'Communication miscues' and rigid ideologies are causing farmers to disengage from the climate mitigation process, frustrating some industry leaders

The government’s response to the agricultural sector’s He Waka Eke Noa proposals and the sector’s shocked reaction to that response suggest two parties with completely different expectations of each other.

Despite both sides apparently pursuing similar objectives, they seem to have a diametrically opposed agenda.

The government is driven by an ideological desire to be seen to be meeting its ethical obligation to achieve maximum reduction of greenhouse gases whatever the cost, whereas the primary sector has a more pragmatic wish to ensure its survival while striving to operate more sustainably.

The insensitive tone of the government’s reply which ignored the importance of key elements of the proposals – notably sequestration, pricing and oversight – has angered many farmers to the point where it has lost much of its dwindling support from the sector.

Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor admits there has been a ‘communication miscue’ on both sides. He persists in his belief there is not much difference between the respective positions and is optimistic a mutually acceptable solution can still be reached. He maintains the tight timeframe has been driven by the legislative requirement to respond to the sector’s feedback by 31st December, having allowed HWEN additional time for consultation.

He also considers the government has shown confidence in the sector by not interfering in the HWEN decision making process. He concedes it will be necessary to continue into the New Year with more work needed on sequestration and emissions price setting.

National Party spokesperson Todd Muller finds it remarkable the government did not accept the HWEN recommendations as a starting point before working together to achieve enhancements to more problematic aspects of the scheme, such as accounting for sequestration and emissions pricing. According to Muller, the government’s approach to on-farm sequestration is ’bizarre’; National would agree to the HWEN proposal on sequestration while remaining agnostic on the technologies used for the purpose. He is also adamant the government is too risk averse in adopting new technology, as change has to strike the right balance between risk and reward.

Leaders of DairyNZ, Beef+Lamb NZ and Federated Farmers last week issued a Joint Sector Statement on Agricultural Emissions Pricing which established a common position between the three organisations from which they can move forward together and advocate strongly on behalf of farmers. The statement contains nine core principles which are consistent with the sector’s position from the start to be raised with the government. This should make it clear it is not just a ‘communication miscue’, but a dramatic failure to recognise the importance of actually listening to and understanding the people who will suffer directly from the impact of misguided, ‘we know best’ ideological and top down thinking.

These core principles state: the methane targets are wrong and should be science-based, the methane price should be set at the minimum level needed and fixed for five years, levy revenue must only be applied to R&D and system administration or returned to farmers, price to be set by the Minister on advice from an oversight board appointed by HWEN partners, the system must incentivise farmers to adopt technology and farming practices that reduce emissions, all sequestration that can be measured should be offset against emissions, and farmers should be allowed to form collectives to measure, manage and report their emissions efficiently; finally emissions leakage is not acceptable and farmers without access to sequestration or mitigations should be allowed to apply for temporary levy relief if their business viability is threatened.

It may be idealistic to expect ministers to accede to every one of these principles, but at the very least it ought to be possible to agree on the logical need for the methane price to be set using the correct science and the levies to be applied only to the original intended purpose, while failing to account for sequestration offsets on the grounds of complexity is a very lame excuse for avoiding a moral obligation.

Rob Hewett, chairman of Silver Fern Farm Cooperative, has sent a note to its members advising them to breathe through their noses, recognising the inevitability of change and working with not against it. He cites the obligation to take action to reduce emissions, acknowledgement the consumer has the last word and the opportunity to embrace technology to bring about change, including developing the IP to solve biogenic emissions. He even suggests developments over the next 25 years may make it unnecessary to reduce stock numbers, although this begs the question what happens before then. In the meantime he emphasises the importance of continuing to have a seat at the table in discussions with government and to be part of the agreed solution.

Hewett’s more measured advice reminds farmers they have been through watershed moments before, including droughts, floods and the abolition of subsidies, and in 30 years’ time this will be no different. But whereas the sudden removal of subsidies was an immediate economic imperative which was difficult to disprove, this debate is more nuanced. There is general acceptance of climate change and the harmful effect of GHGs, but many of the arguments hinge on the accuracy of the science, data modelling, and opinions and conclusions of politicians and experts who may or may not have considered all the facts.

That is what makes it essential for the HWEN partners to present a united front to the government to argue for an outcome which will satisfy social, economic and environmental goals without destroying the primary sector’s ability to contribute to New Zealand’s prosperity and way of life.

Current schedule and saleyard prices are available in the right-hand menu of the Rural section of this website.