Debate of the Day: should farms be regulated to centre climate action and nature?

44 comments on “Debate of the Day: should farms be regulated to centre climate action and nature? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Michael 1

   24 April 2023 at 11:21 am

   100% yes, farming should be regulated to centre climate change and nature. For too long, the farming sector has been able to do what it wants without consequences. While some individual farmers have done incredible work on their farms, they are sadly the minority. If the farming sector had been serious about mitigating climate change and caring for nature, they wouldn't have fought the misnamed "fart tax" when Helen Clark was our Prime Minister. Instead of working with the government and becoming world leaders in sustainability, they kicked and screamed like a bunch of toddlers having a tantrum. They drove tractors up the steps of parliament and pushed a narrative that they know best and that they care for the environment. Meanwhile, their sector bodies and main players pushed intensification and milk being "white gold". Now we have dairy farms in areas of the country that are not suited for dairying. They only exist and survive because mass irrigation has screwed our rivers. At the same time, the intensification has meant our rivers have become, by and large, unswimmable due to the nitrate run-off. Now, when we are in a climate emergency and urgent action is required, they are dragging the chain again and continuing to rape and pillage the earth. The farming sector has had its chance to be responsible and create sustainable farming practices but these are still only niche ideas and not widespread. More regulation, not less, is required.
   • Hunter Thompson II 1.1

     26 April 2023 at 8:25 am

     In 2019 a USA website called Circle of Blue carried an article "New Zealand Waterways Fouled by Farm Runoff, Tourist Waste" (https://www.circleofblue.org/2019/pacific/new-zealand-waterways-fouled-by-farm-runoff-tourist-waste/)

     True to form, a dairy industry chief tried to deflect criticism by saying most polluted rivers ran through urban centres and called for a "more nuanced exploration of New Zealand’s water contamination", ie the government should pussyfoot around the problem and let the industry carry on as before.

     Foreigners aren't fooled by the Tourism NZ advertising.
   • Eric Mischefski 1.2

     26 April 2023 at 2:23 pm

     Absolutely the industry needs to be regulated. As you state farmers trivialised methane pollution by calling it a fart tax when all the while knowing the methane comes from the front of an animal. There are some farmers who are trying to mitigate their pollution but by far and away the majority are not.
2. Mike the Lefty 2

   24 April 2023 at 11:29 am

   If National gets into government this year and embarks upon a ritual disembowlment of regulations, it could find markets outside Asia a bit more difficult to crack. The world has changed since National last ruled. Most of our trading partners expect us to have policies that limit emissions, and yes that includes agriculture too.

   National just saying they don't care anymore will not go down well with European or American countries, who DO care and expect their trading partners to care as well.

   Naturally most of the Asian markets won't give a toss and so National will end up making our economy even more dependent on Chinese Communist Party goodwill, for what that is worth.

   I wonder if National has thought any further about this beyond the populist posturing vote gathering element?

   Probably not.
3. tsmithfield 3

   24 April 2023 at 12:22 pm

   If regulation means more god-awful pine forests on productive land, then spare me.

   If we are going to require farmers to grow trees on their land, then they should be required to plant a certain number of indigenous plants per hectare. This would mean they would naturally plant the trees in the most unproductive areas of their farms, such as steep slopes etc. Or around rivers, to provide a natural barrier to stock.

   This would actually result in something being achieved not only to improve our carbon profile, but would also restore our natural beauty as well. And, also reduce erosion risk to those areas.

   So far as farming, and other activities are concerned, we need to realise that the emissions from these activities are a world problem, not isolated to NZ. Hence, it is counterproductive from a world perspective to regulate NZ farmers, if that means reduced production from NZ is picked up by less efficient producers in other countries. If that happens, the planet is worse off.

   Hence, there needs to be an international regime to penalise inefficient agricultural producers world-wide.

   So far as animal waste is concerned, there needs to be a way for farmers to monetise that so that they are incentivised to collect the waste efficiently so they can turn it into income.
   • AB 3.1

     24 April 2023 at 12:33 pm

     The god-awful pine forests you rightly complain about are what happens when we expect market mechanisms to solve climate change. When capital moves to take a profitable opportunity to solve a public-good problem, it will tend to sow the seeds of the next problem. It's an intrinsic characteristic.
     • weka 3.1.1

       24 April 2023 at 12:43 pm

       also a function of putting centrists in charge instead of parties with ecological literacy.
   • weka 3.2

     24 April 2023 at 12:56 pm

     In the 2017 election, the Greens had a plan to plant $1.2 billion trees on marginal land as part of their climate policy (alongside other measures).

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96690066/green-party-to-set-up-a-climate-commission-and-instate-universal-dividend-from-climate-fund

     They promoted both pine and natives, but with specific goals and placement in mind.

