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:
3 November 2022
Meeting type:
Ag Emissions Pricing Consultation: Iwi hui Rotorua
MfE/MPI staff:
MPI: Claudia Gonnelli, Kate Simpson, Shannon Bentley
MfE: Kara Lok, Martin Workman
Facilitators: Tanira Kingi
Number of attendees:
21 participants
1
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Date:
3 November 2022
Demographic of attendees Farmers and growers
(if possible, e.g. farmer,
NGO, Māori, general
public):
Prompt
Stakeholder feedback
Emissions reporting
Who did attendees think should be
responsible for
reporting and paying
for
emissions?
• The definition of farm could create a Treaty issue
What feedback did attendees have on
• Collective only for Māori as insulting, divisive and paternalistic, want to be
the
thresholds set for farms to report
enabled for everyone so that they can trade extra sequestration with other
emissions?
collectives and could bring other land-blocks in the scheme. It would be a
What did attendees believe would need
profitable way to help with management.
to be in place to
include collectives in
the pricing scheme?
Did attendees believe farms will have
the
necessary data for reporting by
2025?
2
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
What feedback did attendees have on
registration requirements?
Did attendees raise any concerns
about
reporting and payment timing?
Did attendees believe there are any
opportunities to improve the proposed
approach to
reporting emissions?
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Pricing, revenue and incentive payments
What
concerns did attendees have
around the proposed approach to
setting levy prices?
Did attendees offer any
improvements
to the proposed approach to
setting
levy prices?
3
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
What feedback did attendees have on
• Not clear if best to ringfence a proportion of the overall revenue for Māori or
the proposed
revenue recycling
whether it is best to have Māori levy should be reinvested in Māori business
strategy?
• Lack of trust in the government ability to respect Māori Advisory Board and
What did attendees think about an
in the consultation process. The Advisory Board wil not have enough
advisory board for revenue
influence
recycling?
•
What
transitional support did
attendees say was needed?
What approaches did attendees support
for
incentivising mitigation practices
or technologies?
What
mitigation practices or
technologies did attendees think
should be
supported by an incentive
payment?
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
4
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Pricing carbon sequestration and nitrogen fertiliser
• Need to include recognition of pre 1990s efforts.
• Kaitiaki of the land should be recognised., need to be retroactively
recognised.
• Request for government support as active management is expensive
What feedback did attendees have on
• Need more clarity on what counts as active management (not only fencing)
the proposed approach to
carbon
• Dangerous and unfair to start with a loose set of setting for sequestration
sequestration?
(can set up a lot of changes, e.g. Land use change), after which there is no
way back. Risk of perverse effects.
What
barriers did attendees raise to
including new categories of
• Additionality should also include second rotation, as this sequesters more.
sequestration in the NZ ETS?
• Want to maintain control of the land, as more able to manage than other
entities (eg. DOC).
Did attendees have any
concerns
• Needs more clarity about terminology and for future direction. Lack of clarity
about bringing
on-farm vegetation into
regarding sequestration is preventing people from planting additional plants.
a farm-pricing system?
• Existing technology (LIDAR) could help provide more accurate data and info
• Acknowledgement that there is a lack of data currently available and that
there is a lack of satellite coverage.
• Desire to include shelterbelts and the cost of regulation should not be a
reason why they are not recognised.
Did attendees prefer
pricing nitrogen
at the farm level or at the processer
level? Why?
5
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Future enhancements
Did attendees prefer a
tradeable
methane quota? What benefits did they
cite?
What concerns did attendees have
about
tradeable methane quotas?
What concerns did attendees share
about an
interim processer-level
levy?
What
alternatives to an interim
processer-level levy did attendees
share?
New/thorny questions asked by
Question:
attendees
6
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Answer:
Impacts and support
How did attendees believe the system
would
impact them?
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?
• Māori are the lowest socio-economic category and the proposal asks them
to pay, need to be recognised for their work.
How did attendees think the
Crown
• Need more data
should
protect relevant
iwi and Māori
• Need to include whenua Māori in consultation, not only iwi.
interests?
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
7
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Implementation, verification, compliance and enforcement
What feedback did attendees have on
the proposed
governance structure?
What did attendees think should be
included in the post-implementation
review in 2030?
What feedback did attendees have on
the proposed approach to
monitoring
and verification?
Did attendees support a
government-
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?
New/thorny questions asked by
Question:
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Answer:
8
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Other/General
• Importance of recognising the importance, scale and reach of Māori present
Did attendees have
any other
in the meeting and the need for a coordinated Māori response. Request to
feedback on the proposals?
be given the same space as industry experts, need to be considered as
serious industry players that look after the poorest in the communities. Need
to be recognised in the registration procedures.
• Preference to postpone the pricing until the full system is developed
(especially until there is more info on sequestration and how to price it).
New/thorny questions asked by
There is a need to understand how the model (pricing and sequestration)
attendees
fits together.
• Risk of perverse consequences, interim processor levy feels like punishing
[Duplicate this row as needed]
farmers if the government does not finish its planning.
• Need more modelling and its assumptions need to be tested.
• Submissions are expensive and previous feedback provided in HWEN was
ignored.
• Not enough info in the discussion document to give meaningful feedback
• Possible breach of the Treaty ( does not respect the 3 Ps) could result in a
class action.
9
