Submission on Pricing Agricultural Emissions
All submissions must be completed and sent to
[email address]
by at 11.59pm, 18 November 2022
1
Thursday 17 November 2022
By Email: [email address]
SUBMISSION ON PRICING AGRICULTURE EMISSIONS CONSULTATION DOCUMENT:
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MINSTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES.
Individual Name / Name of
FOMA Federation of Maori Authorities Inc
Organisation
Name and role of Submitter (if on
9(2)(a)
behalf of organisation)
Postal Address
9(2)(a)
Telephone number
9(2)(a)
Email address
9(2)(ba)(i)
FOMA agrees to the publication of this submission, subject to removal of postal address,
telephone number and email address.
2
Opening Statements
1.
FOMA, the Federation of Māori Authorities, represents Māori landowners, land managers
and land users across Aotearoa, including whānau and hapū landowners, pre-settlement
and post-settlement entities, agribusinesses and enterprises. FOMA exists to help its
members prosper and grow. For over forty years, FOMA has been working with
government and industry on strategic and economic development in the interests of its
members and all Maori and Aotearoa.
2.
FOMA believes an integrated systems change approach based on Te Ao Māori thinking
where preeminent consideration is given to people, place and environment, and how we
live and work with our land and environment is critical to lowering emissions and living and
working in a low carbon economy. A Whenua Māori diversified portfolio approach to
means Māori are perfectly positioned to adapt and adjust to the climate change transition
need to reduce our emissions.
3.
FOMA is convinced that Aotearoa can, and must, provide the global leadership
needed by deploying the capabilities of the primary sector to show how a circular
economy can work on a national scale. Aotearoa must:
a.
take an intergenerational view and approach to climate change which means
that our primary industry (including agriculture) must adapt and transition to a low
emissions land use model while maintaining the same or better performance,
productivity and profitability. This means reviewing what we do with our land and
adjusting our business and operating plans to better suit our land and environment
for our people.
b.
meet the 2025, 2030 and 2050 targets – we cannot afford the cost of not doing so.
Markets are demanding that producers of primary industry products verify their
pathways to net zero targets and Māori should lead and manage the adaptation and
transition process for their whanau and whenua. Government and industry must
support and resource Māori to lead the change necessary to live and work in a lower
carbon economy for Aotearoa.
3
4.
Māori view issues of climate change as being symptomatic of the well-being of the taiao. It
is connected to the loss of biodiversity, the poor state of our wetlands and waterways both
fresh and marine, and the well-being of our communities. For this reason, Māori have
expressed a strong view that we need to transition away from our current land use
operating models that place a higher value on short-term productivity gains towards a
more viable system, that includes the full costs of production including all externalities.
This will produce more positive outcomes for business, te taiao and our communities.
5.
We must transition from the ‘volume and value (or revenue)’ production system to a
values-based tikanga system
a. Volume is the quantity of output, partially costed
b. Value is the market price
c. Values is a tikanga-based framework ensuring we balance environmental
externalities, the needs of future generations along with our own.
6.
Primary sector reforms of the 1980s saw the removal of production incentives and the
primary sector became fully exposed to global market prices. As history has shown, the
primary sector did adapt over time to the current operating model and has become one of
the most productive and innovative primary sectors in a global context.
7.
We must, however, be profitable as well as productive, to enable us to provide for current
and future generations. For that to occur profitability must include the costs of
environmental externalities and especially those externalities that are depleting. Until
these inputs, such as water are costed, the behaviours to limit the depletion of these
resources and therefore preserve te taiao are unlikely. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions is a major step toward more sustainable land-management practices.
4
8.
In the absence of a more Te Ao Maori, holistic, integrated systems change pricing
model, FOMA supports;
a. Farm-level pricing
b. A split gas levy pricing system
c. The ability to offset emissions with He Waka Eke Noa eligible sequestration.
d. He Waka Eke Noa eligible sequestration from Whenua Māori is a key tool for the
Māori sector’s adaptation to climate impacts and the transitioning of the Māori sector
to lower emission, higher value products. This transition needs to be made in
partnership with the Government under the Crown’s Te Tiriti responsibilities.
e. Sequestration on Whenua Māori, which is leased can only be made available to the
lessee by a formal, prior agreement with the Whenua Māori owners.
f. Revenue recycling where all levy revenue from Whenua Māori is to be ringfenced for
Whenua Māori.
g. This revenue is to be overseen and managed by a Whenua Māori group appointed
by the Whenua Māori sector.
h. Whenua Māori is owned collectively, with individuals having interests in several and
potentially non-contiguous blocks. For this reason, Whenua Māori landowners needs
to be able to act collectively in managing their climate-change obligations.
