Primary sector wants on-farm responsibility for emissions – why is Government saying no?

While the political parties anguish over what is New Zealand’s ‘fair share’ in setting our greenhouse gas emissions, a recommendation of the review committee on the emissions trading scheme that has passed without comment is that rather than farmers be the party responsible as the point of obligation for emissions, this will rest with ‘processors’ such as Fonterra, meat processors and the fertiliser co-operatives.

This is an astonishing decision given that

• The review committee freely acknowledges that it is ‘preferable’ for farmers to be the point of obligation and
• All within the primary sector are of the view that if agricultural is to be included, farmers should know and be accountable for their own emissions.

It would appear the only objection to farmers being responsible is that it involves ‘higher transaction and administration costs’ even though there is little evidence to support this position

In its submission to the committee the fertiliser industry made it clear that the data required to estimate emissions is already being collected, and that through the use of the existing Overseer computer modelling system, administering the system need not necessarily be an administrative nightmare.

The primary sector wants farmers to be responsible for their emissions as it means there would be a financial incentive to reduce emissions and farmers would benefit from selling emission credits. If the committee’s recommendation prevails, and processors are responsible, conscientious and indifferent farmers end up paying the same cost through higher charges from their processor.

This decision also undermines the recent decision by Government agencies and the primary sector to spend $10 million measuring the effectiveness of nitrification inhibitors to enhance pasture growth while reducing nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching.

Applying inhibitors is a cost to farmers, and unless there is a return in the form of an emission credit, it challenges the cost-benefit analysis.

While it is not uncommon to disregard the views of agriculture, this must be a rare example where those that represent farmers’ interests are calling for the farm gate to take responsibility, while politicians resist.