the almost 13,000 hectares of deforestation in the year to March 2006 have on climate change, and how does this compare to previous years?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
Some time ago I received the 2006 Deforestation Intentions Survey, which has long been available on the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry website. I am advised that the deforestation that occurs this year will have only minimal effect on New Zealand’s emissions during the first Kyoto period, from 2008 to 2012.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why will the Minister not just come clean and admit that in every year since Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry records began in 1951 New Zealand’s forest estate has grown, until 2002, and that after his Government decided to nationalise those credits, a chainsaw massacre of over 8 million trees has unfolded in New Zealand, amounting to additional carbon emissions of 25 million tonnes; and, if this Government is not responsible for this environmental disaster, who is?
I am advised that many factors influence forestry planting, not the least of them being tax treatment and the international price of pulp at the time of planting.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
Do we have more forest cover in New Zealand now than existed at the change of Government, or do we have less?
That is a good question. We have more. We have more forestry in New Zealand now than we had in 1999. One would not think so, listening to the endless litany and chainsaw massacre language coming from the opposite side of the House, but, yes, we have 69,000 hectares more than we had at the change of Government. That is more, not less.
R Doug WoolertonDoes the Minister agree with New Zealand First’s continued calls for incentives to plant more trees in order to assist soaking up carbon emissions; if not, why not?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can the Minister give a simple yes or no answer as to whether, if I or others were to plant a commercial forest of trees like this seedling, they will be eligible for the carbon credits, noting that the annual planting season for trees is in June, July, and August?
Under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, yes, the member will be eligible for credits. What is more, to the best of my knowledge, the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative in New Zealand is the only scheme to—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a very important issue for foresters and I quite explicitly asked the Minister about the planting of commercial forests. The Minister immediately changed my question and referred to permanent forests. I ask whether he could he make the situation plain for the planting of commercial forests.
Madam SPEAKERLet me start again. Under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, yes. To the best of my knowledge the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is the only scheme that gives Kyoto Protocol forestry credits to landowners anywhere in the world. That is my understanding. Then the question is what would happen if the member wanted to chop the tree down again. The answer to that is: it depends on whether the member wants to chop down a little bit of tree or a lot, because if one wants to clear-fell, then it ain’t permanent, but if one wants to harvest sustainably, then it is.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note that after I raised my point of order the Minister assured the House that he would clarify the position in respect of commercial forest plantings. It really is important that he does that because there are thousands of nurserymen and forest planters who want to know whether, by planting commercial forests, they will be eligible for the carbon credits.
Everyone on this side of the House gets the answer, but let me try again. If the member wants to plant a tree or a whole lot of trees and then chop them all down, that is not a permanent forest, so the member will not get a credit under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. If, on the other hand, the member wants to produce a forest that he then manages sustainably decades on, according to the rules of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, then, yes, he can chop the tree down and he can sell it. It is, therefore, commercial.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does the Minister agree that the forest credits New Zealand might earn internationally for those 69,000 extra hectares, which some claim are a property right of those who have planted since 1990, will not exist at all if rapid deforestation of older forests is allowed to continue; and does he then further agree that it would be sensible to use some of the value of any forest credits we do earn to provide a replanting incentive for those older forests?
It is astonishing just how large the range of expertise in this House is on this matter. The member is right on both counts. If we deforest enough of pre-1990 forests, we do not have any Kyoto forests. That is why the National Party’s idea of having no cap on deforestation is not a very good idea—like having a “cap and trade” policy, but no cap. Furthermore, the incentives idea, which is the same issue raised by New Zealand First, is under active consideration by this Government.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can the Minister excuse the appalling deforestation figures of 5,000 hectares in 2004, 11,000 hectares in 2005, and 13,000 hectares in 2006 on the basis of international commodity prices beyond the control of the Government when, in the same 3 years, Australia has increased its forest area by over 200,000 hectares; and do these figures not make a mockery of this Government’s criticisms of Australia’s climate change policies, given how important forestry is in the climate change balance?
Let me refer the member to a New Zealand Herald article of just last month, in which a big bank—the member can look it up and find out which one—is looking to put into New Zealand $275 million to help landowners branch out with the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. That is to say, it is afforesting New Zealand land that seriously needs afforestation. In the view of the journalist who wrote the article, it stated: “Under that scheme the Government will pay internationally tradeable carbon credits to landowners who establish permanent forests on marginal, erosion-prone land. As well as combating global warming it has local benefits: less silt in waterways, less risk of flooding downstream and more places for birds to live.” This is the only such scheme in the world, and the member should start acknowledging it.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave to table the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s official figures on forestry, showing the loss of 8 million trees under this current Government.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I note that the Minister of Forestry said that the figures had already been tabled. These figures were released only during the adjournment period and could not have been tabled during that period. So I again seek leave to table them.