Emissions pricing plan has too many holes
What are my thoughts on the Government’s proposal to price agricultural emissions as a response to climate change? Well, it’s certainly not in line with the recommendations from He Waka Eke Noa, which were put to the Government by primary sector partners as a preferred option for emissions pricing.
As an environmentally-minded dairy farmer who helped provide input into He Waka Eke Noa, I believe the Government’s response has too many holes in it and has lost clarity and direction.
He Waka Eke Noa provided workable options and a clear commitment to sharing the burden amongst farmers, such as for offsetting with native plantings for sheep and beef, and a fair price to incentivise technology for dairy.
The Climate Change Commission, however, has targets to achieve to reduce emissions. But there may be unintended consequences of trying to do too much too fast, such as a drop in GDP.
The real tough stuff? The consequences for us as New Zealanders — not just for dairy farmers, but for everyone.
Farmers are afraid because of what we know is wrong with the Government’s proposal. Poorly considered government decisions have real consequences. We’re concerned there are too few people around the table who know about running a farm. That’s what worries dairy farmers the most.
Let me be clear. Climate change is real. Working on the land, it is obvious our seasons are warming and becoming more volatile, and climatic variability is upon us.
Most farmers I know want to protect their families, business and communities. To do this, we will have to reduce emissions where and when we can — not just stop farming and plant pine forests.
There are many ways to reduce emissions and become more efficient, such as reassessing feed, stocking rates and farm facilities. There is no one-size-fits-all approach; individual farms need individual solutions.
On my dairy farm, for example, I have fenced all waterways, matched stocking rate to what the land can sustainably carry, planted thousands of native trees and decreased imported feed.
New Zealand dairy farmers are the world’s most efficient producers of milk, and we have the lowest carbon footprint for on-farm milk production.
We have to stay ahead, as market access and consumer demand will incentivise changes in our behaviour faster than high compliance costs.
These costs have the potential to stymie progress and hinder innovation or, worse still, to be used to buy international carbon credits to meet our obligations.
Matching costs to what is required for behaviour change is very important, with price-setting needing skilled input.
So, being told that the Government will be best placed to dictate the price of emissions and choose where the money will be spent, without consulting those onfarm, is not going to hold much weight.
Signing up to a document with so many flaws is troubling, and that is why a wellthought-out, well-researched and welldiscussed plan such as the original He Waka Eke Noa document is so important.
What we get after this short consultation process may haunt us forever, as producers of food and key exporters for New Zealand.
We were given the opportunity to help with the solution, and it isn’t clear why the Government has needlessly made changes to the sector-led solution it spent three years helping design.
— Fraser Mcgougan is a Bay of Plenty dairy farmer and a climate change ambassador who, like many farmers, has undertaken various initiatives to reduce his farm’s environmental footprint. He and his wife Katherine won the Bay of Plenty Ballance Farm Environment Awards Supreme Award in 2019.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Email editor@bayofplenty times.co.nz. Responses may be published.