Kyoto and forests: Opinion piece
Support for timber
Growing Short rotation Energy Crops: The potential
explored
Woodwatch
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) update - Forestry
Nectria update
Freshwater quality
Ban on treated wood
Comment on forestry and climate change
President
Patrick
Milne patrick@cypress.co.nz
-Nelson
-Marlborough
-North Canterbury
-Central canterbury
-West Coast
Vice President
John Dermer dermer@inspire.net.nz
-Middle districts
-Tararua
-Waikato
-Wairarapa
-Wellington
Newsletter
editor
Dean Satchell
dsatch@gmail.com
National Executive
Denis Hocking jdhocking@xtra.co.nz
-Waitomo
-Taupo & Districts
-Hawkes Bay
-Taranaki
Ian Jackson ijacko@xtra.co.nz
-Ashburton
-South Canterbury
-North Otago
-Sthn High Country (north)
Neil Cullen cullen@farmside.co.nz
-Mid Otago
-South Otago
-Southland
-Men of Trees
-Sthn High Country (south)
Dean Satchell dsatch@gmail.com
-Far North
-Mid North
-Lower North
-South Auckland |
Notices
Constitutional
Changes:
Changes have been enacted to establish NZ Farm Forestry Assn. as a
registered charity. This will allow FFA to receive donations
without GST or grants which include GST, for research, etc.
Branches can be brought into the charity structure, but it is
suggested useful only if they are likely to pay tax, otherwise a
lot of effort is required listing lots of people, submitting accounts,
etc. for little gain.
Sustainable Farming Fund
The next SFF funding round is now open. Branches/action groups
please contact your executive with ideas/proposals. Applications
for larger grants (>$20,000) close in October, and small grants
(<$20,000) on February next year.
Marketplace
Our very own marketplace
is online, for buying and selling anything farm forestry related, from
tree seedlings to timber. Use it or lose it!
Website
The NZFFA website has gone through a major overhaul and the Farm
Forestry Model section is now up and running. Click on the "Farm
Forestry Model" link from the main
page.
Branches
There is an events
section
of the website. Please can branch newsletter editors make sure that Head Office is on
their mailing lists, and check to see whether their field trips are
there on the website.
Also, Countrywide should be
notified of branch events. Call Liz Pither on 0800 852 580.
Kyoto and forests: Opinion piece
Recently,
Climate Change Minister Nick
Smith announced new data showing that New Zealand has sufficient
forests to offset increases in emissions since 1990. At about the same
time,
a European buyer
purchased approximately 520,000 forestry AAUs from the New Zealand
forestry company, Ernslaw One Limited. This was the world's largest
transaction to date involving a purchase and sale of forestry AAUs.
This all got me thinking. I'm wondering if somebody could explain to me
how these
forests Dr Smith is referring to could be used as offsets for the
countries
emissions liabilities, when the carbon is owned privately, mostly by
forest companies. Ernslaw One's
managing director Thomas Song says that the deal "proves the viability
of carbon as an export for New Zealand forest owners". But what I see
is
Earnslaw selling the right to change land use on a chunk
of NZ for a one-off easy wad of cash. Our forefathers worked really
hard clearing N.Z.'s forests, giving the country the opportunity for
forest
carbon sequestration to help the taxpayer furnish the burden of their
emission reductions. This should be a public property, not something
for land owners to sell abroad and add as a speculative value to any
land which can be put into forest.
I'm not so sure that "exporting carbon"
will
benefit anyone except those doing the deals. I fear the
ramifications will be
with us for much longer than Earnslaw, who are clearly not doing this
for the
atmosphere.
Anyway, on to emission targets, we've
all had the opportunity recently to have our say on NZ's 2020
emissions target policy. I hear the minister bemoaning a 40% cut
in emissions, saying this will cost us each $3,000 a year- yet at the
recent Wood
Energy Summit
Don Roberts of CIBC Canada said “You need a price of US$60-70 a barrel
[of oil] to make bioenergy pay”. So does this mean New Zealand could
be on the road to a carbon-neutral forest-fuelled economy simply by
setting the
price of carbon
for >$65 a barrel? Is renewable energy really so
painful and unpalatable for a demanding public, for Nick Smith to have
weakened our comittment to as little as 10% reductions from 1990 levels?
Peter Berg, president of the Forest Owners
Association quotes Infometrics figures which "suggest that to achieve
even a modest commitment of 20% below 1990 levels requires a carbon
price of more than $200 a tonne". In the gold rush for forest credits,
maybe us foresters are forgetting that what dictates the price of
carbon is not
just the
level of the emissions cap, but also the price of renewable energy- in
particular the marginal cost of renewables over fossil fuels. Remember
folks,
this was
actually all supposed to be about energy...
