This package would first and foremost provide new jobs (or help retain existing ones) and stimulate the economy in a helpful way. It would also start to address some of the pressing environmental problems that we face, including climate change, and would also reduce social inequalities. It exemplifies classic 'green thinking' in that it provides win-win solutions.
This package includes measures in:
- Forestry
- Animal pest control
- Wilding conifer eradication
This package proposes spending $474.5 million over a ten year period. This spending would produce 25,385 FTE direct job-years and a total of 50,445 FTE job-years altogether. This spending would also sequester almost 34 million tonnes of carbon, and bring many other substantial environmental benefits.
This package is even more "jobs-rich" than our initial stimulus package.
Some of the greatest benefits, both in employment and in carbon storage would be realised further into the future than ten years, at little marginal cost. No attempt has been made to count these benefits and costs.
Where possible we have costed measures and indicated their likely impacts for jobs and the economy, as well as their contribution to the environment and to social goals, including the reduction of inequalities. In other areas this degree of analysis is not yet possible, but we have indicated directions for further analysis and investigation.
Except where otherwise stated, the projects set out in this package are ready for immediate implementation.
Unemployment is higher than average in the Gisborne/Hawke's Bay, Northland and Bay of Plenty regions, including a very high 10% in Gisborne/Hawke's Bay. Pockets of significant unemployment also exist in other rural areas. The proposals in this package have potential for significant employment in forestry and pest control in these regions, which contain a lot of eroding farmland suitable for forest, as well as native forests with both accessible pest populations and good hut and track networks to aid control work. In general, while the numbers of people out of work in rural areas are smaller than those in urban settings, the effect of unemployment in rural areas can undermine whole communities, by reducing the customer base of other businesses and forcing people to leave to seek work. In our original Green Stimulus Package most of the measures we proposed were suitable mainly for urban areas. The measures in this package, along with the waterway fencing and riparian planting initiatives in the first Green Stimulus Package, show that it is possible to apply Green New Deal thinking in rural areas too.
What are the limitations of this package?
When preparing its budget and costing policy the Government has access to a range of economic planning tools by virtue of being Government. The Green Party does not have this access. While we have used all means at our disposal to estimate the cost of the measures that we propose, and the number of jobs that we expect to create, these are approximations, as are any estimates of flow-on effects for the economy. We would expect that, if Government agreed to take up any of these measures, the Green Party would gain access to officials and other economic analysis resources to arrive at even more accurate assessments of the costs and benefits of these initiatives.
The data used in this package is drawn or derived from various sources, and work continues to ensure its integrity.
Standard multipliers are used to estimate flow-on jobs from direct jobs. Jobs are expressed are quantified as FTE job-years throughout. One FTE job-year is one full-time equivalent job for one year.
This Green New Deal package proposes initiatives to stimulate the planting of approximately 665,000 hectares of new forest in the next 10 years. This would create 36,000 full-time equivalent job-years over that period. It would also result in a massive 27 million tonnes CO2e being sequestered by 2020, and much more beyond. Most of this potential could be realised without direct government expenditure, and any spending required will generally be recovered over time in carbon value.
Below is a summary of what we're proposing for forestry. If you want more in-depth analysis, read the full Green New Deal package.
Giving investment certainty to the forestry industry
The greatest obstacle to the growth of the forestry industry is the uncertainty over New Zealand's response to climate change, which continues to fuel an artificial increase in rural land values, distorting land use decisions. It is clear that substantial new forestry planting would take place if there were more certainty around the price of carbon and the structure of the market in New Zealand. This planting would create long-term employment and help with New Zealand's Kyoto obligations.
Planting needs to occur now in order to help smooth the anticipated spike in deforestation emissions due in the early 2020s and beyond. There is an opportunity for government to intervene at very low cost to create jobs and the forest planting we need, without interfering with the operation of the market, or subsidising the cost of planting. This could be achieved by providing a floor price for the value of carbon for new planting, charging a very modest premium to foresters for this security.
What area would be afforested? | 280,000 hectares over 10 years |
What forest types are expected? | A mix of fast and slower growing plantation exotics, with a little indigenous |
How much carbon could this capture? | 11.8 million tonnes CO2e over 10 years |
How much would it cost? | No cost. The Government carries it as contingent liability. |
How many jobs could we expect this to create? | Direct jobs estimated at 7700 FTE years over 10 years Indirect jobs of an additional 7700 FTE years over 10 years Total jobs of 15,400 FTE years over ten years |
Will it produce any savings (increased efficiency, redirected spending etc)? |
|
What flow-on economic impacts would this have? |
|
How quickly could it start? | Immediately, but calculations assume a 2 year ramp up to full planting rates |
Farm-forestry for more and diverse forests on farmland
There is vast potential for farm-forestry to benefit farmers, rural communities and the environment. While most commercial forestry would be driven by the private sector if the carbon price was secure, farmers and other smaller landholders do not find it easy to engage directly in the carbon market, and instead prefer a financial arrangement with the Government. Providing this opportunity is the intention behind the Afforestation Grants Scheme (AGS) announced in 2007. In basic terms, the Government contributes financially to the costs of planting new forest, and in return keeps the carbon credits generated during the agreement period. The landowner owns the new forest and can earn income from the timber. This proposal would restore the funding cut in the recent Budget and increase it to $20m a year over time. It would also strengthen the agreement to ensure longer carbon benefit and more diverse forests.