A Whenua Maori View
9.
We support a pricing system that;
a. Recognises the Te Ao Māori view of Te Taiao (the entire interdependent system
of the environment that sustains life), and the responsibilities of those who are
kaitiaki of their whenua (the appointed guardians of their lands)
b. Prioritises and upholds the rights and interests of Māori land owners including the
principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which will ensure that there is an equitable
transition for Māori landowners towards a low-carbon future
c. Achieves the legislated emission reduction targets that are needed to contribute
to the global efforts under the Paris Agreement, and the Climate Change
Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019
5
d. Recognises the unique circumstances of Māori landowners and the rights and
interests of Māori collectives within the sector, and the imposed, historical
impediments and legislation that have and continue to constrain the development
and use of whenua Māori
e. Encourages the recognition of on-farm reductions in emissions through
management changes, sequestration and current/future mitigation opportunities.
f. Ensures a broader Te Tiriti based solution which requires more than what is
proposed in the consultation document. We propose that these emissions arose
primarilty through the historic, mostly illegal, wrongful, and unjust alienation of
Māori lands. Combined with the expectation of Māori to fulfil their role as hunga
tiaki, then it follows that redress and resourcing is needed for Maori to lead and
manage their own climate change transition and adaptation.
g. Allocates a proportion of all New Zealand Units (NZUs), (e.g. 20%) to Whenua
Māori landowners or a specific Māori levy.
h. Advocate that any policy that relies too heavily on a single carbon price setting
mechanism has significant risks of failure. We propose instead the adoption of a
holistic multi-faceted approach to lowering farm emissions including off-farm
investment into novel supply chains, processing infrastructure and market
channels.
i. The Government providing more indicative information on what levy prices it has
in mind at least between 2025 and 2030 which is critical to assessing and
understanding the land use change to forestry and export sales risks. This
should include the establishment of the Industry Oversight Group with up to fifty
per cent of the membership being Maori. This group would provide advice to the
portfolio Ministers, alongside the Climate Change Commission.
6
Implications for Māori landowners, land users and land managers
10.
Whenua Māori is ‘taonga tuku iho”, a gift connecting past generations to future
generations, and is of unique and special significance to Māori.’. Māori land is
legislated by Te Ture Whenua Māori Act (TTWM). This Act creates multiple layers of
decision making and significant costs. There are 8,467 Ahu Whenua Trust, Whenua
Tōpū Trusts, Pūtea Trust, and Māori Incorporations governing Māori Freehold and
Customary land in Aotearoa New Zealand1. Māori land blocks with a trust have an
average size of 100ha and average 2013 owners. Overall, an average Māori land
block has a size of 51ha and 107 owners.2 Many Māori land entities are diversified
into multiple land uses including horticulture, agriculture, forestry and other land uses.
11.
The carbon pricing proposal will add a further layer of complexity and compliance for
Māori land owners which other landowners, farmers and growers do not face. Māori
and Government must work together to mitigate any foreseen and unintended
consequences from the agricultural pricing mechanism.
12.
Before putting an agricultural pricing system into regulation, the Government must
work with Māori to develop a national (and regional) adaptation and transition plan for
supporting and resourcing Whenua Maori landowners to manage and mitigate the
impacts of the pricing system.
13.
Establishing an independent Whenua Māori board (see Section 23c) to oversee the
design and implementation of Whenua Māori sector adaptation and transition plan will
also provide critical input into the design and implementation of the agricultural pricing
system.
14.
The Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership, agreed to specific and distinct Māori
agribusiness programmes, guidelines, new tool promotions, and uptake and leverage
opportunities to assist Māori land owners’ transition to a farm planning and
management framework the integrates a whole-of-whenua approach to calculating on-
farm emissions.
1 Māori Land Court Update – Ngā Āhutanga o te whenua, June 2020.
2 Ibid
7
15. This will also necessitate comprehensive funding and resourcing work to be
undertaken to meet the long-term needs of all Māori farmers and growers. In
particular, highlighting the gap in research, knowledge, understanding, and extension
skil s required to assist Māori farmers and growers in improving their whole-of-whenua
(kotahitanga) and environmental sustainability (kaitikaitanga). A comprehensive
funding and resourcing response must be established as a condition, to any progress
in emissions pricing.
16. This work must be integrated with other reform work in the area of Three Waters,
Resource Management reforms, NPS in Freshwater Management and reform of Local
Government. Consistent funding and resourcing principles are required across current
reform areas, therefore ensuring an integrated and cost-effective approach.
17. The Ministry for the Environment and Ministry for Primary Industries with Maori, should
field test key elements of the farm carbon price system before final regulations are
made.
18. Maori do not want to be subject to policies and regulations that are simply not practical
and feasible and does not recognise the cultural prerogatives of Māori landowners /
managers / users, at the farm level.
19. Our support for the proposals in the government consultation document are subject to
further work on the issues identified above, and solutions being identified, developed
and promulgated in advance of confirmation of a regulatory agricultural emissions
pricing system.
20. Additionally, we note that the modelling work done to ‘provide modelling and an
analysis of a range of pricing options associated with different climate policy scenarios
to support ministerial decisions and inform the Regulatory Impact Assessment for
these scenarios’ did not consider the implications of scenarios on whenua Māori and
Māori landowning communities. This will also need to be prioritised, resourced and
undertaken.
8
Key Concerns
21. The key areas of concern within the Consultation document include:
a. Ensuring the different solutions, timeframes, transition arrangements and
tangible support might be required to enable the exercise of rangatiratanga,
kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga by Māori landowners.
b. Māori landowners facing chal enges in terms of access to capital. To explain,
Māori authority land activities are taxed at the lower tax rate of 17.5%. This
reflects the earning levels of average Māori landowners. The lower earning
levels may impact on the range of options available to Māori landowners,
including mitigation strategies. In addition, many Māori landowners are unable
to borrow as the land is not able to be used as security against a loan is it is
not able to be sold (see point d. below).
c. Māori freehold land is not akin to General Title freehold land – it holds a
collective interest across multiple owners, over multiple generations. The
operational drivers for whenua Māori are specifically for the health, well-
being, and development of the land and its people. It ought not to be treated
as if it were General Title freehold land. Rather the unique and particular
contribution whenua Māori makes to the community, the environment, and the
challenges of New Zealand society should be fully recognised.
d. Other landowners and growers have more options available to them,
including the sale of their land assets. This is generally3
not an option for
Māori landowners. In recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi, any transition
towards a pricing scheme must support Māori landowners to transition to
other land use options should that be necessary or preferable.
3 Land can be alienated under specific criteria land out in the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, 1993
9
e. All data relating to whenua Māori arising from the pricing regime is a taonga
tuku iho. Government investment into Whenua Māori databases (e.g. Māori
producers that meet the threshold definition of a “farm” as outlined in the
discussion document; impacts of the pricing mechanism on Whenua Māori
land owners and ETS and HWEN sequestration on Whenua Māori ) must be
designed and governed by Māori. Appropriate regulatory proposals for Māori
sovereignty over this data must be protected and be provided for through an
appropriate governance, management and protection regime.4 There is a
clear need for further work and modelling that recognizes and accounts for
the different land structures associated with whenua Māori. Modelling
assumptions, data and variables that more appropriately reflect the
behavioural drivers and responses of tangata whenua and whenua Māori, are
necessary i.e., beyond farm surplus and profits.
f. The proposed pricing options do not provide specific mitigation practices,
tools and technologies that respond to a whole-of-whenua approach
(kotahitanga) towards land development (mana tangata), and environmental
sustainability (kaitikaitanga). The Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership
is required to ensure research, science and innovation activities are relevant
and respond to the distinct and long-term needs of Māori Agribusiness. The
proposed pricing options do not uphold the He Waka Eke Noa agreement
with Māori.
g. Sequestration being only available to ‘levy’ payers (as opposed to
landowners) significantly disadvantages Māori, particularly where the land is
under perpetual lease by regulation (e.g. Māori Reserves Land). This
problem however, could be solved using the Collectives where internal
arrangements can be made between the Collective members.
4 See Te Kahui Raraunga as a regime example - https://www.kahuiraraunga.io/tawhitinuku
10
Agricultural emission pricing options
22. Subject to section 10 of this submission, we support;:
a. unique levy rate for methane based on a consideration of relevant factors, as
outlined in the consultation document
b. support the factors to consider, in setting or updating levy rates, as outlined in
the consultation document
c. support the establishment of an independent Māori board, funded directly out
of the levy fund to determine how revenue will be spent to ensure an equitable
transition for Māori landowners, managers and users.
d. a price ceiling where the overall cost would be no more than if agriculture
entered the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.
e. do not support the investment of revenue raised through the levy being co-
managed between the agricultural sector, Māori/Iwi and Government. Existing
levies paid by Māori do little to provide the support for Māori, that others
benefit from. This is a result of the failure to understand Māori, or a lack of
empathy for Māori land owning structures.
f. the ability to establish Collectives to administer and report on emissions
across a number of Whenua Māori entities. These entities wil include multi-
sector assets including pre-1990 native and ETS eligible forestry. This both
acknowledges and supports the ability to manaaki whānau, hapū, iwi
groupings, trusts, and incorporations.
g. the on-farm level definition, but recognise that where the burden is
unequitable, future work must be undertaken for all emitters to be
accountable for their emissions impact.
h. the point of responsibility for reporting and paying for emissions, including
receiving recognition of sequestration, as being held by the landowner - with
the ability to delegate to the business owner. This is particularly important for
Whenua Māori that is leased.
11
i. a detailed method for calculating on-farm emissions. However, the ability to
participate in a detailed system requires a specific Māori extension
programme built on Māori cultural and environmental prerogatives to be
delivered amongst Māori agribusiness networks in a way that informs,
motivates and mobilises an effective Māori agri-business response. These
calculation methods must include recognition of specific mitigation practices,
tools and technologies that respond to a whole-of-whenua approach
(kotahitanga) towards land development (mana tangata), and environmental
sustainability (kaitikaitanga)—including specific Te Hau Ora o te Ao
outcomes.I/We support the ability to offset on-farm emissions with on-farm
sequestration.
j. the ability for
landowners to utilise their sequestration assets, on their lands,
to either: financially offset emissions, receive revenue for on-farm
sequestration, and/or receive credit that can be banked for future use.
12
Consultation Questions
Question
FOMA Response
1. Do you think modifications
Yes - FOMA has taken a principled approach and
are required to the
advocated for a position that incentivises, enables, and
proposed farm-level levy
rewards good land management decisions applied in a
system to ensure it delivers way that reflects our relationship with the Taiao. Key to
sufficient reductions in
this is that the land owners are supported to implement
gross emissions from the
these decisions. Recognition of sequestration by the
agriculture sector? Please
business owner (levy payer) as opposed to the land
explain.
owner, or at least with land owner permission is counter
to supporting a Taiao approach.
2. Are tradeable methane
Given the risks and complexity of a tradeable methane
quotas an option the
quota system that it be designed in partnership with the
Government should
independent whenua Māori board"
consider further in the
future? Why?
3. Which option do you prefer
FOMA supports in general
for pricing agricultural
(a) A farm-level system including fertiliser
emissions by 2025 and
why?
Māori are open to land-use change that is better for the
(a) A farm-level levy
land and whanau. We value good outcomes for the Taiao
system including fertiliser?
and ourselves. We prefer to have policies that are
(b) A farm-level levy
designed in a holistic manner, leveraging up outcomes
system and fertiliser in the
for freshwater, biodiversity and climate change.
New Zealand Emissions
Trading Scheme (NZ ETS)
(c) A processor-level NZ
ETS?
4. Do you support the
Conditional Yes - Whenua Māori collectives must be
proposed approach for
recognised, either at whanau, hapu or iwi level, as this
reporting of emissions?
acknowledges the existing multiple land use and often
Why, and what
complex ownership structures. Maori have pastoral
improvements should be
farming, horticulture, forestry, and indigenous land use
considered?
across many of our properties, rohe and entities.
5. Do you support the
We support the advice to the Minister being provided by
proposed approach to
the Climate Change Commission and also consider that
setting levy prices? Why,
the Independent Whenua Maori Board will also be able to
and what improvements
provide advice to the Minister on this matter.
should be considered?
13
6. Do you support the
No, such funds should come under the purview of an
proposed approach to
independent Whenua Māori board that wil decide how to
revenue recycling? Why,
apply this funding to best support Māori landowners.
and what improvements
should be considered?
7. Do you support the
A conditional yes - The ringfencing of levies is a critical
proposed approach for
source of capital that could be used to incentivise, enable
incentive payments to
and reward for transitioning our land to better uses. The
encourage additional
recognition of individual action to encourage additional
emissions reductions?
reductions is valuable. However, where the viability of
Why, and what
the farm business is under threat with the levy then the
improvements should be
levy could be used to provide support to the farm
considered?
business.
