KEY POINTS:
The forestry industry has given a qualified welcome to the Greens' carrot-and-stick policy for the sector.
The party's co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said other parts of the climate change policy which put obligations on emitters allowed measures which would "take the heat out of" the forestry sector.
The Greens would ring-fence all the value - more than $1 billion over the next five years on current estimates - generated by forest sink credits under the rules of the Kyoto protocol and use it for measures to benefit and stimulate the forestry sector as a whole.
There would be a payment to owners of Kyoto forests - those planted since 1990 on land not earlier forested - for the carbon taken out of the atmosphere by those trees.
"There should be some payment for the carbon stored since 1990, to encourage foresters for doing what's in New Zealand's interest and to keep them on side," she said.
But it would be for less than the full value of the carbon, it would be paid in cash not devolved carbon credits, and it would have to be paid back, with interest, if the forests were later harvested and not replanted.
The Greens do not accept that Kyoto forests have a property right to credits, arguing that it is the net increase in the forested area which generates credits, and that depends on what the owners of pre-Kyoto forests do too.
For the latter, the Greens' policy has both carrot and stick to encourage the replanting of forests upon harvest.
There would be an incentive payment for forests replanted between 2008 and 2012, which would be higher if longer-rotation species than pinus radiata are planted.
But when land was deforested a payment of not more than half the cost to the taxpayer arising from that deforestation would be required.
The deforestation charge would not apply, however, to any former Crown land with Crown-owned forestry leases, which had been returned to Maori under Treaty settlements.
There would also be funding for "industry good" research and development into such things as using wood waste as an energy source, promoting wood as low-emissions building material, and encouraging diversification from the monoculture of pine, because of the biosecurity risk it entails.
"Overall we welcome the proposals," Forest Owners Association chief executive David Rhodes said. "The Greens are trying to move away from arbitrary rules which Kyoto has created which have created divisions within our industry."
But forest owners would oppose the proposal for non-Kyoto forest owners to face a tax if they harvest and do not replant.
"We have an issue because these rules were brought in after these people had invested and they have no ability to benefit - the carbon that is sequestered by their forests is not recognised under Kyoto," Rhodes said. "Leaving non-Kyoto forest owners untouched is probably where you would want to head."
Kyoto Forestry Association spokesman Roger Dickie said if Kyoto forest owners received some benefit from the carbon their forests store, it would encourage investment in new planting and reverse deforestation. But he was disappointed the Greens did not accept they had a property right to the credits earned by their forests.
The Green Party's forestry policy:
* No cross-subsidy to taxpayers or emitters.
* Some payment to post-1990 forest owners.
* Incentives to replant after harvest.
* But a penalty of deforestation.
