Silence of the lambs

Hill country sheep and beef farms are being targeted to offset carbon emissions while our Government looks the other way.

Over the past few years, much has been written about carbon farming and the negative consequences for rural communities, and the long-term impact on biodiversity and freshwater.

As Dame Anne Salmond wrote: "Socially, culturally, ecologically and economically, carbon farming with pine trees looks like a monumental folly. Offsetting only makes sense if there are genuine benefits to New Zealand and the planet."

This is turning into a serious crisis for our rural communities, with the latest data out of the Gisborne district alone showing that, since 2019, 10 per cent of the effective farmed area (as much as 30,000ha) has gone out of farming and into trees and 80 per cent of that has gone into pines for carbon farming or future harvest.

Our forefathers who fought through two world wars were certainly heroes in my eyes. They not only risked their lives fighting for our country, but most of them came home and did the hard yards, breaking in and developing our hill country into sheep and beef farms that we have built our lives and our economy around.

Now hill-country farming as we know it is under serious threat by the scourge of those buying the farms to offset carbon emissions.

Emission Trading Scheme policy drivers make huge swathes of foreign-owned forests look uneconomic for timber production. Who will make them harvest if it's more lucrative to sell to domestic foresters who can claim the carbon credits for decades?

Our forefathers would turn in their graves if they knew good farmland was going into permanent pine forest and land ownership going offshore while our Government procrastinates or looks the other way. I feel this is a national disgrace.

We all know that, when our forefathers broke in the land they often slashed and burned a bit much, not thinking about the impacts of their actions on biodiversity and freshwater. It has been our generation's responsibility to address those issues through our Farm Environmental Plans (FEPs) which many farmers are incorporating into their businesses to future-proof their farms.

So instead of the Government letting our intellectual property go overseas, it should be working with rural communities to ensure farms for sale on vulnerable landscapes that also have suitable land classes for farming are kept in Kiwi ownership. The Government should be stepping in and buying these farms.

Rural communities would be stimulated by the Government funding the FEP and the redesign of those farms (right tree, right place) and leasing them back to young farmers as the future farms of New Zealand.

Market prices for those farms could be based on the future opportunity for ecosystem services in the regions. This would incentivise hill-country farmers to focus their FEP thus realising the carbon opportunities on their own farms and at the same time improving biodiversity, freshwater and also the chance to improve profitability!

HE WAKA EKE NOA (HWEN)

The second looming threat to hill-country farms is the HWEN Agricultural Emissions Pricing Proposal giving two options.

Option 1 is a farm levy and option 2 a processor-hybrid levy.

The options have been largely designed by government officials and the industry group partnership. What is apparent is that leading farmers have been largely shut out of having a pragmatic input.

So we have ended up with another top-down approach, delivering something that will not inspire farmers to really address climate change.

Option 2 critically fails to meet two of key HWEN principles:

• Integrated: Aligns with wider (environmental) sector and Government objectives and activities.

• Equitable: Recognises early adopters, ‘equitable' impacts across the agricultural sector.

Option 2 uses emissions and price averaging to determine a levy at the processor. This is another version of ‘grandparenting' which means extensive hill country sheep-and-beef farms, many of which have stabilised or reduced their emissions, are being used to offset emissions from intensive farms.

Option 2 puts added pressure on the viability of hill-country farming which will lead to more large-scale afforestation. Environment Minister David Parker has said that he detests the principle of ‘grandparenting' being used in policy frameworks.

I'm sure this will present problems for the industry groups to get Option 2 over the line. It also hints of continued business-as-usual for intensive farm systems.

I prefer a reworked Option 1. This is based on farm-level emissions - methane plus nitrous oxide less your sequestration.

This option does not grandparent extensive farm systems, it is measured at a farmer level. Unfortunately, in its present form, it is unworkable but could be redesigned.

This will be one of the most important decisions in a generation.

Therefore, we need farmers to be empowered to address climate change in a way which will give them a sense of wellbeing by making them feel in control, fosters and incentives becoming enthusiastic stewards of the land with real practical solutions.

Hopefully, through the consultation process, the authors of HWEN options and crucially James Shaw listen to the leading farmers and their recommended amendments to ensure an equitable and integrated approach where ‘farming fits the land'.

I believe, if we get this right by using the most up-to-date science and metrics, NZ will get international recognition for leading the world in contributing to climate cooling post-2030