Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Consultation Event Feedback Template
Instructions:
• One template is to be fil ed in per consultation event and provided to Al en + Clarke following each consultation event for
inclusion in the overall analysis. In the first instance, the primary audience is Al en + Clarke, who wil focus thematic feedback,
but these wil also serve as our primary record/notes for each session.
• Use the prompts provided as suggestions to capture as much information as possible. However, you do not have to answer
every prompt, and can vary from the specific question if this wil better capture the themes and information provided in the
session.
• Capture as many Q&As as possible in the designated row, and duplicate the row for each new question. If you know that the
question has already come up and been answered similarly, or exists in our FAQs, you can make a call on either not capturing
it or referencing the relevant FAQ.
• Please file here, or email to 9(2)(g)(ii)
if you cannot access the link.
Date:
20 October 20222
Meeting type:
Workshop with agricultural sector
MfE/MPI staff:
Darran Austin, Kara Lok, David Mead, Shannon Bentley, Margie Wheeler, Hannah Steans,
Claudia Gonnelli, Oliver Power (Oli), Kate Simpson
Number of attendees:
106 peak
Demographic of attendees Farmers, sector leaders
(if possible, e.g. farmer,
1
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Date:
20 October 20222
NGO, Māori, general
public):
Prompt
Stakeholder feedback
Emissions reporting
Who did attendees think should be
responsible for
reporting and paying
for
emissions?
Only enabling Maori feels inequitable. It was pointed out that it was to reduce
What feedback did attendees have on
existing inequitable circumstances. A participant also described col ectives as an
the
thresholds set for farms to report ‘enabler’ for farmers that should be available at the start.
emissions?
What did attendees believe would need
to be in place to
include collectives in
the pricing scheme?
We had questions on the deadline so firm and why it wouldn’t be pushed. We
Did attendees believe farms will have
answered: 1st of Jan was negotiated in 2020 by the Commission, deadlines can be
the
necessary data for reporting by
shifted, but we need to draw a line in the sand, and we need to do it as soon as
2025?
possible, so that we can meet our targets, otherwise it would be harder, and it
reduce revenue used to recycle back into farmers.
What feedback did attendees have on
registration requirements?
We had a question on why farm areas is needed, as it doesn’t affect emissions?
We responded that is mostly for auditing and compliance. It was noted that farm
2
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Did attendees raise any concerns
about
area is also raised for those with paper roads and river accretion who farm areas
reporting and payment timing?
outside of their land title.
Why not push out implementation if it’s not ready rather than create an interim
system? Perception this wil be a waste of time/money. - If we don’t start raising
revenue to make changes, it’s going to be harder to meet the targets (limited time
to raise revenue, make changes before 2030)
Did attendees believe there are any
opportunities to improve the proposed
approach to
reporting emissions?
Question: whether the equine sector would be included
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer: we pointed out that horses wil not be included in the farm/processor levy
[Duplicate this row as needed]
proposal, but not if the ETS backstop option wil be triggered.
Pricing, revenue and incentive payments
What
concerns did attendees have
around the proposed approach to
Participants wanted to know how the pricing would be related to the targets.
setting levy prices?
3
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Did attendees offer any
improvements We responded that it wil be closely monitored and the pricing wil be adjusted
to the proposed approach to
setting
depending on how on-track we are and Ministers wil change the price accordingly
levy prices?
(higher or lower).
A participant asked:
A economical y viable sheep and beef farm is considered
750su by Beef and Lamb, Is there concern that admin costs for these smaller
(often lifestyle) farms may lead to non-compliance on a large scale?
What feedback did attendees have on
the proposed
revenue recycling
strategy?
What did attendees think about an
advisory board for revenue
recycling?
What
transitional support did
Participants asked when wil the Gov recognise the current programmes in place
attendees say was needed?
such as Silver Fern Farms Net Carbon? Currently none are "approved"?
What approaches did attendees support We answered that those are commercial programmes and not official government
for
incentivising mitigation practices programmes. If they are using low emissions mitigation, they would also be
or technologies?
recognised in the emission pricing when it starts.
What
mitigation practices or
There were questions on what kind of transitional support wil be available for rural
technologies did attendees think
communities. We answered that this is a key point we are actively seeking
should be
supported by an incentive
feedback on. Measures include 95% discount and the dif erent pricing of methane
payment?
and maybe early access to emissions technologies. One participant asked if there
would be ringfenced support for rural communities.
