Solid Energy's successful tender for a Department of Conservation contract would have raised a few eye brows.
On the surface, mining coal and culling wild goats do not appear related, but in these times of concern with global warming, perception and enlightened thinking bring together strange bedfellows.
The thinking behind the Department of Conservation (Doc) offering the tender and Solid Energy successfully seeking it, was that by removing goats from conservation land, carbon-absorbing native vegetation can regenerate, which would be worth carbon credits that could be traded or used to offset Solid Energy's greenhouse gas emissions.
Doc estimates that an increase of less than 1% in the carbon stock on public land would remove New Zealand's current annual greenhouse emissions of 77 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
As at last May, New Zealand faced a net deficit of 21.7 million units for the first commitment period. That figure represents the difference between our actual emissions and the level allowed by the Kyoto Protocol calculated as at 1990.
The deficit will have to be plugged either by emission-reducing technology, carbon sinks or buying carbon credits off business and countries who have a surplus.
Exotic forest sinks were already credited with reducing emissions, but Doc's theory of making wider use of indigenous forest and shrublands still required some work.
It could lead to Doc or other landowners entering joint ventures with corporates or other entities wishing to offset their carbon emissions or generate cash-earning carbon credits by planting native trees, removing grazing animals or retiring land and allowing it to regenerate.
"There is a huge potential on conservation land to meet New Zealand's carbon deficit," Doc Director-general, Al Morrison, said. But Doc had no intention of becoming a carbon trader.
"Yes, we see huge potential as a carbon sink, but Doc does not intend being a carbon trader. We will leave that to the private sector," Mr Morrison said in an interview.
Doc's commercial manager Harry Maher said with the department managing 32% of New Zealand's land mass, it had the potential to play a significant role sequestering carbon.
Research has shown the carbon stock on Doc-managed land, mostly in native forest and forest shrublands, was 2400 million tonnes - about half the total carbon stock of New Zealand's vegetation and soil.
Mr Maher said Doc would be the facilitator of carbon sequestering projects for investors and it has initiated several projects.
One with the Ministry for the Environment was part of its carbon-neutral public service programme - revegetating bare land eligible for credits under the Kyoto Protocol, and also researching how to increase biomass on land that was forested before the protocol's 1990 start.
Mr Maher said Doc was planting bare land on D'Urville Island in the Marlborough Sounds and at Mount Oxford in Canterbury as part of the carbon neutral public service initiative.
Research into growing biomass was occurring on the East Coast, Wanganui and Buller, and it was at the Buller site where Solid Energy's investment could have tangible outcomes for both conservation and to generate carbon credits.
Mr Maher said Solid Energy was funding research to determine whether forest management could change the amount of carbon sequestered, of which pest control was a part.
While Solid Energy could earn carbon credits, Mr Maher said all parties were more interested in confirming the science which could lead to a new role for conservation land offsetting New Zealand's growing greenhouse gas emissions.
"We are looking to see if this is a forerunner to larger and more of these types of activities," he said.
A Landcare Research report estimated Doc-managed land could store 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent by establishing new native forests on an estimated 400,000ha of land that was not-forested in 1990.
Carbon credits from forests which existed before 1990 can be traded on the voluntary market, but at an international United Nations Framework Convention on climate change meeting in Poznan, Poland, this week, New Zealand pushed hard for better rules governing agriculture, land use and land use change, including forestry.
The international trade in carbon credits only recognised credits earned from carbon sink initiatives earned since 1990.
Doc principal policy analyst Joseph Arand said not all that land would be converted, with each case assessed on its merits and its contribution to conservation.
There were suitable areas where conservation goals could be met and the country's carbon credit deficit addressed. It may not lead to a cash windfall for Doc, rather the benefits to the department would come from conservation gains.
"We are effectively trying to leverage off the cost of carbon to achieve conservation outcomes," Mr Arand said.
The size of the Doc estate meant there was plenty of scope for carbon sequestering.
"We are a real smorgasbord, a place that suits future projects more so than any other player in New Zealand."
Doc Director-general Al Morrison said the department acquiring land from farming through tenure review also had the added benefit of removing livestock, the country's single largest contributor to greenhouse gas.
"I don't know in the end if it's a real benefit, if sheep are worth less than carbon or if carbon storage will grow in value."
He would like to see land owners rewarded for other conservation initiative in ways similar to carbon credits, financially rewarding them instead of projects costing them money.
In the future, New Zealanders may look back at these initiatives and wonder why it took so long to instigate.
"Maybe in 50 or 100 years' time, New Zealanders will look back and see a whole lot of economic value that we today only have a crude appreciation [of]."
One issue would be the cost and difficulty of measuring carbon sequestration. Landowners have said it had been the difference in making the scheme viable.
Doc says there is still plenty to learn about the project ahead of a report back to Parliament next year, hopefully with a simple, credible way to show how much carbon our tussock, bush and forest is soaking up.
NZ's carbon inventory
• New Zealand's greenhouse emissions in 2006 were 77 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
• Emissions have grown 26% since 1990 with most of the increase from transport and energy.
• New Zealand faces an emissions deficit of 21.7 million tonnes as at last May.
Clarifying the terminology
• Afforestation is the establishment of forest on land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years while reforestation is planting, seeding and/or the promotion of natural seed sources.
• Biomass refers to organic material both above and below ground.
• Carbon credits are tradeable units representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. Credits can be created by projects that sink carbon dioxide through regeneration of native forest, reduced greenhouse gas emissions from energy efficiency projects or avoid greenhouse gas emissions through renewable energy generation projects.
• Carbon sequestration and carbon sinks are the natural or chemical absorption, removal or capture of carbon-containing substances.
• Forests are called sinks because of their ability to absorb carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Trees convert carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into carbon stored in the form of wood and organic matter in soil.
• Kyoto compliant land is land that was not forest land as at 31 December 1989.
• Carbon trading: The Kyoto Protocol allows countries that have emission units allocated to them but not used, to sell them to countries that are over their targets.
• New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), or cap and trade, controls emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving emission reductions. The Government is reviewing that policy.
• Emission Unit: Can be bought and sold, and used to meet an entity's obligations under an emissions trading scheme. One New Zealand unit equals one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.
• Offsetting greenhouse gas emissions could include planting trees, nitrification inhibitors or more efficient farming.
