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

Guy Trafford assesses how the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan will affect the agribusiness community, and notes that reception of the upcoming He Waka Eke Noa plan will be equally important

Rural News / analysis
Guy Trafford assesses how the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan will affect the agribusiness community, and notes that reception of the upcoming He Waka Eke Noa plan will be equally important
Sheep grazing near native bush

Farmers should be feeling at least a little relieved with the latest updates to the countries emissions policies. Most of the policy relates to encouraging change rather than enforcing it with financial penalties.

Transport energy is where the main focus is with yet more incentives to purchase EV’s and hybrids. (Groundswell will be pleased with the Government response looking to even exceed their aspirations.)

For agriculture, the injection of $339 mln into new “Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions” should almost start its own industry around it. This is despite the sector not paying any extra money into the Emissions Trade Scheme which will fund this research. It now remains to be seen what benefits can be achieved.

Oxfam, for one, have been quick out of the blocks in criticising the Governments approach with Oxfam Aotearoa campaigns lead saying "If the government is going to be investing in these things it should have been helping to scale up regenerative organic farming and a change in our farming systems." His criticisms at this stage are premature.

The real acid falls on agriculture after May 31 when the combined sectors, after considerable farmer consultation, have to present a plan to Government reflecting what the majority of industry want or at least are prepared to work with. At this stage it appears that a scheme which allows farmers to be responsible for their own on farm emissions seems to have the nod with potentially an initial transition through the processors administrating it while the scheme gets up and running.

If the Government is not satisfied that the new He Waka Eke Noa plan is workable or has farmer buy-in then they may make real their threat to drag agriculture into the ETS. How long after the May 31 deadline before Government announce their decision is not yet clear but it is likely to be sooner rather than later.

It will likely be clear which way they will swing simply by analysing the quality of what is proposed. However, what Government appears to have recognised in the latest announcement is the important role agriculture still plays to the New Zealand economy. Many of my era will still remember then PM Robert Muldoon’s words back in the 70’s lambasting agriculture and calling it a sunset industry. And this was despite his Government propping it up with subsidies and supports. So even he, despite no being in love with it, still recognised it was essential to have agriculture to balance the nation's books.

Not a lot has changed 50 years on.

Despite what the Government have or haven’t done, those on farms need to remember that the bottom line will be driven by the cross-party agreed carbon budgets and these need emissions to be at least halved by 2050.

A veiled warning came from Finance Minister Grant Robertson when he conceded “the funding plan was supposed to make sure those responsible for causing the pollution – paid” and added “the agricultural sector was too big an emitter - nearly 50% of the total - not to take action as quickly as possible”.

So, with both DairyNZ and Silver Ferns Farms both applauding the Government’s action, one cannot but feel agriculture is not off the hook. Unless the new (and current) research bare fruit to some real progress in reducing on farm emissions, the screws are going to continue to be tightened.

A brief summary of the main points of the announcement are below:

  • Emissions Reduction Plan prepares New Zealand for the future, ensuring country is on track to meet first emissions budget, securing jobs, and unlocking new investment.
  • Every sector to play its part across transport, waste, food production, manufacturing, building and construction.
  • More New Zealanders supported to purchase electric vehicles, increasing zero emissions vehicles to at least 30 percent of light fleet by 2035.
  • Reduced waste going to landfills and investment in waste infrastructure so most houses have kerbside food waste collection by 2030.
  • Easier, cleaner, cheaper public transport, including infrastructure projects in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and nationally integrated ticketing.
  • Zero emissions buses only to enter fleet from 2025 and entire public transport fleet decarbonised by 2035.
  • Low emissions trucks to transport food and other products, cutting freight emissions by 35 percent by 2035.
  • More of our biggest businesses powered by clean, renewable energy generated here in New Zealand, not overseas.
  • An end to our reliance on coal with a ban on new low to medium temperature coal boilers and a phase out of existing ones by 2037.
  • Climate friendly food and fibre production with new Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions accelerating delivery of emissions reduction tools and technologies and an emissions pricing mechanism for agriculture by 1 January 2025.
  • Support for native wildlife and forests.

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.

29 Comments

Organic and regenerative agriculture, ffs. Way to increase emissions per unit of food produced.

What I'd like to see is funding into methane inhibitors, we are becoming laggards in that field. Especially developing a slow release system for grazing animals, there's money to be made in patenting that technology.

Up
7

I agree. Organics is bollocks - lower production, more toxic (yes more toxic) 1950s chemicals than modern ones, and can't operate as a closed loop as it claims to be able to. It also claims to regenerate soils (NZ soils aren't depleted so don't need regenerating). The true believers go in for biodynamics (google it, it's modern day witchcraft) and all organic principles go out the window in the case of natural disaster, yet the produce can still be sold as 'organic'. Well meaning people, but narrow minded and anti-science (I have quite a bit of experience dealing with organic farmers).

 

For methane inhibitors to work, we may need to change to a feedlot model where the inhibitors can be given as a dose. This could have some benefits, as barns would be used, which could capture some methane and most of the effluent

Up
5

I don't think going away from the grass fed model is something we should do (except maybe in places where N leaching is a big problem, during wet conditions).

It does seem to me that you can get slow release boluses for all sorts of things - trace elements, zinc, anthelmintics - so why not a methane inhibitor?

Up
0

 "more toxic (yes more toxic) 1950s chemicals than modern ones" Care to list these "more toxic" chemicals?

Up
1

Um, DDT?

