While last weeks “Groundswell” protest march looked on the surface to have considerable support, the message was certainly diluted by the other protests that took place the previous day (at least in the major centres), which seemed to blur into the groundswell one, even if the organisers did their best to distance themselves from it.
I also came away somewhat confused about what specific policy they were protesting about, the ute tax? (which must affect a very small number of people), the “Three Waters Policy” (this issue affects all New Zealanders, and the majority of councils are fighting this on behalf of all rate payers), this just left “too many regulations”.
It used to be the territory of Federated Farmers to criticise or berate government for anything and everything that was to be imposed upon farmers in principle, regardless of the logic or need. However, with the last couple of Chairs they have moved to a more mature (in my view) approach of trying to work more constructively with Government in particular and building liaisons with other rural sectors.
And so, it was pleasing to hear current Chairperson Andrew Hoggard distancing himself and the Feds from the latest “groundswell” protest.
It occurred to me that when protesters are saying “farming is getting too hard” they need to take a step back and see how this may be viewed by non-farmers - many of whom are hanging on to their businesses by their fingernails and without the government wage and resurgent support payments would have shut up shop some time ago.
The headlines of farmers being paid record prices and at the same time protesting about hard things are not going to endear the sector to the average non farmer, regardless of how overdue the prices may be in reality.
Farming has been pushing back against environmental regulations at least since the “Fart Tax” was tried and failed to be brought in in 2003 and while successive National governments have been more concerned with short term business gains (2003 and again after the global financial meltdown in 2008) it has led to the current situation where the log jam over overdue incremental steps is beginning to overflow and is at risk of bursting.
This has been typified with the release this week from He Waka Eke Noa - The Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership which includes Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Federated Farmers and DairyNZ of a report on how farming might be brought into being liable for emissions. Farmers need to be thinking about how they deal with the future not try to stay stuck in the past.
Regardless of rights and wrongs, things have moved on and farmers need to recognise this and engage with those working on their future.
The He Waka Eke Noa report outlines two ways forward. Option one is a farm-level levy: This levy would calculate emissions using farm-specific data and the farm would then pay a price for its net emissions.
Option two is a processor-level hybrid levy: This levy would calculate emissions at the meat, milk, and fertiliser processor level, based on the quantity of product received from farms, or in the case of fertiliser, sold to farms. It would be paid at a processor level, with the cost likely passed on to farms based on the quantities of meat and milk supplied to processors, or fertiliser bought by farms.
The Government has legislated that agricultural emissions will enter the NZ ETS if an effective and workable alternative is not put forward by the Partnership. Doing nothing is not an option, so He Waka Eke Noa will be conducting roadshows in the coming months (February) to engage farmers in what they believe the best way forward is.
The “back stop option” which is the Governments default option comes into play in 2025 if there no viable proposition put forward by the farm industry sectors is below:
- Emissions are calculated at the meat, milk, and fertiliser processor level, based on the quantity of product received from farms, or in the case of fertiliser, sold to farms.
- Processors would likely pass on the cost to farms based on the quantity of product processed, or fertiliser bought.
- Initially 5% of emissions from agriculture would be priced (95% of emissions would be freely allocated to processors). Free allocation is expected to reduce by one percentage point a year.
- All gases would be treated the same, i.e., N2O and CH4 would be priced at the same rate per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
- Currently only sequestration (carbon removals from vegetation) eligible for the NZ ETS is recognised.
- Government intends that any revenue raised through the backstop would be invested back into the agricultural sector to support further emissions reductions. This could include paying for sequestration not eligible for the NZ ETS (e.g., riparian plantings).
Of the two options provided by He Waka Eke Noa both have pros and cons. The farm-based levy incorporates a better reflection of natural justice where those farmers able to lower their emissions greater than the average will be rewarded. However, it is likely to come with greater administration costs. The option 2 processor-based system has the benefit of simplicity. However, it will incur ‘free riders’ i.e. those with above average emissions who get the benefit of the ‘support’ of those with lower emissions.
