Carbon sequestration becoming a rural issue, separating the HWEN supporters from the Climate Change Commission. Some farmers see an apocalyptic future for food production

I have done a lot of work With He Waka Eke Noa over the last year or so, and under the system recommended by He Waka Eke Noa, on-farm sequestration can be used by farmers to offset the cost of emissions.

The aim is to reward as much genuine on-farm sequestration as possible, while ensuring the system is scientifically robust and not overly complicated or administratively heavy. The recommendation from He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Action Partnership on sequestration is that:

• Sequestration must be ‘new’ or additional to what would have occurred under business as usual practices – the baseline for this is 2008 (when aerial/satellite mapping became readily available, making it easier to verify planting) however vegetation established between 1990 and 2008 has been included if adequate evidence is provided.
• A wider range of vegetation not currently eligible under the ETS will be recognised.
• For vegetation that’s eligible under the ETS, farmers will be able to choose whether to enter that vegetation in the ETS or in the He Waka Eke Noa system (they can’t register the same area of vegetation into both schemes).
• To recognise more sequestration than the ETS, the process will be made easier for farmers to register their sequestration – to reflect the lower burden of proof, the value rewarded for He Waka Eke Noa sequestration is likely to be lower than what would be eligible within the ETS.
• All recognised vegetation will need to be maintained or a liability will apply if they are cleared and not replanted – because when vegetation is removed it becomes a source of emissions.
• (Other sequestration categories such as wool, pasture, tussock grasslands, wetlands and soil carbon are not currently included for reasons such as a lack of agreed science)

The Climate Change Commission suggested that the non-ETS sequestration included in the He Waka Eke Noa proposal could receive recognition through a separate system, which could recognise and reward a wide range of benefits, such as biodiversity and water quality.

Their reasons and view for proposing this were that:

• Bringing this on-farm vegetation into a farm-level emissions pricing system adds complexity;
• It creates inequity between farmers and other sectors that are not able to get their similar sequestration recognised (i.e., Regional Councils); and
• It could reduce the incentives on farmers to reduce their emissions.

Now when the Climate Change Commission says bringing in on farm vegetation into the farm level pricing system adds complexity, they are wrong in my view as there are organisations and tools like CarbonCrop and Overseer that measure emissions and sequestration to detailed levels, there are also many international organisations measuring the same thing. You can’t measure on farm emissions without calculating and recognising total on farm sequestration.

This week I caught up with farmer Roger Dalrymple to get his views on sequestration and I’d encourage you to listen to full interview, but is the Climate Change Commission and indeed the government worried that farmers are already carbon neutral or carbon positive in this country? Farmers want better environment outcomes but there must be a fair and equitable system and sequestration proposed by HWEN provides that.

“The Paris Agreement very clearly said that any greenhouse gas issue was not to affect food production. But for some reason our government has totally ignored that. You know, food production is the backbone of this country and I really struggle, especially when our prime minister and James Shaw get on the the world stage and jump on a pedestal and say how great we are, and how are we going to tax our food production. And it makes me wonder whether it's about getting recognition from politicians on the world stage or whether it's actually about reducing global warming.”

We are risking a significant part of our economy by continuing to turn the screws on New Zealand farmers, furthermore do we in this country in 100 years time want to see all of New Zealand’s good productive farm land in permanent forestry to offset emissions created by big emitters like airline and fuel companies, resulting in bringing our primary industry to its knees and killing off rural communities, and the rural landscape? This is what is at risk here. 

Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.