7 minute read
Emissions Pricing Consultation
By Rachael & Rodney Inch, Windwhistle
I read through the Agriculture Emissions Pricing Consultation document with a multifaceted lens.
Advertisement
ABOUT ME: I have spent many years working alongside our rural communities as an advisor at the local government level, in Non-Government community organisations (NGOs), and as a volunteer. I also have a background in agriculture through formal qualifications and being part of a 5th generation sheep, beef, and deer farming family. My husband and I understand our environmental responsibility and are actively undertaking restoration projects on the farm. I also understand the social impacts of legislation changes, having researched and written the essential freshwater social impact report, in 2021, for the Rural Support Trust. IN TODAYS WORLD: Farmers today carry a huge heavy responsibility. They are responsible for finding solutions to environmental problems, resulting from generations gone by and practices that people did not fully understand the ecological impact of at the time. Farmers have had to continually increase production and do better for a society that has demanded more and more from them. A farmer's return on investment is unknown year to year and is variable. They must operate in an environment where product returns are set by supply and demand, market price and the NZ dollar. They carry the economic burden of keeping a country running during disasters and lockdowns and are generally the first to put up their hands to help our community in a time of need. Throw in the challenges of being people who work primarily in isolation in all weathers, long working days with little rest. Farmers are out problem-solving all day long in an unpredictable environment and still have a mounting pile of compliance paperwork to complete at the end of the day. NEW TAX PROPOSAL: Farmers have recently become vocal about Carbon Emissions Pricing, and there has been much information about its unfairness. The issue of fairness has nothing to do with the environment, but rather the fact that people had no opportunity to submit the matter before the Government signed the Carbon Act. Following the signing of the Carbon Act, farming industry representatives worked for three years behind closed doors, in partnership with the Government to find an industry-led solution (HWEN). Did the sector representa ves even have the mandate from the people to represent us, or were farmers just told this was happening? We are not asked whether or not we agree with the policy. We have been asked for a consensus on how the Government should execute its goals and ambitions. Drilling down into what the document is saying, I first noticed the reference to the Government's “Fit For A Better Life Roadmap”. The roadmap states that the Government has set goals to increase the productivity and revenue of agriculture, decrease emissions and grow jobs in the sector, focusing on providing opportunities for Māori and women. The Agriculture Emissions Pricing Consultation document is somewhat contradictory to this roadmap. That is because it states that initial modelling shows that AT LEAST an estimated 24% of sheep, beef, and deer farmers will be unable to operate under this pricing plan and be lost. There will be an impact on businesses that support agriculture, loss of revenue, and loss of jobs. The Government recognises mitigation options to reduce emissions are more suited to dairy farmers than sheep, beef, and deer farms. They say that the sheep, beef, and deer sector emits more greenhouse gas relative to the overall net income. Yes, you read correctly,
ADVERTORIAL
not that the industry emits more gas but relative to their profit. When reading between the lines, one must ask yourself, if there are 24% fewer sheep, beef, and deer farms, how are they expecting an increase in revenue and jobs in the sector?
GOVERNMENT’S WAY OF THINKING? One suggestion could be through larger corporate bodies, with business structures that put profit and productivity high on the list of importance. These larger groups and organisations will be better suited to pay money towards creating extra jobs in urban areas responsible for enforcing this policy. The revenue raised can offset the cost of the Government's ambitious agreement with the UN, reducing New Zealand's liability. I am still trying to figure out how that mitigates any adverse environmental damage, let alone how it can be fair and equitable to the people and environment. There is an acknowledgment that Government will direct support to specific people and communities. It outlines the need for transitional support for those most disadvantaged, as the Government sees this need to be fair, equitable, and inclusive. Unfortunately, they have glossed over the impacts of ALL of the people affected. They haven't adequately discussed the impact on existing resources and availability to provide wraparound support to the Māori and rural communities. Instead, suggest that the Government could use an existing program called ‘Just Transition’.
JUST TRANSITION: The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) used Just Transition for the Taranaki 2050 Roadmap, to address the transition from drilling and gas exploration. It was a partnership with key stakeholders, such as central and local government, local NGOs, and iwi. The MBIE commissioned an independent report on the IMPACTS: learnings of this ‘partnership’. The emissions document It makes for interesting reading recognises the people most where the community state that affected by this ambitious plan. the “consultation went around in Indeed, sheep, beef, and deer circles. Iwi was initially involved, farmers will initially be the most but was so busy being pulled in disadvantaged by the loss of different directions that the farms and homes. There is also a process needed more proper short one-page section in the engagement.” Feedback from iwi document that briefly mentions was that the methods were that there could be a significant “discriminatory and lacked impact on rural communities. We cultural appropriateness and will see a reduction in social cultural understanding”. services, loss of jobs, reduced If this ‘program’ is to be used to quality of living, increased stress transition most affected people, and mental health issues, and will Māori farmers be treated increased isolation. Does this fairly and equitably, and will need to adequately address or they have a genuine say in what explain the on-flow impacts on will happen to their livelihoods rural communities like ours? too? What a heavy responsibility Our community already lacks the for the iwi leaders to carry. resources and relies heavily on an excellent, but aging, volunteer system. How is our local council planning to mitigate the community impact, with fewer farmers to lend a INCENTIVE PAYMENTS: The document has a significant section on sequestration, mitigation technology, and incentive payments. There is no hand? The Government has made an effort to show that it has addressed the well-being needs of Māori in this plan.
recognition for shelterbelts because ‘we prune the trees’, and the grass is too costly to calculate. Riparian planting is only recognised if you have woody areas over 1 hectare, or trees growing at least 5m high and the trees are post 1990. Furthermore, the proposal outlines the Government's challenges in funding incentive payments. Incentives must go through an application process, and recipients must enter into a contract with the Government. Iwi reserves, existing council reserves, and QEII reserves will receive the subsidies first. The carbon tax will begin in January 2025. Two years after, in 2027, farmers can apply to receive carbon recognition payments, if they fit the criteria. Incentive payments for mitigation technology are mentioned in the document. It is proposed that only some farmers will be eligible to receive this by 2030. Instead, the payments could be directed to existing profitable and efficient farms; here is the swing back to those corporates again. The time now is not for division and anger but a shared responsibility as a rural community, a shared commitment to our families, community, and environment. We must make better choices for our future generations, which means we all must have a say on this issue. An excellent submission to consultation, critically discusses the issues and provides alternative solutions. If this is your first submission, that's OK, you do not have to answer their questions, but your submission would carry more weight if you take the time to understand what it means for everyone in our community because it is not just the farmers that it is affecting.