As with anything involving regulations and laws the devil will be in the detail but making a big noise will not make this go away.
Also, both major political parties have agreed with this policy so voting for a change of government over this will not make it go away.
The big unknown in all of these is what price can and will be applied to emissions, remembering that the Climate Change Commission budgeted on $140 per tonne. This could lumber a huge cost on farms unable to mitigate emissions depending upon how it is applied. Unfortunately, at the moment New Zealand may be out on a limb with dragging agriculture into any form of emissions liability, although the territory is heating up in other competing countries. So, it possibly may not be the big drag on any competitive advantage we currently have over other nations.
But regardless of what and how all this transpires it’s not going away.
P2 Steer
Select chart tabs
36 Comments
Yes it is important to realise increasing regulation is a cost for all businesses. more a time / mental cost than a financial one . At the moment , the Electrical workers board has undertaken another website revamp, that requires us to redo our real me logins , just when everyone is using real me for vaccine cards. Result is we can't get vital info / supplies, and help lines are overloaded. Great timing.
I would far prefer the individual farm system , as i think that there are many farmers that should be rewarded for their efforts, and a few that should pay for their neglect , or unwillingness to change anything.
Farmers would be far better off to have a system implemented by their organisations , than mandated by government. Unfortunately , the likes of groundswell will only hinder this.
The He Waka Eke Noa options are not going to work. As someone who has been in the ETS for 13 years the cost of mapping, assessing, registering, compliance etc will be beyond the ability of 99% of farmers - if you pay into a fund and you see the neighbour getting your money to do something are you happy? Do you want to make sure its real? You need compliance and audit to make sure the money is being used properly.
I have no idea where the people will come from to do this. If they do find them they will be the ones making the money.
Also what they are allowing farmers to be paid for is something that other landowners cannot be paid for - is that fair? - whats good for the Goose should be good for the Gander.
Forest Owners have 1,000s of ha of this forest land type so we would like to monetarise it as well. Otherwise Ag will be getting a subsidy no one else can.
In my view just go to the ETS – you can the do your own ETS offsets. Simple, easy and allows everyone to individually decide what action they want to take – do nothing – pay – do something get rewarded. Hill country can offset for Dairy if desired.
Doing nothing is not an option – markets, not Governments, are making that very clear and if you can’t see that you obviously don’t read.
Groundswell etc will never agree on this so its off to the ETS anyway
On of the issues with the ETS for farmers is that many of the areas planted in trees are too small to qualify for the scheme. We have plantings of poplar, oak, alder and pine covering 5% of the property that offset around 20% of our emissions according to the BLNZ calculator. The areas of most of these plantings are too small for the ETS, but in total are significant. These types of plantings need to be included in what ever system is used or there will no buy in from many landowners.
JL, I agree with your comments around equity and auditing, the auditing and certification costs runs across farm environment plans as well.
I agree - the real issue is how to do this in a cost effective way that doesn’t cost the earth but is robust and stands up to scrutiny. Under the hybrid model all farmers pay and those that want to apply to get money for offsets etc. The farmer not doing it will be keen to know its being handed out fairly. The Crown will want to know the offsets being done etc etc.
Also the Crown can’t use these non ETS credits for any international offsets so it will still have to fund this via taxpayers to meet their obligations. Not many understand that point so again Ag will need to prove it is happening otherwise they will be accused of a double subsidy – 1. they get credit for doing something which isn’t done and 2. The taxpayer pays internationally anyway.
I believe the first thing we need is a simple tool to tell farmers what they need to do if they want to use offset via pines, native or other trees. I find that once they know they at least have a reference point. Whenever I talk to larger groups of farmers this is what they all want to know. Once they know a number they get to thinking what they can do and 99% of the time are surprised how easy it is to do. Below is a back of envelope calculation to get you started.
