Summit frustration for farmers

01-09-2010 | Andrew Stewart

Seven years ago angry farmers gathered in Wellington en masse to protest at a contro­versial new tax.

National rural MP Shane Ardern even drove his rusty old tractor up the steps of Parliament in a show of defiance. This demonstration from the normally placid rural community went a long way to stopping the proposed "fart tax" in its tracks.

Roll the clock forward to today and once again there are rumblings in the provinces.

The format of the tax may have been altered into an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) but the nuts and bolts are similar.

Because New Zealand relies so heavily on agriculture, the situation surrounding the Kyoto Protocol obligations is a unique one. No other country in the world has a level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture that equals NZ's. About 48% of this country's total emissions come from the agricultural sector.

The lack of real understanding of the ETS was one of the key drivers behind a project aimed at increasing farmer awareness.

For the past 18 months, 10 groups of farmers from around the country have been trying to get a better grasp on the implications of the ETS. The project is aimed at understanding the on-farm impact of the ETS. Of the 10 groups, four are focused on sheep and beef farms, four on dairying and two on deer farms.

The three-year project is run by AgResearch, and funded by the Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF), MAF, and the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium (PGgRc). Support has also come from Dairy NZ, Meat & Wool NZ, Deer NZ and PGG Wrightson with regional farm consultants facilitating the groups.

A recent gathering of the farmer cluster groups in Palmerston North did little to dampen growing frustration.

Information gathered from the project was discussed with MAF policy advisers during the summit. Time was also allocated for the groups to visit the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGHGRC) at AgResearch campus in Palmerston North.

The NZAGHGRC focuses on GHG mitigation research including methane from ruminant animals and waste systems, nitrous oxide from ruminant animals and nitrogen fertiliser, and soil carbon in agricultural and horticultural systems. Its role is to find ways for NZ to meet its international GHG emission obligations without reducing agricultural output.

Although the visit to the centre was well received by the farmers, generally the feeling was that it might be too little, too late.

While NZ is leading the world in research on GHG emissions from animals, there are no silver bullets. Technologies with practical and cost-effective applications to reduce GHG emissions from ruminant animals won't be available until after 2015, which is target date for agriculture joining the ETS.

Another concern for farmers was highlighted by AgResearch scientist Harry Clark. He said the ETS was likely to be modified to further reduce agricultural emissions, increasing the financial burden for farmers over time.

On the second day of the summit, members expressed their concerns. "The overwhelming sense we will take home from this summit is one of frustration," Ross Richards, from the Taumarunui group, said.

He said their group came into the project seeking a collaborative partnership with MAF, and they felt that had not been realised to date.

"The AgResearch scientists told us that they welcome our interaction, and we would like that also," Richards said.

He read a statement on behalf of the Taumarunui group: "We don't believe after all the study that we have done that the ETS in its current form is sustainable. There is a lack of mitigation options for the very fragile economic state of the sheep and beef sector. We believe that this will destroy our assets, careers, families and communities. Imposing the cost on us for emissions is going to restrict our ability to innovate and improve efficiencies and therefore reduce our emissions."

Richards suggested that the best plan for tackling this controversial issue was for MAF policy-makers and farmers to sit down together and work out what they agree on. Then they could all work towards a position of understanding, which did not exist now, and make progress that was going to achieve all their goals.

Jim Walker, also from Taumarunui, whose farm was used to model data on, explained the ramifications of the ETS from his point of view. Although the Walker farm is regarded as one of the higher performing in the district, he said he would be forced to make unsavoury management changes to offset the cost of the ETS. He had been an avid planter of trees, and riparian strips surrounding waterways had been created to protect water quality. With the added cost of the ETS to bear, the planting would be the first thing to be cut from the budget. "Is that really what we want farmers to be doing?" he asked.

Another farmer felt that the core argument of the ETS was flawed and therefore it was invalid. David Lloyd admitted that his theory was a bit out of left field, but he felt it was crucial.

"The key question is, do pastoral animals actually increase the level of methane in the atmosphere?" he asked.

Lloyd said it was just a cycle that existed naturally and that farmers should have no liability under an ETS. According to scientific reports, methane decayed naturally in the atmosphere after a period of between 10 and 15 years.

Farmers also questioned the accuracy of the programmes used for analysis. Based on modelling work through the programme Overseer, sheep, beef and dairy farms could theoretically reduce their GHG emissions by up to 10% through changes in stock policy and practice. These systems have only been modelled, and have not actually been measured and Overseer has been described as a rather blunt instrument for predicting responses in agricultural systems.

Another problem highlighted by bringing different types of farmers together was the lack of standard measurements across different species. For example, how can a dairy cow's emissions be measured against a Merino sheep without taking into account factors such as the carcase value of the cow, and the higher value of Merino wool when compared with crossbred sheep? The ETS calculates emissions for a dairy farm based only on the milksolids produced from a cow.

Average emissions intensity, which seems to now be the preferred method of calculation, for sheep and beef farms was between 16 and 18kg of CO² a kilogram of product produced. Some sheep farmers present were concerned when the dairy intensity figures were tabled. The dairy figures showed an average intensity of between 10-12kg of CO² a kilogram of product. This does not take into account the practice of grazing animals off farm on run-off blocks and is based only on kilograms of milksolids produced.

Those with some forestry on their farms also found confusion. Converting part of the farm to forestry brings a net reduction to overall GHG output but actually increases the intensity of emission from the remaining livestock because they are then farmed at a higher stocking rate on the better country.

AgResearch scientist and summit facilitator Margaret Brown summed up by saying that whether attendees left frustrated was not the point of the summit. "You asked to engage with MAF policy-makers and we have done that over the last two days," she said.

For more information: http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/

  Printable View