94% of NZ farmers oppose Paris Agreement, survey shows
A survey of 2000 farmers shows 94% of respondents believe that remaining in the Paris Agreement for climate change is not in the country's best interest.
The simple answer is that the promise of sequestration credits was a key marketing ploy to deceive farmers into supporting the emissions pricing proposal developed by the industry group partnership, He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN).
When our industry groups offered to help the Government come up with a better emissions tax option than the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), they developed a dual strategy to garner farmer support.
The first part of the strategy was to continually reinforce how bad the alternative (ETS) was, through a campaign of fear. ‘You wouldn’t want to be in the ETS’ was repeated ad nauseam in print and radio media.
The second part of the strategy was to exaggerate the merits of their own proposal, downplay or completely ignore the downsides, and throw in a sweetener in the form of sequestration credits, which could be used to offset the emissions tax bill.
However, this is where honesty went out the window as our industry groups became desperate to obtain farmer support, and the HWEN consultation process turned into a slick marketing campaign, rather than genuine consultation.
Farmers should get full sequestration credits was the sales pitch – riparian planting, native bush, shelter belts, woodlots. But we weren’t told of the fine print that meant most vegetation on farms would not be eligible for credits.
In my private capacity, I have undertaken hundreds of riparian plantings for farmers over the past 20 years. Few, if any, will be eligible for credits. Similarly with native bush on farms – most of this is pre 1990 of which some may be eligible for minor ‘additionality’ credits resulting from ‘active ecological management'.
Another catch is it must be stock excluded, which means most of the native vegetation on farms pre 1990 is ineligible.
There are many exotic plantings on farms in the form of shelterbelts, trees, and small blocks. Most of these are pre- 1990, therefore also not eligible for credits. Only small, exotic plantings that don’t meet the ETS criteria (less than 1 hectare, 30 metres wide and 30% canopy cover) and post 1990 may be eligible for credits. However, the Government has thus far rightly rejected these for being too small and administratively cost ineffective.
Our industry leaders were outraged about the Government’s position on sequestration. But the truth is that it was our industry groups that designed and agreed to the fine print that penalises early adopters and knocks out most vegetation on farms from receiving credits.
The Government’s announcement prior to Christmas was a reconfirmation of what they had previously agreed to and generally aligned with what our industry groups/ HWEN proposed.
The promise of full sequestration credits under HWEN in the future is a red herring and a lie. Both the Government and industry groups have agreed to criteria like ‘additionality’, which knocks out most vegetation on farms being eligible.
Maybe the biggest hope is for native vegetation on farms to receive substantial credits for all values, not just sequestration in a revamped ETS. This was something the Government committed to follow up on when we raised it at our recent meeting with the (former) Prime Minister and ministers.
The emissions pricing and sequestration debacle has exposed major failings in our national advocacy voice. We can no longer have confidence in our industry leaders to provide full and accurate information on policies and regulations that directly impact farmers.
Our industry groups need to decide whether they are independent, faithful advocates of grassroots farmers. Or agents helping the Government roll out their policy agenda.
The sequestration credits debacle proves they can’t be both and a major revamp of farmer advocacy is well overdue.
Jamie McFadden is Groundswell NZ’s environmental spokesperson.