So
why is everyone
forgetting about renewable energy, preferring the proverbial sand in
which to place their heads? Why has there been no study on the
cost margins of
a lowest cost renewables mix in N.Z and the impact on the economy under
emissions targets? What is
the cost to the taxpayer of balancing our carbon books simply with
lowest cost
renewables, especially wood energy, now that I assume the taxpayer gets
little
benefit from forest sequestration? How much wood waste is available
and what would
be the real cost to
our economy to utilise this waste and reduce emissions? I've heard
recently that the convergence
of world markets for fibre, fuel and food is triggering worldwide
changes in land use patterns, and will lead to major changes within the
forest products sector. So shouldn't the value of wood mean
a little more to us than the dubious (I'd call spurious) payout for
forest carbon?
Shouldn't the direction our forestry industry heads in be a bit more
oriented towards wood production for all uses and markets, including
energy, ahead of selling off land-use rights?
Keep
in mind that with New Zealand tracking on "business as usual",
emissions will be 40% above 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore surely our
response
to emissions should reflect its grave and serious nature. Yet I hear
Catherine Beard,
executive
director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, saying "Short of shooting
livestock and exporting people, our
business as
usual emissions growth to 2020 could be another 20%". Maybe she, like
Nick Smith,
has
not given any thought to the marginal cost of renewable energy. The
Government appears to have relied on
macro-economic analysis of emissions prices without analysing
opportunities. At least the Greens have taken a peek at how much of a 40%
greenhouse gas reduction target we could meet in NZ at low cost.
With
forest companies "exporting our carbon", looks like we're stuck with
forestry as a compulsory and increasing land use- so maybe we should
give more
thought to a
wood energy economy. Freighting logs by sea to Asia will incur an ever
increasing "carbon" cost, while demand for woody biomass for energy can
only improve in a carbon constrained economy... so do we have enough
trees?
Your opinions please.
Dean Satchell
(top)
Support for timber
from NZIF
Newsletter 2009-29 (31 Jul 09)
It was good to see the MAF media release last Friday headed “Timber is
tops for environmentally friendly buildings”. The statement accompanied
the release of a Canterbury University / Scion / Victoria University of
Wellington report “Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings
Using Different Construction Techniques”, which is available at www.maf.govt.nz/forestry/publications.
The study looked at life-cycle energy use and CO2 equivalent emissions
of four similar office building designs that used different materials
as their main structural element: concrete, steel, timber and “timber
plus” (in which maximum use was made of timber, not just for the
structure, but also for architectural features such as exterior
cladding, windows and ceilings).
The steel building had the highest net environmental impact, producing
6,789 tonnes CO2 equivalent, the concrete building produced 2.5% less
emissions (6,627 tonnes), the timber one 20% less emissions than steel
(5,454 tonnes), while the timber plus building produced only 4,571
tonnes (33% less than those produced by the steel building).
While the conclusions are not surprising to many of us in the forestry
sector, it is great to see our intuition confirmed and quantified and
is an excellent addition to the arsenal needed to defend our product.
There is some interesting material in the report. This includes a
discussion on whether or not the NZ Green Building Council Green Star
office rating tool captures the full environmental impacts of energy
consumption and global warming potential and if the tool recognises the
benefits of reutilising all materials. There is also discussion on
reutilising or disposing of treated timber at the end of the life of a
timber building.
Andrew McEwen,
President NZIF
(top)
Growing Short rotation Energy Crops: The potential
explored
Taupo plays host to a conference organised by the International Energy
Agency (IEA) Bioenergy Task 30 organisation this December to examine
the potential of short rotation crops (SRC) as a source of future
energy supplies.
Promoted under the banner, “Short Rotation Crops: Linking technology
and biomass,” the conference has attracted high profile international
speakers who will provide an overview of current knowledge in the area
of SRC and country-specific case studies. Two companies with strong New
Zealand connections – Crown Research Institute, Scion, and Pure
Power Global, a renewable resources company – will be supporting
the IEA host and manage the three day event.
New Zealand – and Taupo in particular – is an entirely appropriate
place for the discussion to take place. The climate and soils of New
Zealand provide many opportunities for producing biomass for energy.
While forest residues play a significant part of current energy
production, there are many other potential sources of dedicated energy
crops. Opportunities include willow, eucalypts, switch grass and other
woody and lignocellulosic species that have the added benefit of not
competing with food crops.
Along with providing a background to current and emerging SRC, the
primary conference theme will explore the technologies essential to
creating a viable system. These include processes for converting SRC
into energy for heat or biofuels, efficient harvesting systems and
tools for land use optimisation. Another key aspect to be covered is
establishing pathways to market. The event will conclude with a field
trip to current SRC operations in the Taupo region.