What area would be afforested? | 25,000 hectares over ten years (additional to status quo) Total AGS Afforestation would be 72,000 hectares over ten years |
What forest types are expected? | 40% indigenous species 40% exotic hardwood (long-rotation) species 20% exotic softwoods (short-rotation) species Part permanent and part harvested (beyond 10 year timeframe) |
How much carbon could this capture? | 1.4 million tonnes CO2e over 10 years |
How much would it cost? | $100 million additional funding over ten years (total AGS spend of $172 million) These funds are offset by carbon returns over time |
How many jobs could we expect this to create? | Direct jobs estimated at 685 FTE years over 10 years (0.05FTE/ha) Indirect jobs of an additional 685 FTE years over 10 years (1x multiplier) Total jobs of 1370 FTE years |
Will it produce any savings (increased efficiency, redirected spending etc)? |
|
What flow-on economic impacts would this have? |
|
How quickly could it start? | Immediately, but calculations assume a 4 year ramp up to full funding |
Permanent forestry for protecting carbon and the environment
The Permanent Forest Sinks Initiative (PFSI) was also established by the Government in 2007. It is a powerful mechanism that meets the highest international standards for carbon sequestration forest and creates long term native and exotic forests that have the additional benefits that come with permanence, age and maturity. PFSI forests are secured by a covenant registered on the land title, in perpetuity, with strict harvesting restrictions, no clear-felling for 99 years and a 50 year exit opportunity. The Government contribution to PFSI forests is in the form of Kyoto credits (AAUs), which the permanent forest owner accumulates as the forest captures carbon and which can be sold in the Kyoto market. Because it is for permanent forest it has a good environmental reputation, and credits from PFSI forests are currently attracting a premium on the carbon market. Credits from PFSI forests are described by one industry insider as "NZ Gold Standard" forestry credits. In the two years since the scheme began, approximately 6000 hectares has been covenanted and a further 6000 hectares is in the pipeline. However, a number of rules disincentivise investment in permanent forests, and this proposal suggests changes that would kick-start the PFSI, potentially tripling the area covenanted each year.
What area would be afforested? | 60,000 hectares over 10 years (additional) |
What forest types are expected? | 50% indigenous species (regeneration) 50% diverse exotic species (plantings and mid-rotation covenants) |
How much carbon could this capture? | 2.6 million tonnes CO2e over 10 years |
How much would it cost? | No cost to the Government for new forest Reduction in AAUs available for mid-rotation covenants (not quantified) |
How many jobs could we expect this to create? | Direct jobs estimated at 1650 FTE years over 10 years (0.05FTE/ha) Indirect jobs of an additional 1650 FTE years over 10 years (1x multiplier) Total jobs of 3300 FTE years |
Will it produce any savings (increased efficiency, redirected spending etc)? |
|
What flow-on economic impacts would this have? |
|
How quickly could it start? | Immediately following consultation and agreed changes |
New and diverse permanent and harvestable forest on Crown land
As well as incentivising the planting of new forests on private land, there is an important and large-scale opportunity to use Crown and state-owned enterprise (SOE) land to contribute to the economic and environmental benefits of afforestation. It was recently announced that the Crown and iwi are negotiating the option of joint ventures in which iwi take responsibility for planting native forests on Crown land, including public conservation land. Such forests would become permanent or harvestable carbon sinks, and iwi would be able to keep the carbon credits generated by these plantings. This has merit in principle, but such a scheme should; focus on Crown land other than public conservation land, emphasise permanent and ecologically-sustainable forests generally, and engage in joint ventures with both iwi and other community interests to share the costs, risks and rewards. Only permanent native forest that is ecologically appropriate should be considered on public conservation land.We estimate there is potential for 300,000ha suitable for afforestation in the next ten years, and that this could be done as joint ventures between the Crown and both iwi and community forestry interests.
What area would be afforested? | 300,000 hectares over 10 years |
What forest types are expected? | 50% indigenous species 50% exotic hardwood (long-rotation) species Part permanent and part harvestable (beyond 10 year timeframe) |
How much carbon could this capture? | 11.2 million tonnes CO2e over 10 years |
How much would it cost? | Unquantified, but potentially cost-positive to the Crown |
How many jobs could we expect this to create? | Direct jobs estimated at 8250 FTE years over 10 years (0.05FTE/ha) Indirect jobs of an additional 8250 FTE years over 10 years (1x multiplier) Total jobs of 16,500 FTE years |
Will it produce any savings (increased efficiency, redirected spending etc)? |
|
What flow-on economic impacts would this have? |
|
How quickly could it start? | Immediately following some consultation and planning |
Above is a summary of what we're proposing for forestry. If you want more in-depth analysis, read the full Green New Deal package.