Crudely – take your stock units, multiply by 0.4. Then assume say 30% will need to be done in time.
So
5,000 SU x 0.4 = 2,000 tonnes CO2 eq
30% = 600 tonnes max
Pine divide by 30
Native divide by 4
Other exotics divide by 20
This gives you the total forest area (ha) you would roughly need on Post89 land to offset your emissions as per what is proposed at the full point.
This is very rough but gives you a good guide to think about.
You can’t offset methane but you simply sell it to the carbon side i.e. fuel, coal etc. (I personally still don’t understand why we can’t offset methane though trees – seems unfair to me)
Agree - its not fair but what is. The rules aren't set by NZ and same for exotic forest owners who have 1.2 million ha of forest pre 1990, even if planted 1989, who get nothing - just a deforestation bill if you clear it and don't replant - you think you've got problems!!! (Joke)
Im afraid we just have to suck it up and get on with it. The markets don't care.
Pretty sure you can't offset methane, the offsets are reserved for the non animal farming community.
Methane becomes CO2 within 10 years, which is then absorbed by the plants cows eat and thus the cycle repeats. Unlike driving to town which introduces CO2 that was sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years as oil, and is now being released at a phenomenal rate.
I am in the twilight of my farming years, I have time to follow this but its not cutting through. If we are to embrace change, somehow we need to be engaged in it. I have heard there is some sort of plan one could do to add up your current emissions but I would not know where to start.
Back in 2013 there was some sort of regulations introduced by the regional council, whereby you had to figure out your N usage, slope of land and stock units. It all went away when the Maori farmers took the council to court.
I read a lot. Probably a good deal more than the average farmer. When threats of this and that come and go and nothing happens, we give up engaging in it. If the likes of myself cant understand what is going on, good luck getting others on board.
I would love to see some Participatory Democracy ventures undertaken specifically around farming and emissions. E.g. A Citizens' Assembly of 100 or so citizens from different walks of life, including good farming representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy#Mechanisms_for_pa… The issues affect all New Zealanders across multiple generations so this would seem an ideal way to get some common ground that will never be gotten through social media or digital engagement.
Could be worth trying to engage with https://informedfutures.org/ (includes Peter Gluckman, who is keen on Participatory Democracy) and see if some momentum can be achieved for such a forum to ensure consultation and engagement.
To a large extent buy in will be governed by a farmers financial position, I think that ideally individual farmers should be rewarded for their efforts how this would work in practice is yet to be seen . Groundswell protests are counterproductive as it appears that farmers are trying to avoid change and denying the scientific evidence of climate change if they don't get with it their markets may enforce it anyway . NZ will struggle to meet its commitments just signed up to at cop26 blithely passing off reductions by buying offsets internationally will become unaffordable very quickly I reckon . Conservative political parties need to make themselves electable by taking the environmental concerns of potential voters seriously or we will end up with a labour green coalition next time and change will be forced on the farmers quite harshly.
I am not a groundswell supporter but I take their message as being that they are opposed to change being forced on them, as opposed to being allowed meaningful input. I have fenced all my waterways and planted the retired land in flax toe toe etc. This obviously sequesters a limited amount of carbon but cannot be counted because , not meeting the definition of trees, does not qualify under existing rules. NZ should have had the courage to stick up for itself when these various rules were being drawn up. From what I can see Australia has done just that.
NZ is the world's most efficient meat and dairy producer. Policies that reduce our production of these exports do not reduce the demand for the products. Therefore they will have a direct impact on increasing global emissions, as this demand will be satisfied by increased production in less efficient countries.
Reduction would be great. Maybe a more sought after product, less labour intensive with less environmental impact long term. Looking after the area you farm should be seen not as a threat to each mans island but a social responsibility. After 30 years of dairy farming all I saw was more milk being made and less money. The less cows I milked, the more I lowered inputs, the more money I made. All the talk of per ha production in an area where 400 units of N was the norm with no real focus on quailty of life, blindness to say the least.