4
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
It was noted that new technology and mitigation options are limited for sheep and
beef farmers’ interest in ‘nature-based’ solutions - soil carbon. Soil carbon is high
already in NZ and fluctuates a lot. Not ruling it out in future
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Pricing carbon sequestration and nitrogen fertiliser
There were several questions on the equity of sequestrations and the reasons why
smaller areas (e.g. shelter belts and small woodlots) are not included and if there
What feedback did attendees have on
is a clear/defined definition of riparian?
the proposed approach to
carbon
We answered that recognising smaller lots wil require large administrative costs,
sequestration?
as they are fluctuating and pointed out the definition of riparian in the in the
What
barriers did attendees raise to
discussion document.
including new categories of
There was also a question on how would a a processor levy incentivise or
sequestration in the NZ ETS?
acknowledge changes individual farmers are making?
Did attendees have any
concerns
We answered that this is one of the reasons why we would prefer to have a farm-
about bringing
on-farm vegetation into level levy. However, in this case, in that case revenue wil stil be recycled into
a farm-pricing system?
mitigation technology and sequestration, and processors themselves could send
messages down. Some of the processors are already doing it.
5
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Did attendees prefer
pricing nitrogen
Questions on how would revenue wil be recycled if N fertiliser goes into the ETS.
at the farm level or at the processer
It wil go into the CERF (Climate Emergency Response Fund), so it would be
level? Why?
possible for them to go directly into R&D for fertilisers emissions. Please give us
feedback on this
Questions: Whether we could recognise soil carbon.
New/thorny questions asked by
Answer: we acknowledged its potential importance, but we don’t have the science
attendees
for it stil , so at the moment it’s not worth it. In the longer term, other forms of
[Duplicate this row as needed]
sequestration (e.g. wetlands) may come through in the ETS if the science supports
them. The challenge is that you need good science.
Questions on how organic fertiliser wil be priced and pollution swapping.
Pollution swapping (put it in the submission), we would like to stil pick it up in the
farm level, but we seek feedback on what this would mean for the horticulture
sector (eg. Half in the farm-levy and half in the ETS). Many hort operations may
not meet the entry threshold (into the levy).
Future enhancements
Did attendees prefer a
tradeable
methane quota? What benefits did they
cite?
What concerns did attendees have
about
tradeable methane quotas?
6
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Participants wanted to have more details on the processor levy.
We answered that if in whatever decision is made, there wil be further consultation
on the finer details, which wil be agreed on between now and then. Legislative
changes wil also be consulted on at select committee
What concerns did attendees share
about an
interim processer-level
There were questions on how we would capture those farmers who do not send
levy?
stock to the processors if introducing a processor levy?
What
alternatives to an interim
We answered that there was the economic assumption that the cost would get
processer-level levy did attendees
passed through. It’s one of the reasons why we want to use the farm-level levy
share?
How does a processor levy incentivise or acknowledge changes individual farmers
are making? - Answered on call. This is one reason the farm levy is the desired
solution. If the processor levy is put in place this should be over a short time.
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Impacts and support
How did attendees believe the system
Questions around if food prices would increase in NZ. We said this is unlikely -
would
impact them?
food prices here are set mainly by world market, not domestic production (90-95%
is exported).
7
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
What
support did attendees believe wil
be needed?
What impact did attendees think the
pricing scheme wil have on their
communities?
How can
rural communities be
supported?
Did attendees share specific
impacts
for Māori?
How did attendees think the
Crown
should
protect relevant
iwi and Māori
interests?
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Implementation, verification, compliance and enforcement
What feedback did attendees have on
Question on by who and how is the final calculator system being developed? If a
the proposed
governance structure?
'simple' calculation is the starting point, how wil that reflect all the dif erent farming
systems out there and also, show the dif erences in good management practises?
8
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
What did attendees think should be
The implementation agency (government stil needs to make a call on it) wil be
included in the post-implementation
responsible for it and potentially set up a technical advisor group, as they currently
review in 2030?
do for the national inventory. It stil needs to be agreed upon.
What feedback did attendees have on
How can farmers be assured that their emissions are counted? How can they be
the proposed approach to
monitoring
assured there are more mitigation technologies in the future.
and verification?
Tight monitoring of emission reduction, technologies and their impact, how the
Did attendees support a
government-
revenue is recycled, what other support is the government giving farmers.
run or third-party verification system?
Why?
Who did attendees believe should
fund
the
administration of the scheme?
Did attendees have feedback on the
proposed approach to
cost-recovery?
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Other/General
9
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Did attendees have
any other
feedback on the proposals?
Question: How wil food security and affordability for everyone in NZ be considered
New/thorny questions asked by
in setting the price and farmer assistance and incentive payments?
attendees
We answered that since we export most our meat and dairy, it’s unlikely to affect
[Duplicate this row as needed]
food security in NZ. We also acknowledge that the farmers margins wil be
reduced.
Question: How does increased uptake of mitigations in NZ impact global emissions
leakage?
Any uptakes of mitigation wil reduce global emissions, because we are so
efficient. It’s better to reduce emissions through mitigation, so that’s why
competitors don’t pick up what we left.
10
