The Government’s pro-posed changes to the agricultural emissions pricing structure was a huge blow to our sector, particu-larly at a time when farmers are already facing spiraling input costs and rising inter-est rates. Here in the King Country, there is a lot of regenerating bush on land that was developed back in the 1980s when farmers were encouraged to clear bush through, arguably flawed, land development incentive schemes. Much of this land was unsuitable for stock and has since regenerated, irrespective of any fencing or stock exclusion requirements.
Under the Government’s proposal, a lot of this sequestration would not be recognised, limiting farmers’ ability to off-set their emissions. Even if sequestration is recognised, extensive farmers will still have to pay a significant emissions bill, so to remain viable, it is essential that farmers are given credit for the work they have done to protect and enhance the vegetation on their farms. To be able to carry out all the environmental work farmers are more than willing to do, such as fencing off waterways, planting riparian areas, woodlots and shelter, they need to be running economically sustainable businesses and the Government’s proposed agricultural emissions pricing structure puts this at significant risk. In order to be green, farms need to be in the black. NZ red meat is recognised internationally as a naturally produced product, so managing climate impacts naturally through the use of resources that sequester carbon within the farm is consistent with this. It makes no environmental or economic sense to compromise farmers’ ability to do this. I’m also deeply concerned about the sheep and beef farms being sold and converted into forestry. The Government’s proposal is going to further encourage these sales.
The repercussions of this are enormous. As well as the loss of rural communities, farm succession for many families is no longer an option. Just as a reminder, Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ ) would prefer farmers didn’t have to pay a price for their emissions and instead continue to reduce their emissions through the use of genetics, forages and management efficiencies. But we had no choice. We either came up with an alternative or we went into the Emissions Trading Scheme which is not an option we want to consider given the outcomes for our farmers. What the Government has come back with is not what the agricultural sector proposed. I want to make it clear that as a sector, we are all willing to play our part in addressing climate change but we will not accept a system that disproportionately puts our farmers and communities at risk.
Other significant changes to what was recommended by He Waka Eke Noa, and which B+LNZ has concerns about, include changes to the emissions price setting process and criteria and the linking of the nitrous oxide price to the ETS price. It has been encouraging that all the He Waka Eke Noa industry partners have clearly stated that the Government’s changes will change the outcome and impacts of the agricultural emissions pricing framework. Now is the time for the industry to stand united and strong on its original proposal. Consultation on the Government’s proposals will run through until Friday 18 November.
We strongly encourage all farmers to make a submission and put pressure on the Government to ensure any pricing scheme is fair and equitable. B+LNZ will be holding face-to-face meetings around the country, sharing our views on the proposal and providing advice to assist farmers with the submission process. B+LNZ will be making its own submission, also informed by farmer feedback.