8. Do you support the
Unlike the introduction of the ETS when Maori were not
proposed approach for
granted Carbon Credits for pre-1990 ngahere, Maori
recognising carbon
expect to have our efforts as kaitiaki, who have sustained
sequestration from riparian
the ngahere on our lands to be reflected in any additional
plantings and management sequestration being granted to Māori. Almost 60% of
of indigenous vegetation,
Whenua Maori has trees, mature ngahere or
both in the short and long
regenerating.
term? Why, and what
improvements should be
FOMA urges government to adopt the additionality
considered?
sequestration rate for managed pre-1990 ngahere of
1.83tC/ha/yr as proposed in the HWEN proposal. This
can be used to incentivise more activities such as further
protection or indigenous plantings. Recognition of cultural
harvest must be included (e.g., for building and
maintaining our marae). Further recognition of
sequestration more closely aligned with the HWEN
recommendations would also better reflect the efforts of
Māori in protecting the whenua (e.g., erosion control
planting).
Sequestration must be available to landowners for Māori
to avoid inequities. The option of only allowing the
business owner (levy payer) to be recognised for
sequestration will significantly disadvantage Māori and
has potential to denigrate the mana of whenua Māori,
which can be addressed by the mechanism of the Maori
Collectives.
14
9. Do you support the
No. An additional levy collected through existing levy
introduction of an interim
bodies (with ring-fenced for Maori) to invest directly into
processor-level levy in
supporting land owners until full pricing system must be
2025 if the farm-level
developed. The risk of the 'interim' is that Maori will
system is not ready? If not,
never get out of such a levy system, and there will be
what alternative would you
endless 'criteria' required to be met. If this does happen,
propose to ensure
then it must be time-bound, not subject to conditions.
agricultural emissions
Also, the processor-level provides no incentive to reduce
pricing starts in 2025?
emissions, so there must be an approach that drives
behaviour to get the outcomes as quickly as possible.
10. Do you think the proposed
We are anxious and concerned that the execution of the
systems for pricing
policy to price agricultural emissions does not cause a
agricultural emissions is
repeat of the disproportionate consequence for Māori
equitable, both within the
that followed the Fourth Labour Government reforms of
agriculture sector, and
the 1980s. Maori must be recognised as equitable
across other sectors, and
partners in this process, to avoid the danger and risk of
across New Zealand
being further disadvantaged.
generally? Why and what
changes to the system
would be required to make
it equitable?
11. In principle, do you think
No. No other sector of the economy needs to do this and
the agricultural sector
the economy does not have sector-by-sector targets.
should pay for any shortfall
This approach is likely to further exasperate the impact.
in its emissions
reductions? If so, do you
think using levy revenue
would be an appropriate
mechanism for this?
12. What impacts or
We note 60% of Māori land is in Taitokerau, Waiariki and
implications do you foresee Tairawhiti, areas frequently described through an
as a result of each of the
economic lens of deficits. We are anxious to avoid further
Government’s proposals in adverse impacts that cause Māori in these regions to be
the short and long term?
further marginalised.
15
13. What steps should the
Whenua Maori reflects a mixed land use model. We
Crown be taking to protect
have forestry, sheep and beef and dairy farming,
relevant iwi and Māori
horticulture, as well as impressive areas of indigenous
interests, in line with Te
vegetation. Our circumstances are very different from
Tiriti o Waitangi? How
mainstream landowners who see themselves as dairy or
should the Crown support
sheep and beef farmers. We know what a mixed land
Māori land owners, farmers use model is.
and growers in a pricing
We are aware of the sensationalised reports of farmers
system?
being forced out of business by this policy. Our
modelling shows Whenua Māori has almost 61% of our
land area in ngahere or reverting to scrub. Collectively
Whenua Māori has more than enough in ngahere to
offset our emissions (although this needs to be
confirmed) provided we are allowed to act collectively
and use our ngahere for sequestration. Both these
elements are in the government proposal.
Māori were not granted carbon credits for our pre-1990
ngahere when the ETS was introduced. We must not
allow millions of dollars to be stripped from us again.
14. Do you support the
Administration costs of the system should be minimised
proposed approach for
to maximise the investment back to landowners and to
verification, compliance
R&D to achieve the emission reductions necessary as
and enforcement? Why,
quickly as possible. This requires looking at all existing
and what improvements
systems and processes to avoid duplication. Aligning
should be considered?
verification with the Certified Freshwater Farm Plan
process will help support a Taiao approach and reduce
administrative requirements. The ability for Māori to
operate as collectives will also be necessary.
15. Do you have any other
The economic and social impacts of the pricing system
priority issues that you
for Māori are not well understood or even considered in
would like to share on the
the modelling. This is urgent work which needs to be
Government’s proposals
done before regulations are developed.
for addressing agricultural
emissions?
16
