sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Angus Kebbell talks to Kelly Forster about the important He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership, the way forward for how we will meet our environmental goals, international climate commitments, and financial goals

Angus Kebbell talks to Kelly Forster about the important He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership, the way forward for how we will meet our environmental goals, international climate commitments, and financial goals

By Angus Kebbell

In this new series I am working with He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership to discuss the pathway forward for New Zealand’s most important sector.

This partnership will support farmers and growers to protect, restore and sustain our environment and to enhance our well-being and that of future generations.

The partnership is working together to implement a framework by 2025 to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and build the agriculture sector’s resilience to climate change.

Through this framework, farmers and growers will be assisted to measure, manage and reduce on-farm emissions; recognise, maintain or increase integrated sequestration on farms; and adapt to a changing climate.

The framework will include incentivising farmers and growers to take action through an appropriate pricing mechanism by 2025, in line with legislation.

This work is being done to enable sustainable food and fibre production for future generations and competitiveness in international markets. 

As country, we are also bound by the Paris Agreement. New Zealand’s target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by -30% below 2005 levels, by 2030. This target is economy-wide, covering all sectors and all greenhouse gases. Our target will be managed using an emissions budget, meaning New Zealand is responsible for the total emissions across the period 2021-2030.

In this series we will be focusing on New Zealand’s Primary industry and it’s contribution to New Zealand’s overall targets.

In this episode I talk with He Waka Eke Noa program director Kelly Forster to get a high level overview of the program, let’s check in with her now.

 

This program brings together 13 organisations ranging from farmers and industry, through to government departments and all singing from the same hymn sheet. I believe in this program, it is designed to truly help our farmers and growers continue the great the work they have done in recent times. Whether we like it or not we are bound by the Paris Agreement to achieve set targets, and for our farmers and growers He Waka Eke Noa’s framework will support this change.

The Partnership will provide farmers and growers with a toolkit over the next five years, including:

  • Guidance on how to measure, manage and reduce emissions
  • Farm plans that show the steps being taken to manage emissions
  • A system for measuring and reporting on emissions
  • A mechanism for pricing emissions as an incentive to take action
  • Guidance on maintaining or increasing sequestration, that is, long-term carbon storage (for example in trees or soil)
  • Guidance on adapting to a changing climate.

Farmers to have your say talk to your industry representative or email your thoughts directly to yourfeedback@hewakaekenoa.nz

In the coming episodes I will start to delve into the various work streams of the program and I will be talking with representatives from each of the organisations involved.

To get the full story listen to the podcast above.


Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

39 Comments

" This work is being done to enable sustainable food and fibre production for future generations and competitiveness in international markets."

That, sir, is an oxymoron.

PDK
Your views are well communicated on this site.
Please tell us farmers what do you expect the individual to do ?
Sell all livestock, let farm revert to scrub/ trees and declare bankruptcy ?
As I have asked you before to no avail.
Please provide solutions for your view of the world.

It is indeed a problem, when everyone bets mindlessly on an ever-bigger future. Not just farmers, but house-buyers, debt-taker-onners.

I start from the premise that a smooth de-growth is preferable to a sudden collapse (and growth, of course, is impossible). If you're in debt, perhaps sell (but it doesn't solve the problem that some ignorant person - uninformed by the MSM (who they could consider suing; the MSM have had enough put under their noses that they can't plead ignorance - that kind, anyway....) - is going to be left holding the parcel.

Form-wise, smaller-holdings with more labour per acre, more human energy in per food energy out, has to be the desired model. Strenuous efforts should be made, too, to recirculate nutrients (city/populations back to land). So far, BigAg has been a linear trip; they only end up one place; ended.

Biodiversity, bee-corridors, wetland rejuvenation, native rejuvenation, water-quality restoration, all those things your debt/growth system removed in its blind pursuit of unsustainable calories. Sorry, but the information telling you not to hop on that bandwagon, has been around all my adult lifetime; I'd certainly have been able to explain this to you 40 years ago. So Caveat Emptor, really. I see you lot as a bit like the sea-side house-builders: 'I know better than you, I want to build here'. 30 years hence: "You let me build here, you need to protect or recompense me".

Pshawwwwww

It's a quandary in my mind , who this Labour Government hates the most and wishes to destroy as soon as possible : the nation's farmers , the natural gas industry .... or the internal combustion engine car industry .. whichever order , 1 , 2 or 3 , they're gunning for you ...

It's nothing to do with any particular government, it's just the way the world is heading. As farmers we have to go along with it and keep producing to the best of our ability.

