The primary sector has asked the government to review its methane targets and the method by which it sets those targets before it starts pricing agricultural greenhouse gases.
In its submission in response to government proposals on pricing emissions, the He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) partnership is asking for the Climate Change Commission to take another look at the 2050 emission reduction targets to reset methane levels using the GWP* calculation.
HWEN chair Sarah Paterson said this reflects feedback from farmers and growers during consultation on the government’s proposals.
HWEN chief executive Kelly Forster said it “really is a call to ensure the [commission’s] review takes into account the latest science”.
The current legislated reduction targets are to reduce methane emissions, compared to 2017 levels, by at least 10% by 2030 and 24-47% by 2050.
The current five-yearly review will be completed in 2024 and the commission can change its targets, what gases they apply to, when targets have to be met and how much can be from within New Zealand or paid for overseas.
Sector submissions on the government proposals consistently raised concerns about the proposed governance structure, the paring back of what vegetation will be recognised as sequestering, price setting, ring fencing levy funds for research and development and the pricing of nitrous oxide.
The HWEN submission was not endorsed by Federated Farmers, which Paterson said is disappointing but does not close the door on working together in future.
She told Farmers Weekly that adopting GWP* to calculate methane, considered more accurate at measuring actual temperature response than the current GWP100, would relate only to establishing targets.
GWP* is not practical at farm level given the volume of historic data required to use it, she said.
AgResearch scientists have calculated that by using GWP* and sequestration, the carbon footprint of NZ sheep and beef production is half that of other countries. They also determined that farmers have been carbon neutral for at least 20 years.
Forster said the HWEN submission addressed three key issues: ensuring policies take account of the social and economic impact on farmers, growers and rural communities; that the price encourages change but does not affect the sector’s viability; and that they system recognises more classes of sequestrating vegetation.
Forster said HWEN is aware of concerns and has tried to reflect that in a constructive submission.
She said the government has continually said it is open to change.
Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard said it withdrew from HWEN to ensure its message was heard and to reflect members’ views.
“We broadly support what HWEN had to say but it was a case of wanting to be crystal clear in what we were saying,” Hoggard said.
Hoggard rejected claims HWEN has been weakened by the federation going it alone.
He said he hopes that taking a position beyond HWEN’s stance will encourage the government’s final position to move even closer to HWEN than had the federation stayed in the partnership.
Beef + Lamb NZ (BLNZ) chair Andrew Morrison said the 10 members of the HWEN partnership have heard the sector’s concerns and are united in their response.
“It highlights how we need to get it right.”
Morrison said he is encouraging the government to listen to submissions and accept BLNZ’s request for a transition period for pricing, as was adopted when the Emissions Trading Scheme was introduced.
“It was set up with a low price to start along with a review period so we can learn how it operates.”
There is concern and anger in rural communities, he said.
“Farmers simply don’t understand why a sector which has reduced its emissions by 30% since 1990, has arguably been climate neutral for lamb over the last 20 years, has increased export revenue by 250% since 1990, and has protected 1.4 million hectares of native bush, while also being a backbone employer in rural communities, and underpinning the economy during covid-19, has seemingly been abandoned or even punished by the government’s proposal.”
