Mark McCoard says the HWEN options are not fairly balanced between intensive and extensive farming. Photo: Country-Wide
A group of farmers are challenging the two options put forward by He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) on agricultural emissions pricing, saying the proposals as they stand threaten the future of extensive farming businesses in New Zealand.
The farmers have written an open letter to the HWEN partnership, spelling out their concerns in the hope that they will be considered and other farmers will provide feedback on the points they highlight.
“We are concerned that options one and two in the HWEN consultation document are not sufficiently compelling and do not provide fair process, they are not informed by science, they are not administratively simple, nor are undertaken in an integrated manner reflecting how agriculture as a land use impacts on the environment,” the letter said.
“If left unchallenged, extensive hill country pastoral farming will become unduly afforested as the proposed emissions pricing scheme options place too much pressure on reducing emissions on sheep, beef-cattle and deer-farming businesses, despite these rural land-uses already having low and long-term steady-state stabilised emission profiles.”
They said because both HWEN options focus on emissions rather than warming, extensive properties causing the least warming are going to be asked to pay the highest price.
Of the two options put forward by HWEN, the group prefers the farm-level option over the processor hybrid as they say it gives individual farmers responsibility for managing their farm business relative to expectations.
But they want changes made to that option.
“Pricing must be more targeted and balanced using a progressive tiered structure, (and) the administrative system should be underpinned by use of existing business arrangements to avoid duplication and minimise costs,” the letter states.
They prefer an integrated farm management approach that could be based around a farm plan, rather than a siloed approach, which may result in unintended consequences.
Rangitīkei farmer and NZ Deer Farmers Association executive committee member Mark McCoard, who is one of those behind the open letter, said one of the major concerns about the two options that have been put in front of farmers is that they bring an unfair imbalance between intensive and extensive farming businesses.
He said intensive farming operations could probably deal with the options as they stand, but it would be a different matter for extensive farmers, which is one of the reasons why he supports a stepped pricing system on a per hectare basis, with increased pricing for farmers with high emissions.
“So, the further you go up that emissions profile, the higher rate of tax you pay,” McCoard said.
“Everyone’s paying, everyone’s contributing, but it’s recognising that your emissions per hectare is greatly reduced because of the extensive nature of your farming.”
He also disagrees with the idea that extensive farmers have more sequestration options under the current options.
“A lot of the early adopters were doing things before 2008 that won’t be considered,” he said.
“There was an awful lot of riparian planting, shelterbelts, erosion control, which doesn’t get counted.
“This 2008 baseline that’s been specified is coming under a lot of pressure.”
He said all measurable carbon sequestration sinks need to be included and where science cannot presently measure with accuracy, there needs to be scope for future inclusion.
The group say administrative overheads could also be reduced if pricing was managed using pre-existing systems such as through the Inland Revenue Department, which would help avoid double handling of pertinent information.
Beef + Lamb NZ chief executive Sam McIvor said the feedback it has been receiving on issues such as the 2008 baseline is already leading it to rethink aspects of the proposals.
“We agree that people who have been doing work to reduce emissions for some time should receive recognition,” McIvor said.
“There is recognition through the farm-level system, where farmers are only required to pay on the level of their emissions today, therefore capturing work done on reducing emissions.
“With the processor-level hybrid system we’re examining how that might be recognised – we don’t yet have all the answers to how this can be done, but it is something we continue to work on.”
He said while B+LNZ agrees with many aspects of the open letter, there are issues with how its proposal would work across a broad-ranging climate change partnership involving a variety of sectors, with the need to ensure equity and fairness.
He said utilising existing systems – whether the IRD or an alternative – to achieve administrative and cost efficiencies is a valid point and is being actively considered as conceptual models are fleshed out.
Representatives of the group are meeting with the HWEN team next week.
More information on the open letter and the accompanying proposals can be found at www.abetteroption.org.nz
