Response ID ANON-SYE4-4CQ2-Y
Submitted to Pricing agricultural emissions
Submitted on 2022-10-18 16:50:21
Submitter details
1 Submitter name
Individual or organisation name:
Future Farmers NZ, Lake Hawea Station and Carbonz joint submission
2 Are you submitting as an individual or on behalf of an organisation?
Organisation
3 What is your contact email address?
Email:
9(2)(a)
4 Which region are you in?
Select your region:
Otago | Ōtākou
5 Please choose any you are associated with:
Academic or subject matter expert, Business, Farmer/grower, NZ ETS participant
Other: please specify here:
https://futurefarmersnz.org
Section 3: The Government’s proposed policy designs
Read section three - HTML format
1 Do you think modifications are required to the proposed farm-level levy system to ensure it delivers sufficient reductions in gross emissions
from the agriculture sector?
Yes
Please explain your answer here:
2 Are tradeable methane quotas an option the Government should consider further in the future?
No
Why? Please explain your answer here:
3 Which option do you prefer for pricing agricultural emissions by 2025?
Not Answered
Why? Please explain your answer here:
None, we support a processor level levy paid outside the ETS as described in our attached proposal.
Read section three continued - HTML format
4 Do you support the proposed approach for reporting of emissions?
Not Answered
Why? Please explain your answer here:
We support a processor-level levy paid outside the ETS as described in our attached proposal. We belive as many recommendations should be
considered from our alternate approach as possible.
What improvements should be considered? :
5 Do you support the proposed approach to setting levy prices?
Not Answered
Why? Please explain your answer here:
What improvements should be considered? :
Read section three continued - HTML format
6 Do you support the proposed approach to revenue recycling?
No
Why? Please explain your answer here:
Revenue from externality taxes does not have to be 100% recycled into the same policy.
What improvements should be considered? :
7 Do you support the proposed approach for incentive payments to encourage additional emissions reductions?
No
Why? Please explain your answer here:
Incentive payments should be given for sequestration but not for emissions reduction. Taxation should be the incentive to drive emissions reduction,
otherwise farmers are only motivated to reduce emissions up to a certain point.
What improvements should be considered? :
Read section three continued - HTML format
8 Do you support the proposed approach for recognising carbon sequestration from riparian plantings and management of indigenous
vegetation, both in the short and long term?
No, none of the above
Why? Please explain your answer here:
No, we support all the above types of sequestration being rewarded in the ETS. The ETS must urgently be reformed to accommodate different types of
recent sequestration. If a farmer has sequestered a ton of carbon in riparian planting they should be immediately eligible for the full ETS price for this ton
of carbon. The ETS needs to accept new methodologies including the use of Artificial intelligence and remote sensing to measure sequestration.
What improvements should be considered? :
Read section three continued - HTML format
9 Do you support the introduction of an interim processor-level levy in 2025 if the farm-level system is not ready?
Yes
Please explain your answer here. If you selected no, what alternative would you propose to ensure agricultural emissions pricing starts in 2025?:
Section 4: Impacts
Read section four - HTML format
10 Do you think the proposed system for pricing agricultural emissions is equitable, both within the agriculture sector and across other
sectors, and across Aotearoa New Zealand generally?
Within the agriculture sector
Why? Please explain your answer here:
Within the agricultural sector but it will only be equitable with other sectors when that same portion of sector emissions are taxed at the same price.
What changes to the system would be required to make it equitable?:
11 In principle, do you think the agricultural sector should pay for any shortfall in its emissions reductions?
Yes
Please explain your answer here. If you selected yes, do you think using levy revenue would be an appropriate mechanism for this?:
12 What impacts or implications do you foresee as a result of each of the Government’s proposals in the short and the long term?
Write your answer here :
13 What steps should the Crown be taking to protect relevant iwi and Māori interests, in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
Write your answer here:
How should the Crown support Māori landowners, farmers and growers in a pricing system?:
Section 6: Audit, verification and compliance
Read section six - HTML format
14 Do you support the proposed approach for verification, compliance and enforcement?
Not Answered
Why? Please explain your answer here:
What improvements should be considered? :
Provide general feedback
15 Do you have any other priority issues that you would like to share on the Government’s proposals for addressing agricultural emissions?
Add your comments, ideas, and feedback here.:
Upload supporting documentation
Upload documentation:
Agricultrual pricing joint submission .pdf was uploaded
Consent to release your submission
1 Do you consent to your submission being published on this website?
No
2 If yes to the above, clearly state if there are parts of your submission that you do not want published.
If yes to the above, clearly state if there are parts of your submission that you do not want published.:
Attachment refused under section 18(d) of the Act as it is already publicly available at: https://www.futurefarmers.org.nz/hwen-submission
