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 Allen + 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:
11 November 2022
Meeting type:
Waiakto Tainui hui
MfE/MPI staff:
MPI: Fleur Francois, Claudia Gonnelli
MfE: David Mead, Hannah Steans
Number of attendees:
Around 10
1
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Date:
11 November 2022
Demographic of attendees (if Māori
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?
What feedback did attendees have on
the
thresholds set for farms to report
emissions?
What did attendees believe would need
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
Participants wanted more details on whether methane calculations wil also include
opportunities to improve the proposed farm location, for example some low-lying farms have occupied dried-up wetlands
approach to
reporting emissions?
and are now stil burning methane.
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Pricing, revenue and incentive payments
What
concerns did attendees have
around the proposed approach to
setting levy prices?
Participants asked for clarification whether the government may think of phasing
out the 95% free allocation for long-lived gasses?
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
• Participants asked for a wider engagement with iwi/Māori that goes past
What feedback did attendees have on
FOMA in regard to the Māori board and the decisions regarding revenue
the proposed
revenue recycling
recycling.
strategy?
• They wondered whether there was the need the government had an
What did attendees think about an
existing body to play this role or whether a new body should be created to
advisory board for revenue
ensure wide ranging view of iwi, hapu and Maori agribusiness can feed into
recycling?
the revenue recycling process (suggest only FOMA is not enough).
•
• Participants asked for more details on how the government was going to
What
transitional support did
monitor new mitigation and what counted as robust “science” in grey areas,
attendees say was needed?
for instance biomass. They also suggested this approach should include
science from existing industries (e.g. fertiliser inhibitors), publicly funded
What approaches did attendees support
research and matauranga Māori?
for
incentivising mitigation practices
or technologies?
• Participants expressed a preference for the use of locally sourced plants to
be provided and planted by iwi. This would ensure that we the right plant i in
What
mitigation practices or
the right place and to maintain the local biodiversity. Matauranga also come
technologies did attendees think
into play. Iwi do not want modified plants to be planted on their lands, rather
should be
supported by an incentive
they called for culturally appropriate options that are good for biodiversity.
payment?
• Participants asked whether transitional support was only going to be
available post 2015 or earlier.
New/thorny questions asked by
Question:
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Answer:
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
• Participants wondered if it was possible to create a pool of permanent
indigenous forest from agricultural land ready for retirement. This could then
be used to offset the sector’s emissions.
• Participants wondered whether there was a plan to recognise sequestration
for wetlands in the future.
• Participants wanted more details on why the 2008 date was used as a
baseline for riparian planting.
What feedback did attendees have on
•
the proposed approach to
carbon
Participants emphasised the importance of getting the sequestration rates
sequestration?
right and what is was going to be.
• Participants highlighted how current rates encourage the planting of pines
What
barriers did attendees raise to
and exotic species and call for biodiversity to be encouraged, by bringing it
including new categories of
together with climate change works.
sequestration in the NZ ETS?
• Participants would like either sequestration to be all recognised properly
Did attendees have any
concerns
from the beginning (no grant) or that Māori be excluded from the levy until
about bringing
on-farm vegetation into
fully developed.
a farm-pricing system?
• Participants asked why areas for indigenous forest not in the farm by
property of the iwi could not be included in the pricing. (example: Waikato
Tainui have 19,000 ha of conservation lands returned in clause 16.3 of the
2008 Conservation accord. Why could they not receive sequestration grants
for it, as it traditional customary farms used for Rongoa, Manu, tuna, hinau
for weaving and are owned by the farmer they aren’t separate to the iwi.
• Participants wanted to know how certain crucial lands were going to be
land-banked.
5
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Did attendees prefer
pricing nitrogen
at the farm level or at the processer
level? Why?
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[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?
6
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
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?
• Participants emphasised how some whenua Māori was non-productive and
Did attendees share specific
impacts
with limited investment due to be returned only recently.
for Māori?
• Participants asked for more info on what it was done to support the
How did attendees think the
Crown
horticulture sector and why its impacts were not emphasised in the
should
protect relevant
iwi and Māori
consultation process.
interests?
• Participants highlighted how dif erent iwi would face dif erent challenged to
access the grants and other funding opportunities
7
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
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?
• Participants questioned how could the system check that the seeds had
actually been planted and how this could account for trading within farms
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?
8
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Other/General
• There were joined concerns about mix-messages sent from the HWEN
Partnership. For instance, their website says that they engaged with iwi/
Māori, but FOMA only represent some Māori agribusiness. Participants
Did attendees have
any other
would be interested to be part of the co-design going forward.
feedback on the proposals?
• Suggest adding track and tracing to ensure that the logs sold overseas are
used for carbon sequestration rather than burning for energy.
New/thorny questions asked by
• How wil govt reduce inflationary pressure at the supermarket? Can you
attendees
give more info on the modelling on production and impact on Maori (both in
production level and economic farm surplus)?
[Duplicate this row as needed]
• Can you provide more info on emission leakage?
9
