The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative (PFSI) was announced jointly by the then Minister
Responsible for Climate Change Issues David Parker and the Minister of Forestry Jim Anderton in August 2006 (New Zealand Government, 2006). The Initiative was heralded by Minister Anderton who was quoted in a government press release as stating:
‘New Zealand land managers now have access to a radically new business opportunity from which to generate income-carbon farming...The PFSI provides an important new opportunity for land managers to protect vulnerable land, while still generating an economic return from it. Consequently, we expect regional authorities will be particularly interested in how the PFSI can help them respond to the risks of adverse weather events’ (New Zealand Government, 2006, n.p.).
In arguing the case for the initiative explicit reference was made by David Parker to the storms that had impacted on the North Island. The press release reported as follows:
David Parker said climate change was expected to increase both the frequency and intensity of storms. ‘The recent storms and serious erosion of hill country around New Zealand have highlighted the need for better protection of our hill country and the rivers and lowlands into which it drains... We are also satisfied that it has significant potential benefits, not only for climate change, but also for the environment and the economy’ (New Zealand Government, 2006, n.p.).
Under the initiative, landowners who establish new and maintain closed-canopy forests will receive tradable, Kyoto Protocol compliant emission units equivalent to the increased CO2 stored in the forest for the period between 2008 and 2012 (the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol).
Late in 2006, MAF initiated a consultation process for the development of a plan of action for sustainable land management and climate change (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2006b). The Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change (SLMCC) Plan of Action was
announced in September 2007 and emphasised ‘A Partnership Approach’ that would involve
‘the government and land management sectors working together to respond to climate change’ (New Zealand Government, 2007a, p. 4). The development of the Plan of Action coincided with a policy shift by the government of the day into sustainability. The emergence of this
sustainability agenda is expanded upon in the next section of this chapter.
As part of the Plan of Action a range of central government initiatives targeting land management and climate change were announced, including a proposed Emissions Trading Scheme, with funding of $175 million committed over the next five years. The Afforestation Grant Scheme (AGS) was another initiative, for which $50 million was allocated. Introduced in 2007 and administered by MAF the AGS aims, as with the PFSI, to increase the area of Kyoto compliant new forests planted in New Zealand (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2009b). In a speech announcing the Emissions Trading Scheme on 22 September 2007, Jim Anderton applauded his and the Labour-led Government’s efforts in SLM and made clear the linkages between the AGS and other central government initiatives:
This $50 million in new funding comes on top of the $10m announced in the Budget for hill country erosion. It is also on top of the existing East Coast Forestry Project and Permanent Forest Sinks Initiative. After funding for sustainable land management was cancelled in the mid 1990s, we now have a comprehensive package of measures to
rebuild capacity to address New Zealand’s land management challenges (New Zealand Government, 2007b, n.p.).
Landowners were able to receive a grant from the government to establish a new forest on land that was not in forest at 31 December 1989 (i.e. compliant with the Kyoto protocol for which New Zealand is a signatory). The carbon credits generated over a ten-year period by the forest will be retained by central government, while ownership of the forests is retained by the landowner (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2009b). Priority would be given to grant applications that involve the planting of forests on land that is classified by MAF as at high risk of soil erosion (according to a national soil erosion risk model), will contribute to improved water quality, and involve the planting of predominantly indigenous forest species (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2009b). Land that is not eligible for a grant includes that which is already included in the Emissions Trading Scheme, ECFP or the PFSI. Land included within a scheme funded by the SLM-HCE fund is not ineligible for funding under the AGS. Ten regional councils have existing schemes that are consistent with the criteria specified within the AGS and are therefore eligible for funding, including Manawatu-Whanganui regional council’s SLUI,
which was the ‘inaugural recipient’ from the scheme (Mitchell, 2009b). In 2009 the regional council received approval for 296.4 ha at a rate of $2400/ ha or a total of $711,360 and pre- approval for 384.8 hectares in 2009-10 or an approximate $923,520 (Mitchell, 2009b).
Following a review by the new National Government in 2009 funding for the AGS was reduced to $38 million with immediate effect on the 2008-2009 fund allocation (Mitchell, 2009b).
The AGS and the PFSI are said to complement the ETS (New Zealand Government, 2007a). The Forestry sector was to come under the scheme in 2008, whereas agriculture, was not required to enter until 1 January 2013 (New Zealand Government, 2007a). The National
Government elected in November 2008 have since revised the ETS and agriculture now will not be required to enter the scheme until 1 January 2015 (New Zealand Government, n.d.).
As alluded to earlier in this section, climate change issues were also at the heart of a major policy shift by the Labour Progressive Government in 2007 that placed front and centre the issue of sustainability. This shift in central government policy did not have a direct influence on the management of HEHC on farm land, but it did provide added impetus to climate change work with implications for the management of this land, it also played to the strengths of MAF and helped consolidate their role in the environmental policy area with MfE.