Up
1

That is some serious nonsense there waymad. No organic farm uses DDT! Have a look, see if you can find something as toxic as say Imidacloprid? Or maybe Chlorpyrifos? Have a crack. https://www.biogro.co.nz/find-inputs-for-organic-production

Up
3

Try copper sulphate for a start. Incredibly toxic to aquatic life

Cobalt sulphate is suspected of causing genetic and fertility defects, and is very toxic to marine life.

Methyl bromide is approved for use with organic strawberry plants during planting

Not 1950s, but organic-approved pelylysticides including Beauveria bassiana, a naturally occurring fungus, diatomaceous earth, insecticidal soap, horticultural oil, pyrethrins, rotenone (another organic-approved synthetic which is now banned), spinosad, and copper sulfate can be very toxic to bees.

The point is, people buy organic thinking they're pesticide free, or no 'chemicals' or 'synthetic chemicals' are used in their production. But they're wrong, and if nothing else is available to treat a problem, and matters outside the control of the farmer (best planning aside) have occurred, then they can use all sorts of things people think aren't in organic food, and still call it organic.

 

Up
1

That is a list of really serious chemicals you've got there? You must be joking surely? Seems you don't have any concept what organic farming entails? All inputs for organic production are severely controlled. Soil amendments such as cobalt are only applied if testing shows a deficiency. The pest and disease inputs are only used if cultural methods are inadequate! If non scheduled items are used, the farm loses its status. It is nonsense in the first degree to suggest certified organic farming is in any way comparable to chemical farming, in terms of environmental damage, period!

Up
2

I know very well what organic farming entails (and have engaged in some hyperbole). The real issue is, organic farming is terrified of 'chemicals' and modern farming techniques and is determined to adhere to 200 year old farming techniques (and 'modern' witchcraft like homeopathy-  seen how effective homeopathic treatments are on mastitis? Hint - not at all and the cow either has to be culled or leave the organic herd if it is to be treated humanely under the Animal Welfare Act). Techniques that caused famines in the past. I have seen plenty of organic farming as a system, and what I have seen makes me very sad. Well meaning people with the wrong end of the stick. Most of them seem to think that organic farming is the answer to climate change too (but I'll save that for another day).

Up
2

You obviously haven't had much experience dealing with many organic farmers.

 

Up
0

Actually spent 2 years working exclusively with organic farmers - they turned me against organic farming. The more I saw the less I liked it.

Up
1

More costs for the consumer & taxpayer. We're also handing economic advantages to those countries who don't buy in the scheme. How do you stop that? More costs for the consumer & taxpayer.

Up
5

I assumed to announce anything to do with agriculture would be premature before May 30 th , so was not expecting any detail agriculture related in the plan.

Surprised rail didn't get a mention in the plan , hopefully in the budget.

 As far as Muldoon goes, well anything negative for the rural electorates would be political suicide back then.  He only needed a couple of MP's to walk across the aisle to have a no confidence vote and the end for him . 

Up
0

The cash to scrap scheme is not exclusively for EV's and hybrids. it could be a modern low emissions ICE vehicle replacement. 

Up
0

Many very wealthy people would fall into the income bracket to gain the subsidy due to good accounting and trusts so taxpayers subsidize their new EV .

Up
0

I've always looked down on electric mountain bikes. But if they're subsidised......

Up
1

Not to mention you would look really cool getting the cows in on one. 

Up
0

Actually I have considered a electric sidexside. With a bit more choice and better tech, they're currently old tech, I'd go for that. I tend to set the farm and the way I farm around a sxs so ubco not so much 

I did use a mountain bike to get the cows when I was younger, great for the fitness.

Up
1

We use a modified golf cart in the orchard.  The back seat was taken out and a tray put on etc.  A company in Hamilton does them.  Getting more popular in some parts here for orchards.  Not sure how they would handle the mud, but you possibly don't get enough of that, where you are, to be a problem?

Up
0

Nissan Leaf + metal blade + plywood + lower ambitions = EV ute for the flatter paddocks.

Up
0
Up
0

If you get it past the accountant , let us know . 

Up
0

I did have the old mountain bike on the books cause I did use it. Didn't try with the latest edition.

Up
1

As one who was around during the Muldoon era I don't ever recall him expressing those sentiments about farming. " Sunset industry" became the mantra of the Lange - Douglas administration whose ambition was to replace farming by turning N Z into  "the Switzerland of the South Pacific" .A wise  old fellow once told me " it doesn't matter what they try to replace farming with, it always comes back  to the fact that farming is the only activity where NZ enjoys a natural advantage "  I have yet to see him proved wrong.

Up
7

Once Britain joined the EEC farming would have appeared headed off a cliff. The next couple of decades would have underlined farmings demise. I can't remember Muldoon saying this. Seems unlikely, as '70s Nats were virtually farmers to a man.

Up
0

Yea it was actually Lange who called it a sunset industry. Also saying something in a derogatory tone about it being akin to a corner dairy. Which I thought was odd even at the time cause a corner dairy with thousands of items and cash to keep track off must be a b@#$h to run.

Up
1

"Low emissions trucks to transport food and other products, cutting freight emissions by 35 percent by 2035"

This will be a stretch, given NZ's topography.  Lugging a 45 tonner B-train between,  say,  Blenheim to Collingwood, or Dunedin to Queenstown, or Nelson to Karamea, is gonna take a lotta battery swaps, given the vertical meters involved, let alone the horizontal ones.

Fonterra's trial of electric milk tankers is taking place in the pancake-flat Waikato and expected range is barely 140kms.

Aspirational... and the observant will note that none of these destinations have either Rail or Port.....

Up
1

80 to 90 % of the population is covered by rail or ports. Queenstown and Taupo are the only large cities that aren't. Disappointing there was no mention of rail in the plan, hopefully in the budget.

Up
0