... I'd prefer that we drew up our own " solutions " and time frames ... rather than sign up to some Kyoto or Paris protocol ... just the fact that we're taking some action , achieving some CO2 reductions , shows other jurisdictions that we're being serious ... but , without wrecking whole industries in the process ...

Two posts! Must be a really, really slow day.

.. stick to the subject , please ... theres's no call for ad hominem attacks nor slurs on fellow posters : thank you .

I wondered when it would get a response

That attitude Hans is a big part of the problem. If farmers and there lobby groups and associated businesses had taken a stand against the zero carbon bill with the science available we may not be in such a position.

The best of your ability yes. And better than most producers in the rest of the world.

From a global perspective surely its better to produce as efficiently as possible and supply globally while stop producing where its not.

The pathway forward is for people to push back against this AGW nonsense, get off their lazy political bums and do some basic research. Latest data confirms CO2 is naturally greening the planet, as plants become greener they give off water vapour which rises to become clouds and rain which has a natural cooling effect. There is great observed and researched data that overwhelms the climate change alarmism and people need to do there own research or this will cost us dearly.

Water vapour is also an effective greenhouse gas, as it does absorb longwave radiation and radiates it back to the surface, thus contributing to warming.
Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2.

The problem I have with the greenhouse effect hypothesis is that it is not supported by over forty years of actual observed data.

Obviously you're looking in all the wrong places!

fenix,

Rubbish. Have you seen the Keeling Curve? Presumably not and nor do you seem to know anything about satellite observations. Clearly you know nothing about how our atmospheric gases interact with the electro-magnetic spectrum as solar energy enters and then leaves our atmosphere.
Take your head out of the sand and you will find good information. Berkeley Earth would be a good starting point.

It's a pity you guys that don't want to believe your activities are frying the planet, look towards half baked notions as a reality escape clause. Are you a conspiracy theorist? 9/11 an inside job? Moon landings filmed backstage Hollywood? Chemtrails poisoning us? Obviously you must think scientists with expertise in climate are either more stupid than you, or in on some dastardly plot? Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but it is a feedback gas. To increase the heating caused by H2O vapour, temperature MUST RISE FIRST! CO2 is a forcing greenhouse gas. It traps heat, which then allows more water vapour to be held in the atmosphere, which then traps more heat! At any given temperature you can't force the atmosphere to become more than 100% saturated. CO2=forces temperature. H2O=feedback! It's kinda simple!

.. a little known fact , that Neil Armstrong was not the first man to step upon the moon's surface .. . when he touched down , there was a MacDonalds stand , and a guy asking Neil if he wanted to upgrade to a family pack or to supersize his coke .... extra fries with that , Mr Armstrong ?

Thats not true, the radiative forcing effect of the green house gasses on the moon will not allow for extra fries to be presented at the optimum dinning temperature.

The problem for scientists with expertise in climate is that they have accepted the reduction of the complexity of climate (seasonal temp, water cycle etc etc) to just 3 minjor gasses. Co2 and methane are both parts of the living carbon cycle and nitrous oxide that of the living N cycle. Cartesian reductionist logic is predicated on a control to test a scientists conjecture now redifined as a hypothesis. If not you risk flirting with absurdity. There is no control planet whereby you can test this conjecture. So you have to zoom back out and see what you've got. We have the assertion that if you tax the respiration part of the grassland carbon life cycle and subsidise the photosynthetic part of newly planted forest carbon life cycle then we have stopped climate change. It remains conjecture. It is simply now a question of do you believe it or not.

"The problem for scientists with expertise in climate is that they have accepted the reduction of the complexity of climate (seasonal temp, water cycle etc etc) to just 3 minjor gasses." Have they? Try reading an IPCC report."We have the assertion that if you tax the respiration part of the grassland carbon life cycle and subsidise the photosynthetic part of newly planted forest carbon life cycle then we have stopped climate change." Yeah, I don't think many believe that simplistic solution. That's more a political attempt to squeeze a little more BAU in, before the climate collapse really gains momentum.

When you say 'do some research', do you mean listening to some nut jobs on youtube? What will cost us dearly is ignoring the absolute reality that mad-made climate change is the biggest threat to civilisation.

Long-term it is indeed an existential threat; short-term no, it's just an increasingly loud background drum-beat. Energy depletion, resource depletion, overshoot/overhang, and Entropy, are other more-immediate facets of the predicament facing human-kind. They will probably manifest as financial collapse or war, before we go past 1.5 degrees, 2 degrees.......

I don't disagree - but a lack of short-term action will make the long-term threat unavoidable. We need a new way of governing and living that focuses on the sustainable use of resources to maintain / improve quality of life. The obsession with GDP and 'growth' is killing our kids.

