Federated Farmers says the Government climate adaptation framework needs to include policies allowing flexible land use so farmers can adapt to climate change.
In a submission to the Government’s climate inquiry on Wednesday, the farmers’ lobby group says it views managed retreat as both a public and private concern.
Paul Melville, Federated Farmers’ general manager of policy and advocacy, told Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) the climate was changing and farmers will need to continue to adapt to it.
“It is important [that] government measures enable farmers to adapt through land use flexibility, but also investment in good infrastructure and good signals around managed retreat,” he said.
“Flexible land use policies for farmers can give information on what a changing climate will bring.”
Federated Farmers doesn’t support an emergency levy and fund that has been proposed by others in the rural sector.
Melville said farmers “need to farm for a rainy day” whether facing a $3 farmgate milk price payout, 10% interest rates, or drought – or all three.
He added that it was up to farmers to manage this risk along with a “positive relationship” with their bank.
But changes in New Zealand’s banking sector now meant farmers were forced to sell during tough times, rather than receiving support through the “lean” years.
Under investment
The FEC was given the responsibility of determining how NZ manages the risks and expenses associated with future extreme weather events back in May by Climate Change Minister Simon Watts.
Through a climate inquiry, the FEC plans to provide recommendations and principles on a climate adaptation framework and report back to Watts on September 5th.
Federated Farmers believes managed retreat is both an issue of public and private concern.
Melville said in some cases, public infrastructure will need to be shifted and there needs to be “long term signals” to communities.
“Rural communities have suffered in recent times from under investment in infrastructure, and again, we see it as the role of government to provide resilient infrastructure to rural communities,” he said.
“So it's just a case of drawing that distinction between managed retreat for the public good, but also making sure the signals are there for private farms, private landowners.”
Melville said water storage is also something farmers will need to adapt to in a changing climate –but if done well will also allow economic growth to occur in those communities.
FEC deputy chair and National Party MP Catherine Wedd asked Melville if he thought water storage was the only way forward for some NZ provinces to actually mitigate climate change.
“I think it's one of the many adaptation tools we need,” he replied. “Without water storage, you would see a much more abrupt adaptation than if you could have the ability to have more water storage.”
Back in June, the Government announced a six year delay to on-farm greenhouse gas emissions pricing which had been promised during last year’s election.
Farm-related emissions from agriculture, animal processors, and fertilizer companies will remain unpriced until before 2030 when the Government aims to establish a separate pricing system for the sector.
Watts said in June the Government will allocate $400 million over the next four years to develop tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions. This investment includes an additional $50.5 million for the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre.
Federated Farmers is a voluntary, member-based organisation representing farming and other rural businesses. According to the group, it currently represents 12,000 farmers across the country.
11 Comments
Make up your mind people, you want to be flexible with land use or not?
We want the Government to introduce limits on the amount of forestry that can be offset in the ETS and commit to fixing this problem before any price on agricultural emissions is imposed.
General 2 — Beef + Lamb New Zealand (kiwisbackingfarmers.nz)
50 shades of green with envy, they certainly have their own agenda. Telling landowners what they can and can't do with their land.
Silly thing is hundreds of farmers and beekeepers would have gone to the wall by now if it wasn't for carbon income. It is not a for ever game but it is helping right now. Ultimately there will be a balance of land use.
Life is going to get interesting. Store stock is going through the roof. Meat companies throughput is going through the floor. It may seem all funtimes getting easy money for sticking a million pine trees in the ground rather than producing a fat lamb or an angus calf. But the tide is turning. Fertiliser is coming down again. Maybe interest rates will follow. We have a beef schedule edging on $7.00 and we havn't made it to late September yet where it usually peaks.
Farmers need to be able to get on with producing food. Mucking around with the system and offering silly money for growing trees is interfering. Once done it is one helluva mission to be undone. Replacing water lines and fences is beyond affordable. We have to get this right before destroying the infrastructure we so carefully built over so many years. And for what...NZ is covered in native from head to toe. We dont need radiata up every rural road.
Misses point. Do you want flexibility to pursue the income stream of your choice or not?
Much of the loss of infrastructure loss you refer to (slips, floods, washouts) was due to overgrazing and de-forestation within the catchment area of said infrastructure. Much of this unsuitable land cleared thanks to tax payer grants via Muldoons livestock incentive programme - the land should never have been cleared.
No one is stopping farmers from farming. Yes things are looking slightly brighter but the fact remains, as rastus points out, the choice is there to plant unsustainable areas and earn extra income for fertilizer etc.
Lets face it, there is a lot of hill country that will deteriorate to the point where top soil is gone. Particularly when running heavy cattle on fragile soils. NZ is a young fragile place and large areas are not suitable for livestock.
Perfect opportunity to plant trees and get paid.
They will weasel, delay. obfuscate - then abandon.
Just like Air NZ.
The reasons is identical - both were constructed in a fossil-fuel era. Take fossil energy (and fossil feedstock - think Haber Bosch) away from farming as practiced, and it's toast. As is Air NZ.
And we're half-way through the fossil fuels.
No consensus about the right approach, as we are learning that carbon reduction and environmental initiatives dont work that well. Did I say that, shame on me, oh well we just have to stick with BAU, but before you endeavour to vilify me you already realise that what I am saying is absolutely correct.
Did you hear about the plantain that was meant to be a saviour, it has little persistence in the field
Made sense for this guy. Sold unproductive farm so he could buy his parents out of their more productive place.
https://www.odt.co.nz/rural-life/rural-people/selling-forestry-tough-decision
Obvious thing to do. New rules with land class will make these type of deals difficult if not impossible so the options to sell for whatever reason becomes harder. I guess we will see land price drop for the more marginal areas.
On a side note, the farm in the article is much better utilized as a production forest.
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.