Conference organiser and Scion scientist Ian Nicholas says delegates
will gain a greater appreciation of the international and domestic
knowledge on potential SRC, potential energy pathways and the role of
technology. He says the conference will be of interest to land owners
and managers, government agencies, bioenergy suppliers and investors,
and scientists and researchers in the field of bioenergy.
Pure Power Global plantation manager, Kevin Snowdon, describes
the timing as opportune. “New-generation lignocellulosic conversion
processes represent a set of disruptive technologies that are now ready
for deployment across a broad spectrum of feedstock resources in
plantation forests in North America, South America, Asia and New
Zealand.”
The conference runs from 2 to 4 December, with a pre-conference meeting
for IEA Bioenergy Task 30 members on 1 December. Registrations are now
open with an early bird discount available until 31 August 2009.
Details and a registration form can be downloaded at www.shortrotationcrops.org/events.htm.
(top)
Woodwatch
Woodwatch
is the NZ Wood industry news page
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) update - Forestry
- Forestry remains actively in the ETS.
- The obligation to surrender emissions units to meet
deforestation liabilities from 1 January 2008 remains unchanged.
However, there is a delay in the date by which emissions units have to
be surrendered in order to meet deforestation obligations - along with
changes to certain notification requirements.
- For pre-1990 forest
land, on 30 June 2009 the Government amended the Climate Change
Response Act 2002 (CCRA) as follows:
- the notification deadline for deforestation of
pre-1990 forest land that occurred during 2008 and 2009 has been
deferred from 31 January 2009 to 31 January 2010;
- participants will not be penalised for failing to
notify deforestation of pre-1990 forests by the old deadline (31
January, 2009), provided the participant notifies by 31 January 2010;
- participants who deforested pre-1990 forest land
during 2008 or 2009 are still obliged to file an emissions return
quantifying their deforestation liability, between 1 January and 31
March 2010 (there has been no change to these dates);
- the deadline for surrendering emissions units to meet
deforestation liabilities reported in an emissions return has been
deferred from 30 April 2010 to 30 April 2011. Participants may chose to
surrender emissions units to meet their deforestation liabilities
anytime between 1 January 2011 and 30 April 2011;
- the 30 June 2009 deadline for applications for a less
than 50 hectare exemption has been revoked. A new deadline, no later
than 1 July 2010, will be prescribed by regulation or public notice;
- For post-1989 forest
land
the Government made no changes to the CCRA. Applications may still be
made at any time to voluntarily register post-1989 forest land in the
ETS. Registered ETS participants remain entitled to receive New Zealand
Units (NZUs) for increases in net carbon stocks from 1 January 2008.
For more information call 0800 CLIMATE or visit www.maf.govt.nz/sustainable-forestry
(top)
Nectria update
Pruned stub infection trial - March 2009 assessments
L. S. Bulman, Scion, May 2009
- Fluting incidence is related to stub size.
- Stubs smaller than 60 mm seldom lead to serious
Nectria damage.
- Winter pruning results in more infection than summer
pruning.
- Inoculation immediately after pruning results in
increased infection.
- Flute development is slow and fruit bodies take at
least 9 months to develop after treatment.
The most significant results from the trial, from a management
perspective, are that it appears that only large stubs are associated
with disease. Limiting branch stub size to less than 60 mm and avoiding
pruning operations in winter should significantly reduce levels of
Nectria disease.
(top)
Freshwater quality
Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith recently released two
new reports on freshwater quality, one of them a baseline
study
on at water quality in dairy farming catchments. "There is a
significant water quality issue emerging in areas of intensive farming,
particularly dairying… It is no surprise that the report identifies
degraded water quality in these areas and reinforces the need for
further Government initiatives."
(top)
Ban on treated wood
The
USDA National Organic Programme is banning any further use of
preservative treated wood, especially copper-chrome-arsenate treated
(tanalised) wood after July next year. Organic growers wanting to
export certified organic produce to the United States will not be able
to use any more treated wood, though existing structures can
remain. This will even include fence posts in the boundary fences.
Farm foresters may well find organic farmers approaching them for
either supplies of ground durable timber, or advice on what to
grow. However it is doubtful that there will be enough ground
durable timber to fill even this niche market and it seems likely that
there will be increased use of steel, concrete, plastic and even
aluminium. However this may be a market worth catering for and
could be an indicator of things to come.
Denis Hocking
(top)
Comment on forestry and climate change
This link
is to some excellent comments on forestry and climate change prepared
for the
Royal Society by Euan Mason and David Evison.
(top)
|
Farm Forestry New Zealand
NZFFA on facebook |