Submission form on proposed changes to the Climate Change (Forestry Sector) Regulations 2008

Use this form to make an online submission

The questions in this form are grouped by topic. Tick the boxes to see the questions and supporting text. 

You can submit just on the topics relevant to you or on the full set of questions. The questions and page numbers referenced relate to the Forestry regulations discussion paper [PDF, 1.5 MB]

Submissions close at 5pm on 15 January 2020.

Return to the consultation page for more information

Contact details

Tick the topics you want to answer:

How wide should each rotation be?

1. Do you prefer:
3. Do you agree with applying the same rotation band width settings across all forest types?

When should we assume a participant will harvest their forest (in order to allocate a default rotation band)?

4. Do you agree with the proposed assumed harvest ages?
5. Do you agree with the approach to setting a very high harvest age for indigenous forests?

Where should we set the assumed harvest age within each rotation ban?

8. Do you prefer:

Rules for changing rotation bands

9. Do you agree with our proposed rules for changing between bands?

Rules for changing forest type

11. Do you agree with our proposed approach for accounting for changes in forest type?

Rules for how to prevent second rotation forests joining as a first rotation

13. Do you agree with our preferred option?

Rules to prevent over-crediting following an artificially low rotation band

16. Do you support the preferred option?
20. Do you support the introduction of tick box reporting?

Which forestry activities should be covered by the provision?

22. Do you support our preference to offer this to all forest activities?

What data or information must be supplied?

24. Would you be willing to provide us with information required to define sub-areas?

Making FMA optional for the 2023-2025 mini-MERP

27. Do you agree with the proposal?

Determining the 100 hectare threshold for FMA

28. Which option do you prefer?

How the FMA will apply to post-1989 forests under averaging accounting

30. Do you agree with the proposed approach to stop collecting FMA information from sample plots once a first rotation post-1989 forest under averaging accounting has been cleared?
31. Do you agree with the proposed approaches for a second or subsequent rotation, to use first rotation FMA information to derive an appropriate carbon table specific to you?

Collection of FMA data from the two new post-1989 forest categories

33. Do you agree with the proposed approach to use the same provisions that are used for post-1989 forests under stock change for frequency of collection and number of plots when collecting and supplying FMA information?

The future of the FMA

35. Which option for calculating NZU entitlement for a grant funded forest do you prefer?

When you can apply to establish a new forest via a forest swap

36. Do you agree with our proposed option to allow excess land from an old forest swap application to be used for a new application within 2 years of the old application finishing?

How we will calculate carbon ‘equivalence’

39. Do you agree with using default tables to calculate carbon equivalence between the old and new forests?

How a new swap forest will be treated under averaging accounting

40. Do you agree with our approach to treating new forest as perpetually on the default tables once a forest swap has been completed?

The types of temporary adverse events which will qualify for an exemption

41. Do you support our preferred option (the exhaustive list)?

The minimum area affected before an event qualifies for an exemption

44. Do you agree with our preferred option of a minimum threshold of one hectare?

The minimum amount of carbon stock lost before an event qualifies for an exemption

47. Do you agree with our proposal to have a minimum carbon stock loss of 1 t 1 CO2-eqv, which is equivalent to 1 NZU?

How to notify us

48. Which option do you prefer?

Carbon Stock Calculations once an adverse event has been separated into a CAA

51. Do you support our proposed approach?

The tree weed exemption application process

52. Do you support our preferred option?

Other criteria or priorities we must consider in deciding whether to grant an exemption

55. Do you support requiring a tree weed control plan as a criteria which we must consider?

How long should the exemption last?

57. Do you support extending the time a tree weed exemption lasts to five years, with a five year renewal option?
60. Which option (using the actual age of the trees, or assuming an age of 50) do you prefer to calculate the deemed value of timber?
62. Do you support us updating the Geospatial Mapping Information Standard to reflect changes in the Regulations?
63. Do you support us updating the FMA Standard and FMA Information Standard to reflect changes in the Regulations, or to make the suggested minor and technical changes?
Last reviewed: