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:
14 November 2022
Meeting type:
Ag Emissions Pricing Consultation: Iwi hui Rotorua
MfE/MPI staff:
MPI: Claudia Gonnelli, Warren Grey, Darran Austin
MfE: Kara Lok,
Facilitators: NA
Number of attendees:
12 participants
1
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Date:
14 November 2022
Demographic of attendees Chartered Accountant Rural Committee
(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?
What feedback did attendees have on
the
thresholds set for farms to report
• Collectives should be available for all of them. Tax grouping rules should be
emissions?
followed.
What did attendees believe would need
to be in place to
include collectives in
the pricing scheme?
Did attendees believe farms will have
• The participants argued that the 1st of Jan 2025 was not a practical day
the
necessary data for reporting by
because it doesn’t align with balance date for farming (May or June for the
2025?
pastoral sector). It would be better to have the reporting in 2026 and looking
back from it (so forfeiting the first months be that are not included). It is not
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
possible to do a national stocktake on the 2025. It would be better to have
registration requirements?
dif erent start and finish day would be best, but the biggest problem is that
Did attendees raise any concerns
about
stock-tally dates not aligning with the financial reporting dates. Emission
reporting and payment timing?
reporting could be dif erent, we could also report sooner.
• Using 2024 data (pre-rata) would not really be feasible. They suggested
align the reporting to the 1st of Jan 2026 balance date to reduce
complexities.
•
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
• It is understandable that Ministers wil choose the price, but is it a space for
What
concerns did attendees have
the dif erent priorities can shift?
around the proposed approach to
• To ensure compliance people needs to be wil ing to engage and perceive
setting levy prices?
the tax/levy as fair and equitable to have a good buy-in, at the moment
there is not a lot of positive engagement with the proposal.
3
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
Did attendees offer any
improvements
• The participants raised concerns about the fact that this pricing is going to
to the proposed approach to
setting
be a variable cost while farmers need certainty for the pricing and enabling
levy prices?
farmers to plan.
•
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
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
4
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Pricing carbon sequestration and nitrogen fertiliser
What feedback did attendees have on
• What are the reasons why other sequestration categories not going to be
the proposed approach to
carbon
included? Is it mostly due to reporting and admin reasons or lack of
sequestration?
measuring technologies? We know there are systems available to measure
What
barriers did attendees raise to
those small areas and there are look-up tables available.
including new categories of
• Are there any numbers showing the dif erence between the Government
sequestration in the NZ ETS?
proposal and the HWEN (in terms of sequestrations)?
Did attendees have any
concerns
• Pricing to set methane: does it match with other countries are doing? Are
about bringing
on-farm vegetation into
we going to have an international pricing?
a farm-pricing system?
•
Did attendees prefer
pricing nitrogen
• Questions relating to the value of pricing fertiliser at the processor levy, and
at the farm level or at the processer
how the produces may be able to set the price to favour their plant and their
level? Why?
profitability, even if it doesn’t align with the incentives.
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
5
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
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?
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Impacts and support
6
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
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?
• What mitigation technologies are available to the deer industry and what is it
done to address the dif erences at a regional level.
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?
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Implementation, verification, compliance and enforcement
7
Al en + Clarke
Agricultural Emissions Pricing Consultation – The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries
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?
Question:
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
Answer:
[Duplicate this row as needed]
Other/General
8
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?
• Suggest looking at the Tax Livestock regulation
New/thorny questions asked by
attendees
• Concerns because farmers often have dual ownership (eg. Half the
livestock is owned by the landlord and half by the lessee).
[Duplicate this row as needed]
•
•
9
