Opinion
FARMERS WEEKLY – farmersweekly.co.nz – March 21, 2022
23
GHG pricing feedback is critical The
Pulpit
Kelly Forster
W
ITH a week of consultation to go, thousands of farmers and growers have already had their say about options for pricing greenhouse gas emissions – whether that’s at face-to-face or online meetings, taking part in surveys or providing feedback direct through the He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) website. Your feedback is critical to making these options fit for purpose. HWEN partners are absorbing the feedback as it comes in, looking at where the options could be amended or improved and where farmers’ and growers’ preferences lie. There are a few points I want to clarify to make sure everyone has the facts in front of them, including how the HWEN options will deliver reductions and how much they might cost farmers. Let’s be clear that both options put forward by the HWEN partners have the potential to reduce emissions by much more than 1%. The 1% figure is an estimate of how much emissions would reduce from pricing alone, but HWEN is not proposing ‘pricing alone’. The partners are committed to a framework where the pricing system motivates and rewards actions to reduce emissions,
including investing in incentives to uptake technology or change practices and research. Modelling shows this framework would achieve around 4% reductions in methane. Combined with reductions from other existing policies and the commercial availability of emissions mitigation tools such as methane inhibitors and lowemissions livestock genetics, this would see New Zealand meet its targets. We’ve modelled the potential reductions of methane separately from carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide – the split-gas approach – to recognise the different impact of long-lived and short-lived gases on the ultimate goal of limiting global warming to 1.5degC. Our calculations use the actual weight of methane emissions instead of converting them into carbon dioxide equivalent-weight using the GWP100 comparison. This is in line with growing scientific consensus that the alternative GWP* methodology more accurately reflects the impact of methane. I also want to clarify the different approaches to calculating emissions levels for pricing in the two options presented by HWEN. The processor-level system would use a national average amount of emissions per kg of product (farm outputs) and per tonne of synthetic fertiliser sold. The farm-level system does not calculate emissions on outputs. Rather, actual on-farm emissions are calculated to reflect an individual farm footprint, using inputs such as stock numbers and fertiliser use. I’ve also seen comments suggesting that the proposed approach to sequestration means every tree on every farm is included and any tree felling will incur a liability. In fact, farmers would have the choice of including areas of forest in the HWEN scheme; if you don’t claim your trees as sequestering carbon, then you won’t face any consequences if you cut them down. One of the main questions is ‘how much will this cost me’? The
partners realised this would be important to farmers, so put some numbers alongside the options using prices equivalent to current Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) prices. These numbers will change. They are there as an indication only. The levy per tonne of emissions may go up if reductions are not happening quickly enough or may go down if emissions reduce quickly.
What HWEN is proposing is a transparent way of setting prices, involving farmer representatives, while recognising the final decision on the price will be made by central government. What HWEN is proposing is a transparent way of setting prices, involving farmer representatives, while recognising the final decision on the price will be made by central government. The partnership is also exploring a price ceiling. An example would be that the overall cost would be no more than if agriculture entered the ETS. So what’s next? Behind the scenes, partners are looking at all the feedback that’s coming in, including considering alternative options that have been put forward. There have been a lot of well-considered and thoughtful comments that will help guide and inform the partners as they consider what to recommend to government. We’ll provide a summary of what we’ve heard after consultation closes at the end of March. The HWEN partners will take time in April and May to consider the feedback and develop recommendations that are due to government by the end of May. It was never going to be easy to come
GOAL: Programme director Kelly Forster says the HWEN partners are committed to a framework where the pricing system motivates and rewards actions to reduce emissions. up with a credible and practical scheme in the timeframe available, but we’re on track. The Government will consider the recommendations and likely consult the wider public later this year, before making a final decision in December on a pricing system for agricultural emissions. The partners are clear that recommendations will be in line with HWEN’s core principles: to recognise and reward on-farm changes that reduce emissions; apply a split-gas approach to recognise the difference in climate impact between different gases; recognise on-farm sequestration that the ETS does not; and ensure that revenue generated
helps reduce emissions in the agricultural sector. I encourage those who haven’t already had their say to use the feedback form on the HWEN website hewakaekenoa.nz/yoursay by March 27.
Who am I? Kelly Forster is the He Waka Eke Noa programme director.
Your View Got a view on some aspect of farming you would like to get across? The Pulpit offers readers the chance to have their say. farmers.weekly@globalhq.co.nz Phone 06 323 1519
Family at Core of Taihape Farming Partnership Spring Farms is run under what farmer director Mark Chrystall describes as a hybrid model, which he says acknowledges the importance of family to the people behind it. Watch the video now at youtube.com/OnFarmStory This episode was made possible with support from Rabobank On Farm Story
On Farm Story
