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.
P2 Steer
Select chart tabs
Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.
12 Comments
This whole climate change stuff makes my skin crawl. It seems to be population control in fancy dress, it seems old ideas never die:
http://www.worldofinclusion.com/res/qca/Lest_We_Forget.pdf
As a species we have survived by adaptability. This central planning approach seems like specialisation to me, willfully choosing to commit societal suicide.
Roger W,
Just what are you trying to say? I started to read the link but didn't need to continue as I already knew most of it.
"This whole climate change stuff makes my skin crawl" What does that mean? Do i assume that you believe that climate change scientists are not just wrong, but softening the rest of us up for population control by Nazi era type policies?
I think your post is not only ludicrously inappropriate but highly offensive.
The Paris Agreement talks about the need to reduce emissions 'in a manner that does not threaten food production'. That is not the same thing as saying 'any greenhouse gas issue was not to affect food production'
Our challenge in NZ is not how we create a robust scheme for offsetting on-farm emissions (won't be done, ever), it is how we pivot our agricultural sector away from industrial-scale dairy, which is killing our water, poisoning our people, and polluting the planet. We can increase food production considerably if we use the land for actually growing stuff.
Every humans interaction with the environment has effects. Point me to a nation that has no environmental degradation due to human activity. I'm not aware of any - micro plastics in Antarctica.
Do you wear synthetic fabrics? Have synthetic floor coverings? If so you are releasing micro plastics into the environment. That fleece jacket that has warn out? All that wear has released plastics into the environment.
My dairy farming son told me tonight that in the next 3 months he has 7 separate compliance audits - farm environment plan, irrigation management, effluent management, animal welfare, milk handling hygiene, and animal pharmaceuticals. The farm environment plan cost is over $6000. Oh, and that's when the cows are calving, calves being raised and then cows being AI mated. It is the most intensive and demanding work period in the farm calendar.
Green house gas emissions and nitrogen use have all been reduced in the last 6 years.
I really don't think know anything about what each individual farmer is doing and how the environmental footprint of our agricultural sector is getting much lighter.
Farming is all about measuring, measuring and reporting. The tech is there. Surely calculating on farm sequestration is possible so we know each farms emissions ?. Yes please to on farm sequestration. If a farmer chooses to put in, or maintain, large farm plantings to offset farm emissions, then this is an absolute plus for biodiversity. Careful and steady with legislation to avoid unintended consequences. Pushing to reduce fertiliser use and brought in feed will ensure every area, and blade of grass matters on farm. Encouraging on farm planting and areas to be set aside as part of emissions management on farm is productive and positive.
Should planting trees for carbon be more profitable than pastoral farming ? How many working farms do we want left in New Zealand, this all feels not well thought through.
Farm plantings over 1 ha are already eligible within the ETS where the sequestration benefits are paid by emitters who buy the credits.
If those benefits are to be paid from within HWEN, then who pays for the credits? The answer has to be that it is Peter Farmer who has to cough up to pay Paul Farmer.
KeithW
On the money (literally) Keith
What Angus and others dont realise is there are ways to get recognition for sequestration and if we want areas outside the ETS this needs to be done via a voluntary system that follows well established rules and protocols already in existence internationally (this is being worked upon at Government level). Simply creating some sort of sequestration scheme run by NZ farmers, with whatever rules they want brings no money into the system and simply costs farmers for a circular internal system - a loss game.
The other big risk is someone looks in from their markets and says - hang on this isn't right its a green wash scam etc etc - the brand damage potential is scary and I don't think many understand that.
We need to have systems that recognise what farms have but it has to have integrity and get others to buy the outputs so money comes into the system (An opportunity??) - this is not rocket science but just simple maths.
Farmers need to reorganise their brains to the market - you simply do not live in a vacum and can do what you want - no one in any business can. There are challenges here but also massive opportunities - I see some farmers seizing these and are having the best days and futures they have ever seen. Very few speak up as they get mowed down by the moaning brigade.
"because when vegetation is removed it becomes a source of emissions"
This is not always true. If I cut down a tree without the use of FF powered mechanical devices and do all the preparation to it also without FF powered mechanical devices there is minimal if any emmissions, unless you include the extra food and water intake I might have from working hard and tools I might need if I wear out what I already have.
Am I missing something?
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.