Most NZers were sold on the 97% consensus myth but a quick search( Willie Soon is a good start) will show how the public have been duped.

Willie Soon? Wasn't he the guy being paid by the fossil industry to produce fake science? Reminds me of the fake science the tobacco industry churned out telling us smoking was good for us! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denie...

Typical response, attack the person with no regard for the facts.

Facts? Like the fact Soon took money from the fossil industry to fake science? https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23022015/guide-willie-soons-climate-r...

"" As country, we are also bound by the Paris Agreement. New Zealand’s target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by -30% below 2005 levels, by 2030. This target is economy-wide, covering all sectors and all greenhouse gases. ""
How are we doing so far? We have had 15 years so what have we achieved. If progress is linear then we will have reduced emmissions by 3/5ths or 18% ?
Would we have met this target if our population ad not grown by 20% in the last 17 years?

I have just googled NZ greenhouse emissions and an MBIE graph shows virtually no change from 2005 to today for either net or gross emissions. The same chart as projections for a dramatic drop from 2035 to 2050 . It really does seem to be an issue that is all virtuous talk. If we have failed since the Paris agreement what hope do we have for the next 15 or 30 years?
Does any reader know what penalties NZ will pay if/when we fail to meet our Paris agreement? The article says we are bound by it.

There is no way carbon dug out of the ground and burnt above it, can be sequestered in meaningful amounts. The reason is that it takes too much energy to do so, and we're having increasing trouble maintaining what we're doing, using all we extract NOW. If you google Carbon Sequestration, all you get is Artist's impressions; sure indication it's not happening.

So that means you can't 'offset' to anyone else, either. Most of the 'offsets' currently aren't like-for-like; they can't even be calibrated. Nothing more than virtue-signalling and conscience-salving. If we 'pay' a penalty, then good-o. That means less than can be 'spent' on yet-more processed parts of the planet, meaning less emissions. Which will have all the self-centered types up in arms.....

You make sense. Even if all humans and domestic animals left NZ and the entire country was forested then we would only be back where we were 800 years ago but with almost all of our carbon emissions from fossil fuels burnt in NZ still in the atmosphere and remaining there for centuries.
As you say carbon offsets are nothing more than virtue-signalling and conscience-salving. Cheap nuclear fission driving devices that take CO2 out of the atmosphere would solve it and there are other equally futuristic technical solutions but planning for that is like organising your family's future wealth by buying lotto tickets.

I understand the 175 cruise ships that typically come here produce the CO2 equivalent of 1000000 cars and Air NZ is responsible for 5% of the countries emissions.

So ban crime ships and shut Air NZ and help reduce emissions. What a crock.

Both produce emisions that are excluded from the otherwise comprehensive Paris agreement. That is standard for all countries.

The usual argument is that emitters of CO2 ought to pay for the privilege. The problems come when there are exceptions (international travel, agriculture) and when different countries pay different amounts because that leads to exporting the problem to places that don't care. Examples are the UK reducing emissions by reducing heavy manufacturing but importing those goods or NZ reducing gas production but just importing more fossil fuels to make up for it.

If we want to reduce emissions to historical levels surely we should stop any immigration of any kind as increased population even with savings will produce more in total. It just makes is disproportionately harder to reduce total levels when the population increases.

I believe other countries made their commitments based on 'per capita'. NZ didn't and then chose to rapidly increase our population.

It is a shame that these forums usually (but not always) revert to some sort of urban v rural 'you are more ignorant than me' argument. Seldom are solutions posted, only one sided arguments. Farmers are good at doing what they are instructed - growing food under some form of regulatory guidance. In NZ, this is free market driven and what a job farmers do in meeting these societal needs. So, if society now wants farmers to revert to less CO2, then society needs to work together with farmers. This includes smart use of resources, off-set by society paying more for food; more seasonality and less choice as society needs to accept that certain areas are best for certain production system; a realisation that NZ feeds big parts of the globe beyond it borders - the options for where this food comes from if NZ doesn't produce it are frightening - the Amazon rain forest is getting enough hammer, without it being needed to replace the drop in NZ production. Farmers need to understand this sh1t is real and as an industry we have to do something. Let us say restrictions are imposed on stocking numbers, what does that achieve? Farmers strive for more efficiency from remaining stock = more inputs = limited success of policy. The answer can only come with collaboration - it is going to hurt if we are going to get anywhere near addressing climate change, but everyone needs to share the pain!

If a carbon tax is an incentive to reduce ghg, is income tax an incentive reduce work?

If money wasn't required for any lifestyle more comfortable than a park bench, then yes, the higher the tax, the less incentive to work. So in theory a high carbon tax will reduce emissions.