ETS changes a start, but greater buy-in is needed
NZ FOREST OWNERS ASSOCIATION
MEDIA RELEASE
14
September 2009
ETS changes a start, but greater buy-in is needed, say forest owners
Forest
owners say the proposed changes to the emission trading
scheme (ETS) will give investors increased confidence in the
potential of carbon farming in New Zealand.
“The
measures announced by the government not only address Maori
Party concerns. They also reflect some important aspects of
Labour Party policy,” says NZ Forest Owners Association
chief executive David Rhodes.
“We welcome the
fact that National and Labour are continuing their weekly
discussions and are hopeful that a grand coalition on ETS
policy can be achieved. All the major parties recognise that
policy certainty is essential for a long-term investment
like forestry.”
Overall little has changed for
forestry from the situation that existed a year ago. The
association is pleased that the government has not
entertained unhelpful suggestions that owners of Kyoto
forests be prevented from continuing to trade credits on
international carbon markets and be subject to a price cap.
As a result, forest owners will have a credible carbon
price signal.
“Using taxpayer subsidies to
cushion households and energy-intensive industries,
including wood processors, on the basis that it is in the
national interest, is far more appropriate than asking
forest owners to pay. If this had happened there would have
been no carbon market, because forest owners would not have
been trading anything,” Mr Rhodes says.
“We
agree there can be benefits from ultimately linking with
Australia, but not everything that Australia proposes is
clever for us. It would be a backward step for example to
retreat from operating in a world market to just an
Australasian market. With New Zealand policy lining up with
ETS developments elsewhere in the world it may be more
appropriate for Australia to harmonise with us, rather than
the other way round.”
He says the taxpayer
through the government will have to wear the cost of a
greater level of protection proposed for emitters, but the
important thing is that a price signal will be established
and this will start to drive appropriate changes in the
economy. Agriculture has received the greatest level of
protection with its entry deferred by a further two years.
This will be something of a dampener to forestry expansion
in the short-term due to the maintenance of unrealistic land
prices, but forward-looking farm managers will start to plan
for being in the ETS.
Other self-funding policy
changes are needed to make carbon forestry an attractive
proposition, he says. These are still being considered by
officials.
A carbon price and yield averaging
scheme, for example, would give a land owner a regular
income from carbon during the life of a forest on the
condition that the forest was replanted at harvest. This
would be very attractive to owners of smaller blocks
suitable for carbon forestry.
Mr Rhodes says the
government’s decisions do not change the position of
pre-1990 forest owners. They will still get limited
compensation for not being able to convert their land to a
more productive use without paying a very substantial
deforestation tax.
“To further assist pre-1990
forest owners, the government and industry have been doing
their best to get support in the current Kyoto negotiations
for offsetting – replanting elsewhere following harvest
– but this is an issue that is unique to New Zealand and
it might be an uphill struggle getting it accepted,” he
says.
“But as time goes by, our pre-Kyoto forests
will become more and more of an anomaly. Not only can they
not earn carbon credits, but their carbon liability is
permanent and the logs they are reliant on for income will
increasingly have to compete for markets with logs grown for
carbon.
“As the parliamentary select committee
enquiry into the ETS points out, investors with stranded
assets such as pre-1990 forests should be properly
compensated both because of the need to be fair, as well as
to protect New Zealand’s reputation as a safe place to
invest.”
[ends]