'What the hell?'

There have been claims the Government is prioritising trees over food and questions have been asked as to whether the move is brave or stupid.

While farmers have consistently stated their willingness to pay for these emissions, PM Jacinda Ardern’s announcement from a hay bale stage at a dairy farm in the Wairarapa a couple of weeks ago was not what farmers were expecting.

As Rural News went to print farmers around the country were preparing to take to the streets and motorways to express their opposition to the emissions pricing proposal.

Under the proposal, the Government states its intent to reduce emissions by 10% by 2030 and that farmers will start paying for their emissions by 2025. But according to Federated Farmers president, Andrew Hoggard, this plan put up by government will cause massive economic and social consequences in rural communities. He says the plan would see sheep and beef production drop by up to 20% and dairy by 5% and at a cost to NZ of $3 billion.

The 94 page ‘consultation’ document is a response to the much lauded He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) submission put to government in May, which offered an alternative to the earlier Green-led scenario to put agriculture into the ETS.

HWEN is a consortium of all the rural sector groups and they, after much consultation with farmers and growers, came up with a consensus proposal and this was put to government.

At the time, the proposal was hailed by DairyNZ, B+LNZ and others as a win-win solution that offered the best solution. Four months on, the same leaders are not happy chappies and it seems that government did not rubber stamp their proposal.

Andrew Morrison, chair of B+LNZ, one of the key members of HWEN, says he’s “perplexed” at what’s appeared in the document.

He told Rural News that HWEN spent two and half years working up its proposal in conjunction with MPI and MFE and what they came up with in the end was a very finely balanced solution. He says government were told this and warned that if they got the price wrong, or didn’t have the tools to do the job, there would be problems.

“In our mind we just need to know what the story is here. Under the government proposal, sheep and beef farmers have the potential to be the most affected. Nobody wants that and HWEN would never support a proposal that makes the farming sector unviable – let’s be clear about that,” he says.

Morrison says they will now look carefully at the document and come back with a collective response and ask that the settings for charging farmers are correct.

He says they are still trying to work out why government walked away from what was a fair and equitable proposal by HWEN.

He says if they don’t get a satisfactory response “it’s game on”.

“We can’t have rural NZ decimated and we would never support that. We have worked in good faith in partnership and so now we have to quickly sort out why government has failed to deliver on some of our recommendations,” he says.

Morrison does concede that government has accepted many of the consortium’s proposals, including keeping agriculture out of the ETS and accepting the split gas approach. And to the critics of HWEN he says, come up with solutions – not just criticism.

In an email to farmers, B+LNZ says it’s not happy with the proposal and says there is a lot of confusion about it.

They are urging farmers to participate in a series of webinars government is running during the consultation period to explain the proposal and farmers will be able to make a submission. The consultation period runs until November 18. B+LNZ will be working with other industry groups to provide advice to farmers on how to make a submission.

DairyNZ chair Jim van der Poel says his organisation strongly disagrees with some of the changes made to limit the recognition and reward farmers will get for their onfarm planting, by removing classes of sequestration like shelterbelts, woodlots and scattered trees.

“Emissions pricing needs to be practical, pragmatic and fair for farmers, and there is still a lot that needs to be improved to make what the Government have announced workable. Remember that if farmers are asked to do something they need to see the logic of what they have been asked to do and benefits of it

So we are trying to make sure that whatever is put in place is right and that farmers can say, that makes sense, and will get on with it,” he says.

Van der Poel says farmers want to be able to quantify the benefits of such regulations.

Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard is one of those leading the charge against the government proposal. “We didn’t sign up for this,” he says.

“It’s gut wrenching to think we have a proposal by government that rips the heart out of the work we have done and to the families who farm the land. Feds is deeply unimpressed with government,” he adds.

Hoggard asks the question about what happened to the historic partnership between industry and government – He Waka Eke Noa. He says Feds plan was to keep farmers farming.

“Now they’ll be selling up so fast you won’t even hear the dogs barking on the back of the ute as they drive off. The Government’s plan means the small towns, like Wairoa, Pahiatua, Taumaranui – pretty much the whole of the East Coast and central North Island and a good chunk of the top of the South – will be surrounded by pine trees quicker than you can say ‘ETS application’,” he says.

Hoggard believes that it will be goodbye to all the small town cafes, car yards, schools, pubs, rugby clubs, hairdressers and supermarkets that are supported by the agriculture around them.