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.

How bizarre, how bizarre!

In sport, one of the golden rules is that you never complain about the referee, unless you win. The reason is obvious: if you win you can’t be seen as a winger.

On that basis I’m prepared to be critical of the NZ Food Safety Authority’s decision to not audit ‘novel’ fertiliser importers, manufacturers and traders under the ACVM Cost Recovery Provisions.

Novel fertilisers fall outside of mainstream ‘conventional’ and ‘organic’ products, and cover a grab bag of products some of which claim to improve pasture or plant growth through processes that often defy good science, or is said to be ‘proved’ by research and testing that does not enjoy peer support.

In its latest ‘Slice of Life’ review of the fertiliser industry, the Authority’s reviewer recommended that a targeted selection of importers, manufacturers and traders of novel fertilisers should be subject to a formal audit.

The Authority’s rather weak response to this recommendation is: Fertilisers are considered low risk and a formal audit programme is considered as placing an undue compliance cost on this industry sector. It explains the Authority responds to suspicions or allegations of non compliance rather than pro-active monitoring and audit.

The fertiliser industry feels let down by this decision. While mainstream players have to jump through hoops and comply with endless requirements (which we accept on the basis of good governance) those that practice at the margin of the nutrient spectrum ignore the rules with impunity.

On approaching two of these novel fertiliser vendors, the Authority’s reviewer notes in the report the vendors: ‘actively avoided or, in one case, signalled their refusal to be interviewed’.

From our experience not only do some of these novel fertiliser merchants often make the most outrageous claims for their products, they also often have the cheek to imply that those who have to meet stringent controls before they market their products are hoodwinking farmers.

To mimic the words of a well know pop song: ‘how bizarre, how bizarre’.

And why have I the courage to complain about the Authority’s decision? In commenting on Fert Research’s two member companies – Ballance and Ravensdown – the Authority stated: [they] had very good awareness of NZFSA jurisdiction and ACVM Act requirements … They provided clear evidence that they were operating under strict process control, ensuring that product they produced was labelled appropriately ‘fit for purpose’.

Hilton