Productive farmland still being lost to forestry
OPINION: Uncertainty around the rules intending to limit carbon forestry risks undermining the Government’s well-intentioned efforts to protect productive farmland and rural communities.
That’s one of the key findings of research commissioned by Beef + Lamb NZ, comparing New Zealand’s policies with a broad cross-section of 15 international jurisdictions.
B+LNZ chair Kate Acland says they are calling for changes to New Zealand’s climate change policies on the back of the new research.
“We’re urging the Government to consider an alternative approach, where the importance of food production is at the heart of climate policy and farmers are supported or rewarded for taking action to reduce emissions, rather than penalised.”
Acland says that they commissioned this research to show how other jurisdictions are treating their agricultural emissions as part of their policies on climate change.
With the European Union and NZ, countries included in the report are Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Uruguay, Brazil, Japan, South Africa and India. The report was written by independent consultant Macaulay Jones.
“There is a narrative in New Zealand that agriculture has been ‘let off the hook’ by excluding ruminant emissions from being priced in the ETS – but this report shows no country has put biological emissions into their ETS. We therefore welcome the Government’s recent amendment of the ETS that removed this threat,” says Acland.
Read More
-
Breeding for low methane can improve productivity
-
Panel banking on farmer support
-
Methane targets 'review gives farmers confidence'
The report found that every country is looking to reduce agricultural emissions but in very different ways.
One of the key implications of this research is that New Zealand is out of step globally in looking to put a price on agricultural emissions from food production, says Acland.
She notes that no other country, apart from Denmark, is currently intending to put a price on agricultural emissions. However, under the Danish policy proposal the impacts of the tax will be offset with billions of dollars of additional subsidies to their farmers.
“Rather than pricing agricultural emissions, the majority of jurisdictions analysed plan to use subsidies and incentives to support emissions reductions in the future.
“Most governments are investing heavily in R&D technologies to reduce agricultural emissions.
“While we acknowledge there is an expectation that further progress needs to be made in reducing emissions from food production, the report shows there are alternatives to an emissions price that can achieve the desired outcomes and B+LNZ strongly encourages the Government to look at these alternatives.
“We support market-led or other creative ways being explored to support the adoption of new technologies by farmers as these come on board and would like a more holistic approach being taken to what farmers can be recognised for.
“If New Zealand farmers were to face a price on emissions from ruminants, they will face significant competitive disadvantage as our competitors spend billions subsidising or incentivising their farmers.”
