IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i4p856-d1122024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Carbon Storage Potential of Naturally Regenerated Tea Trees with Default New Zealand Carbon Look-Up Tables: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Wilson

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, Private Bag 11222, New Zealand)

  • Miles Grafton

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, Private Bag 11222, New Zealand)

  • Matthew Irwin

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, Private Bag 11222, New Zealand)

Abstract

The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme allows landowners to be remunerated for the carbon sequestration capabilities of eligible forests established post 1990. For afforested areas of 100 hectares or fewer, carbon sequestration is estimated with the use of default carbon look-up tables administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries. However, a disparity exists between exotic pines ( Pinus radiata ), where carbon sequestration predictions are regionally differentiated, and native species, where carbon sequestration estimations are neither distinguished by species or locality. This paper aims to highlight this inequality by comparing the calculated carbon storage of endemic tree species with the ‘Indigenous Forest’ category in the carbon look-up tables. The carbon storage of 12-year-old naturally regenerated tea trees ( Leptospermum scoparium and Kunzea ericoides ) was calculated using allometric measurements and compared to the look-up tables. The results suggest that carbon look-up tables underestimate the carbon sequestration of native tea trees by 81.8%. A bimodal data distribution suggests that carbon sequestration is heavily dependent on light interception levels. It is recommended that carbon sequestration data for specific native species in different environments are collected and integrated into such tables.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Wilson & Miles Grafton & Matthew Irwin, 2023. "Comparing the Carbon Storage Potential of Naturally Regenerated Tea Trees with Default New Zealand Carbon Look-Up Tables: A Case Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:856-:d:1122024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/4/856/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/4/856/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yue Wang & Basil Sharp & Stephen Poletti & Kyung-Min Nam, 2022. "Economic and land use impacts of net zero-emission target in New Zealand," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 291-308, April.
    2. Suzi Kerr & Simon Anastasiadis & Alex Olssen & William Power & Levente Tímár & Wei Zhang, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Responses to an Emissions Trading System Covering Agriculture and Forestry: Simulation Results from New Zealand," Working Papers 12_10, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    3. Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Tulloch, Daniel J., 2018. "Carbon pricing and system linking: Lessons from the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-79.
    4. Suzi Kerr & Judd Ormsby & Dominic White, 2021. "Delinking the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme from the Kyoto Protocol: comparing theory with practice," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 792-803, July.
    5. Mario A. Fernandez & Adam J. Daigneault, 2018. "Money Does Grow On Trees: Impacts Of The Paris Agreement On The New Zealand Economy," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-23, August.
    6. Manley, Bruce & Maclaren, Piers, 2012. "Potential impact of carbon trading on forest management in New Zealand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 35-40.
    7. Pedersen, Rune Østergaard & Skovsgaard, Jens Peter, 2009. "Impact of bias in predicted height on tree volume estimation: A case-study of intrinsic nonlinearity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(20), pages 2656-2664.
    8. Catherine Leining & Suzi Kerr & Bronwyn Bruce-Brand, 2020. "The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme: critical review and future outlook for three design innovations," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 246-264, February.
    9. Thomas Carver & Suzi Kerr, 2017. "Facilitating Carbon Offsets from Native Forests," Working Papers 17_01, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    10. Evison, David, 2017. "The New Zealand forestry sector's experience in providing carbon sequestration services under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, 2008 to 2012," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 89-94.
    11. West, Thales A.P. & Monge, Juan J. & Dowling, Les J. & Wakelin, Steve J. & Gibbs, Holly K., 2020. "Promotion of afforestation in New Zealand’s marginal agricultural lands through payments for environmental services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liao, Ling & Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Kuruppuarachchi, Duminda & Gehricke, Sebastian, 2023. "The role of fundamentals and policy in New Zealand's carbon prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Manley, Bruce, 2018. "Forecasting the effect of carbon price and log price on the afforestation rate in New Zealand," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 112-120.
    3. Song, Malin & Zheng, Huanyu & Shen, Zhiyang, 2023. "Whether the carbon emissions trading system improves energy efficiency – Empirical testing based on China's provincial panel data," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    4. Haoran Zhang & Rongxia Zhang & Guomin Li & Wei Li & Yongrok Choi, 2020. "Has China’s Emission Trading System Achieved the Development of a Low-Carbon Economy in High-Emission Industrial Subsectors?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Levente Timar & Suzi Kerr, 2014. "Land-use Intensity and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the LURNZ Model," Working Papers 14_03, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    6. Chang, Kai & Chen, Rongda & Chevallier, Julien, 2018. "Market fragmentation, liquidity measures and improvement perspectives from China's emissions trading scheme pilots," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 249-260.
    7. Fraser J Morgan & Adam J Daigneault, 2015. "Estimating Impacts of Climate Change Policy on Land Use: An Agent-Based Modelling Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    8. Habib Zaman Khan & Muhammad Nurul Houqe & Ielemia K Ielemia, 2023. "Organic versus cosmetic efforts of the quality of carbon reporting by top New Zealand firms. Does market reward or penalise?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 686-703, January.
    9. Kerchner, Charles D. & Keeton, William S., 2015. "California's regulatory forest carbon market: Viability for northeast landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 70-81.
    10. Fang, Chenhao & Ma, Tieju, 2020. "Stylized agent-based modeling on linking emission trading systems and its implications for China's practice," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    11. Manley, Bruce, 2013. "How does real option value compare with Faustmann value in the context of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 14-22.
    12. Coleman, Andrew, 2018. "Forest-based carbon sequestration, and the role of forward, futures, and carbon-lending markets: A comparative institutions approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 95-104.
    13. Renata Martins Pacheco, 2022. "Carbon taxation as a means to incentivize forest and fire management," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 12387-12403, October.
    14. Tahvonen, Olli & Rautiainen, Aapo, 2017. "Economics of forest carbon storage and the additionality principle," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 124-134.
    15. Levente Timar, 2016. "Does money grow on trees? Mitigation under climate policy in a heterogeneous sheep-beef sector," Working Papers 16_09, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    16. Philippe Quirion, 2022. "Output-based allocation and output-based rebates: a survey," Chapters, in: Handbook on Trade Policy and Climate Change, chapter 7, pages 94-107, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Wu, Rongxin & Tan, Zhizhou & Lin, Boqiang, 2023. "Does carbon emission trading scheme really improve the CO2 emission efficiency? Evidence from China's iron and steel industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    18. Kaine, Geoff & Edwards, Peter & Polyakov, Maksym & Stahlmann-Brown, Philip, 2023. "Who knew afforestation was such a challenge? Motivations and impediments to afforestation policy in New Zealand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    19. Kangkang Zhang & Deyi Xu & Shiran Li & Na Zhou & Jinhui Xiong, 2019. "Has China’s Pilot Emissions Trading Scheme Influenced the Carbon Intensity of Output?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-18, May.
    20. West, Thales A.P. & Monge, Juan J. & Dowling, Les J. & Wakelin, Steve J. & Gibbs, Holly K., 2020. "Promotion of afforestation in New Zealand’s marginal agricultural lands through payments for environmental services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:856-:d:1122024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.