"pleasing to hear current Chairperson Andrew Hoggard distancing himself and the Feds from the latest “groundswell” protest." - you think? As a long sufferring Feds member, I disagree. Feds have always had a remarkable knack of distancing themselves from their constituency. Their dwindling membership is testament to this. Hoggards 'distancing himself' from Groundswell was despicable, and is yet another example of Feds failure to stand up for farmers adequately.
For once in my life I think the Feds are right. By whingeing and complaining about things that have been on the drawing board for over 20yrs all that's happening is to put the rural sector in a bad light with the wider community. There is nothing more special about farmers than any other member of NZ's society and I am sure there are plenty who, given the opportunity, would take over food production tomorrow. Many farm businesses are only there because Grandad bought land, I wonder what those off spring would be doing if Grandad had been a council worker or whatever. The point is if you are in the fortunate position to live and earn a living off the land in this day and age you should consider your self privileged.
Oceans were warming at a similar rate prior to WW2 when industrialistion was a fraction of what is it now and China was peasant economy. To blame NZ dairy farmers and the wrong utes for this warming is a stretch.
'Our reconstruction, which agrees with other estimates for the well-observed period, demonstrates that the ocean absorbed as much heat during 1921–1946 as during 1990–2015. '
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/01/04/1808838115.full.pdf
I don't know if global warming or if climate change is a new man made thing but either way that should not remove your responsibility to care for the environment. You can see the effect of nutrient runoff in a lot of the south island rivers, an as yet unpublished report shows EVERY off take for irrigation along the Rakaia is taking far more than its allowance. These same guys probably drove a tractor into town recently because they feel threatened but downstream water uses (drinking) now have to worry about changing levels of acceptable nitrates? Who is really being threatened? Someone needs too take to farming with a big stick before it's to late. I have seen with my own eyes the lack of sincerity behind the rural perspective. SAVE OUT WATER BEFORE IT IS TO LATE.
It was in reference to Guy's big scary chart at the head of the article. It is a long bow to conflate pollution/water offtake with global warming.
Glasshouses and all that - maybe we should spend global warming money fixing up cities sewerage issues?
"It is common to see these beaches stamped with health warnings after it rains, and this is why; raw sewage from the inner western suburbs is ushered into a creek, left for the harbour to handle. "
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/117958444/harbour-of-doubt-the-tiny…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/dirty-water-raw-sewage-flowing-into-auckl…
I have high per cow and per hectare milk production, which actually brings my CO2E waay below average per kg/ms. It's actually the low producing per cow and per ha farms, who are the worst emmiters per kg/ms. It would be much better for me if the tax is applied based on on CO2E per farm rather than per kg/ms. I have no doubt though, that I will end up subsidising those dropping production and trying regen ag lol.
The trouble is, methane is directly correlated to feed eaten. 21.6 grams of methane per kg of feed eaten. We can’t decouple feed eaten and methane emitted so the only way to decrease methane emissions is to produce less milk. With our current technology that is fact.
So while on an intensity basis as you stated, you are efficient (much like the Americans argue), you are actually the problem by running a high emissions business. The goal is reducing methane, not improving intensity. If the whole industry farmed like you then our emissions would sky rocket, if everyone followed a system 1-2 system our emission will drop which is what needs to happen.
The world still has to be fed - in fact there's 215,000 extra people today than there were yesterday.
The goal has to be to reduce the emissions intensity of food, reducing the amount is not the solution unless you want global famine.
As far as methane is concerned, more than 30% comes from fossil fuel extraction - if we stopped oil, coal and gas mining, the methane problem would be solved too.
No disagreement with anything you have said and logically I agree. To clarify though I was referring to biogenic methane, not fossil methane as you have mentioned.
But we aren’t being asked to continue to improve intensity as has been done for a long time, we are being asked to reduce emissions by 10% by 2030.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.