This Green New Deal package proposes three types of pest control that have potential for expansion. These would employ 11,175 job years over 10 years, at a cost of $258.5 million. These initiatives would also expand the capacity to do environmentally-effective ground-based pest control. Taken together, they could cover 1.12 million hectares over the next ten years, and one component could see 6.6 million tonnes CO2e being sequestered by 2020.
Below is a summary of what we're proposing for pest control. If you want more in-depth analysis, read the full Green New Deal package.
Ground-based possum control for forest health
The suggested system is a coordinated permitting system where a possum trapper is allocated exclusive access to the possums within a defined block of land. The commercial return from the fur would provide one part of the trapper's income, which would be topped up from public funding to an agreed daily or area rate to meet environmental possum number reductions. Contracts could also require checking traps for other pests like stoats, thereby making multi-pest control more efficient. Such a system could be emulated by Regional Councils seeking possum control on private land and in plantation forests. Indeed, it is already occurring in the Bay of Plenty and is being trialled by Timberlands near Rotorua. DOC acknowledges that collaboration is beneficial in some places and that it could be "partially replicated elsewhere".
What area could be covered? | 800,000 hectares |
How much would it cost? | |
How many jobs could we expect this to create? | |
Pest control methods and target | Trapping possums |
Will it produce any savings (increased efficiency, redirected spending etc)? |
|
What flow-on economic impacts would this have? |
|
How quickly could it start? | Immediately, with swift ramp-up to full-capacity |
Forest management for carbon gains
It is estimated that 8.8 billion tonnes CO2 is stored in vegetation on public conservation land. This is 100 times New Zealand's annual emissions. Pest animals reduce the carbon stored in our forests and prevent revegetation of grass or shrubland to forest. Controlling large herbivores like deer and feral goats in particular areas will allow forest succession to occur, with large vegetation and carbon gains. The Green Party's recent Getting There report showed that forest management to control pests that prevent forest succession has the potential to contribute to meeting future climate change targets. DOC and Landcare Research have noted that the carbon benefits of forest management "will be relatively minor in the short term, but may be profound in the long term", potentially "several million tonnes [CO2e] per annum". DOC suggests that despite the need for more robust data, the sustained control of herbivores in certain areas now is "sensible" to facilitate carbon gains and build future opportunities. These sites may not currently be areas of priority for conservation management, so much of the necessary pest control would require additional funding.
Multi-pest ground operations for biodiversity
Integrated pest control is required for the effective protection of endangered species, habitats, and ecosystems. To this end, DOC undertakes ground-control operations in particular areas. Multi-pest ground-control operations around the country use a mix of trapping, hunting and pesticides to target a variety of pests like rats, possums, stoats, and sometimes deer, pigs, feral dogs and wasps. The choice of targets depends on the threats and desired outcomes. Information on goals, threats, methods and costs for a number of major DOC multi-pest ground-based operations has been used to estimate the cost and benefit of extending such operations to cover new areas suitable for integrated ground operations.
What area would be covered? | 100,000 ha public conservation land |
How much would it cost? | $60 million over 10 years Additional capital cost is not quantified |
How many jobs could we expect this to create? | 1200 FTE years for 10 years (120 FTE ongoing) Indirect jobs of 1200 FTE years (using a multiplier of 2.0) |
Will it produce any savings (increased efficiency, redirected spending etc)? |
|
What flow-on economic impacts would this have? |
|
How quickly could it start? | Immediately, with swift ramp-up to full-capacity following training |
Above is a summary of what we're proposing for pest control. If you want more in-depth analysis, read the full Green New Deal package.
This Green New Deal package proposes a focused investment to rid the New Zealand's iconic high-country of wilding conifers. It would employ 2700 job years at a cost of $95 million over 10 years.
This is a summary of what we're proposing for wilding conifers. For more in-depth analysis, read the full Green New Deal package.
Wilding conifers are one of New Zealand's most pressing invasive weed problems in the high-country. They threaten our iconic tussock landscapes, ecosystems and biodiversity. They also threaten the economic activity that is dependent on those landscapes: tourism, hydro-electricity and pastoral farming. Wilding trees have little economic value in themselves because they are uncared for and are generally low-value species growing in difficult to access places. They are woody weeds: the wrong species of tree in the wrong place. They continue to spread prolifically, posing a much larger future problem unless we intervene, yet current control levels are insufficient to prevent the spread. It is widely acknowledged that controlling wilding conifers gets exponentially more expensive as time goes on, creating a level of urgency to controlling them.
We propose a Green New Deal investment in wilding conifer control at a level that is ambitious but achievable, and brings the worsening problem under control as rapidly as possible. In the short-term this requires a significant investment of government funds; in the long term this prevents much larger control costs and also prevents extensive indirect economic impact. In effect, we propose bringing forward some future control costs to invest now.
Above is a summary of what we're proposing for wilding conifers. For more in-depth analysis, read the full Green New Deal package.
