Kaitaia / Taipā hui
Housekeeping
Staff: Troy Para, Julie Collins, Raniera Bassett, Waitai Petera, Kate Simpson, Warren Gray,
Angela Christensen, Margie Wheeler, Oliver Powell, a couple of other regional staff
(Apologies: Ripeka Hoerara, David Mead)
Attendees (inc. govt): 19
Discussion points
• Multiple of the attendees talked about wearing multiple pōtae / having multiple duties
& ties to land blocks
• One participant noted the low attendance & that the comms from the Ministry/ies
aren’t getting out - wanted us to rethink our approach
• Participant wanted to see scenarios - model farms - what would this look like?
• Participant felt that they didn’t have input at the start of the process, but govt took a
mandate to represent all communities - now ‘stuck at the bottom of the cliff’
• Implementation could devalue Tiriti settlements, create inflationary pressure - some
who think an exemption would be appropriate
• Julie discussed history of emissions pricing & decision not to put ag in the ETS in
2008 ‘because we didn’t have an electric cow’ - & why imperative to act
• Iwi/Māori weren’t at the table - FOMA were & they don’t represent iwi, PSGEs do
• Most of the sheep & beef farms that wil go out of business wil be Māori - much of
this is due to the profile of the land. A disproportionate amount of whenua Māori is
already in forest
• The calculations we are using are Westernised models
• Julie acknowledged a lot of the focus has been on Western solutions, the govt wants
to create a space for Māori led solutions, & noted that revenue from whenua Māori
wil go back to whenua Māori
• Participant noted that when the margins are narrow, paying the levy wil be a big
enough problem that it doesn’t matter if it’s coming back via RR
• If all the money is in forestry that may create issues for whānau - it’s hard to argue
with this route as it makes the most money. Should be exempt. Lawyers looking at
[Treaty?] settlements as they consider it the only way to fight this.
• 1990s climate change kōrero - a decade after many industrialised countries moved
production to China. At this time Aotearoa was moving towards globalisation and
away from community/grassroots focused solutions.
• Criticised ‘panic’ decision making without working with the affected communities
• Submissions are costly for people, who don’t have the time/money
• This is a complex issue - why do we have to abide by a government timeframe when
govt hasn’t tried to engage on our terms?
• If we do everything we can, and nobody else does anything, we wil be worse off
• Participant wanted central government to step out of their affairs and provide the
resource to do what’s needed - determined by the whānau / community
• Whenua Māori should have been the model
• Mass pine plantation (acidic) is costly to water supply - especially in the north when
it’s dry for 8 months of the year. Leaches into groundwater
• Little or no say in the system as it is (e.g. ETS obligations)
• The offset associated with additionality is not enough - especially when there is no
recognition of sequestration in P90 forest. They don’t line up with the historical reality
- a lot of land was felled before 1990 and the vast majority of indigenous forest is new
on that land (and stil has a lot of growing to do)
• Spoke favourably about Ngā Whenua Rāhui
• 6.5 tonnes of sequestration annually according to Ngā Whenua Rāhui, govt is giving
credit for 0.5t
• We need a more comprehensive model of everyone’s emissions - not just the big
operators
• We are a small contributor to CC (in absolute terms). If we are the only ones to act,
then other countries wil benefit
• Julie - other countries are acting. Participant noted the countries that are doing this
are facing protest action too
• Julie - we don’t know what the impacts wil be for sure of acting, but we don’t know
that not acting wil be without cost
• We wil continue to manage the land in accordance with our values, but on the other
hand if Treaty settlements lose value the entity wil want to talk to the Min of Treaty
Settlements
• A hit to agriculture is also a hit to essential services that Māori need the most
• An economic system has been imposed on Māori that is counter to how Māori
operate. Treaty settlements are under (0.?)2% of what has been lost
• We are “beneficiaries/dependants on our own land”
• We don’t have the time to analyse what this means for the land - can there be a
delay? Or can we talk to the Minister more directly? You can’t feel what I’m saying
when it’s written down. We need 6 months and resource to respond adequately
• What does that 10% reduction look like in terms of animals, product, value, jobs?
Have you considered the knock-on effects?
• Is this going to get to the point that we attract a premium for our products? How can
we get there? Farmers shouldn’t pay for this
• Julie: Some of the work to market (e.g. Silver Fern Farms) is being done
• Participant noted that the actual farmers are not seeing that money yet (& have been
told it’s because they’re stil trying to get the market)
• Bull farmers don’t have eligible sequestration (because the forest is part of the
paddock)
• Why 6 weeks to do consultation when govt has had months to prepare? Govt needs
to look at the impact of their decisions on communities
• Coming to a consultation event is a day off work, so Govt is not hearing adequately
from mana whenua and ahi kā. Time doesn’t matter if the resource isn’t there
• Pine trees are already being planted beyond where it makes sense
• Julie - acknowledged that the issue of timeframes has been brought up before
• Peat is not in the ETS but emits 2% (of farming emissions or total?) - if it did go in
that would really hurt iwi/hapū
• Need certainty that the proposals wil work (i.e. we won’t move to the ETS backstop)
• Julie - we can’t guarantee that peat wil never go in, and it’s a complex issue. The
science isn’t good enough that it would be helpful.
• Participant cited their work with NZAGRC (sp?) that re-wetting areas of peat land
could offset 60% of agricultural emissions
• There are a lot of external influences on us. The FMA came to talk to them about CC
and said their job was to educate them about the changes they needed to make to
address CC because their lives wil be more difficult if they don’t. (e.g. Lloyd’s Bank
in the UK won’t finance groups who can’t quantify their footprint) So a group making
profits for 100 years, then “finding their moral compass”
• Julie: Govt is putting significant money into finding solutions
• Participants noted that these solutions are far away and might not work. E.g. low
emissions sheep need to be on the land longer so could have perverse effects.
Wanted natural solutions to natural problems
• Participant wanted the incentives and decision making to be at farm level, because
processors won’t pass the value on. Doesn’t trust the processors
• Doesn’t want the Ministers to set prices. ETS uses the market mechanism as it gives
more control. Farmers want less bureaucracy involved in their day to day
• Planting land out in trees limits options for generations & changes the land forever.
Don’t rely on sequestration - find other solutions
• Not 1 January - 1 July, because nobody farms in a calendar year
• Julie noted that we have been hearing on the road that the system needs to be
simpler i.e. sequestration contracts just need to come off the levy
Document Outline
