Federated Farmers is backed Labour’s plans to tackle the incentives driving productive farmland into forestry, but it has serious questions about wider plans for the Emissions Trading Scheme. Federated Farmers climate spokesperson Richard Dawkins says that stance, plus Labour leader Chris Hipkins saying the party will not campaign on taxing agricultural emissions, show the party has listened to farmers’ views, looked at the evidence, and been open to changing its position. Mr Dawkins says Labour is right to recognise the current ETS settings can make planting exotic forests more attractive than producing food.
“It’s really encouraging to see Labour acknowledge the current settings can incentivise the loss of productive farmland to exotic forestry.
“We support Labour’s commitment to pause new forestry registrations, review forestry’s role in the ETS and develop rules to prevent whole-farm carbon forestry conversions.”
He says Federated Farmers isn’t opposed to production forestry, or to farmers making their own decisions about how their land is used.
“We strongly support property rights. If forestry genuinely is the best use of a particular property, farmers should be able to make that choice.
“Our concern is when the ETS artificially tips the scales towards whole-farm conversion because the financial returns from carbon outweigh the returns from producing food.
“That is a distortion created by policy – and it desperately needs fixing.”
Federated Farmers is also open to reviewing the wider role of forestry in the ETS, but Labour must be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“We agree with the underlying problem identified by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but that doesn’t mean we automatically agree with every recommendation.
“We would favour a more targeted approach, particularly to exotic plantation forestry, rather than simply writing off all exotic species.
“There are forms of planting, like spaced poplars and willows, that can deliver real on-farm benefits, including erosion control, alongside carbon sequestration.
“We need an ETS that recognises those wider environmental benefits rather than treating every tree as if it’s the same.”
Mr Dawkins says any changes must also protect farmers who’ve already made decisions and investments under the existing rules.
He says the bigger concern is Labour’s commitment to use the ETS to put New Zealand on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets.
“Fixing the forestry problem is one thing, but using the ETS to pursue an unchanged Paris target at the same time is another. It’s a serious risk for New Zealand.
“If we remove a major source of cheap units from the ETS while continuing to chase the same level of emissions reduction, there’s going to be a lot of economic pain.
“The obvious risk is a much higher carbon price and much greater pressure on the rest of the economy – including energy, fuel and food production.
“That could be bad news, not only for farmers, but for everyday Kiwi families who are already struggling with cost of living.”
We need to be very careful that fixing one distortion in the ETS doesn’t simply create another, Mr Dawkins says.
“New Zealanders want to see an emissions policy that actually works for our country, our communities, our economy and the environment. That means recognising the difference between long-lived carbon dioxide and short-lived biogenic methane, and protecting our ability to keep producing food for the world.”
“Labour has put some good ideas on the table around emissions and forestry – and we welcome that as an incredibly positive step forward.
“But before anyone starts celebrating the ETS as fixed, we need to see much more detail on how the wider system would work and what it would mean for farmers.”