     1. limit deforestation and conversion of existing forest land
     2. offset current forest harvesting by planting on other kinds of land (eg marginal)
     3. incentivise planting natives
     4. incentivise pine and other exotics in appropriate places
     5. plant permanent forest sinks
     6. help farmers to find other income streams eg mānuka honey

     from the 2015 policy Yes we can! A plan for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions

     https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/10840/attachments/original/1582514397/Yes_We_Can.pdf?1582514397

     As we know, in 2017 NZF had the major power to influence policy and they were given the tree planting scheme as part of the coalition deal with Labour. Where the Greens would prioritise climate and ecology while protecting the economy, NZF would prioritise economics. This is why NZ is the way that it is.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130153430/one-billion-trees-programme-almost-at-halfway-mark

     We still need plantation pine eg for building houses. But how that gets done matters. The slash and silt issues on the East Coast from Gabrielle are a consequence of poor ecological literacy, poor regulation, and industrial culture mindset.
     • tsmithfield 3.2.1

       24 April 2023 at 2:59 pm

       I have signed two Greenpeace petitions now btw:

       The one for requiring things to be repairable, and the one for a refund for returning bottles etc.

       Good ideas are good ideas regardless of the side of the fence they come from.
   • Michael 3.3

     24 April 2023 at 4:48 pm

     Yes, carbon emissions are a global problem. However, we need to play our part. Our biggest emitters in terms of sectors are agriculture and transport and although we are a small country, our gross emissions per person are way too high. We are also far too heavily reliant on carbon credits to achieve our emissions targets. These things show that we are clearly not doing enough to meaningfully achieve what we promised to the global community. We need to do way better. Our farming sector has shown it is incapable of regulating itself to help us achieve our climate change goals so we must regulate.
     • bwaghorn 3.3.1

       24 April 2023 at 4:59 pm

       I'm sure we could make our gross emmisions per capita look like the rest , import mor humans job done,
     • tsmithfield 3.3.2

       24 April 2023 at 6:35 pm

       As bwaghorn pointed out below, the issue is that we don't have enough people. If the number of farms stayed constant, and we opened the gates to immigration into our cities, then the average global emissions per person would drop, and the farming emissions suddenly wouldn't look so bad.

       If we had 100 million living here, we would suddenly be one of the greenest countries on earth I suspect.
       • pat 3.3.2.1

         24 April 2023 at 7:43 pm

         "If we had 100 million living here, we would suddenly be one of the greenest countries on earth I suspect."

         I suspect not…we are no different to any other national grouping, except that we use more FF per capita than most…although if we did increase our population to anything resembling the figure you quote i suspect we would collapse any semblence of order or environmental viability so perhaps our emissions would decrease…..but not as the result of anything good.
         • tsmithfield 3.3.2.1.1

           25 April 2023 at 6:18 am

           Of course I don't want to see 100 million people here. But, I am just pointing out the stupidity of including agriculture in the per capita carbon emissions.

           As I said earlier, if the amount of farming stayed constant and the more general population increased dramatically, then per capita carbon emissions would fall, without farmers doing anything. It is a mathematical fact.

           So, there needs to be a better way of apportioning carbon emissions for it to make sense.
           • pat 3.3.2.1.1.1

             25 April 2023 at 7:17 am

             The (biological) methane measure is a (poor but likely necessary) method of buying some time to reduce and (hopefully) mitigate the release of stored carbon aka energy production….that energy is what has enabled the growth in population.

             I agree that planting pine plantations on productive land is a fools errand and will do little to solve the problem of CO2 emissions in this country (or the world as a whole) ….there are however other very good reasons to adjust our land use, not least of which is water quality/use.

             Ultimately the best measure (as Kevin Anderson points out) it is total (stored) carbon released that is the metric that counts, and given the way we as a population in NZ use that stored carbon energy then any increase in population will result in an increase in carbon emissions….until we change how we live.

             And that is something that most are unwilling to accept, so we will continue to grasp for anything, including 'carbon credits' and methane reductions to buy some time to continue our lifestyles.
             • tsmithfield …

               25 April 2023 at 7:57 am

               I really don't think we need more dairy farming. Despite the fact that my business does very well out of dairy factories across the South Island.

               Obviously, the run-off is a major issue. But, from an economic perspective, it is putting all our eggs in one basket too much, I think. Especially since a lot of that goes to China. So, there is a lot of production in one basket going to a large market basket (China). So, I think we are very economically exposed.

               One of the best ways to motivate people to do things is for there to be monetary gain for them.

               Hence, why farmers are planting awful pine plantations at the moment.

               So, I think the emissions side of the equation will be solved if people can make money from cutting back their emissions. For instance, if research finds ways to minimise methane emissions from cattle, that will mean less production lost to emissions, and more going into the product farmers want to sell.

               If ways can be found to economically and efficiently collect animal waste, then that could be sold for reusable products such as urea, or natural fertilizer.

               In the end, we have to find a way to harmonise farming with our environment. Seeing those polluted water ways such as "Fanta Lake" and lake Ellesmere here in Canterbury is absolutely disgusting, and something I definitely want to see solved.
               • pat …

                 25 April 2023 at 8:10 am

                 Yes financial incentives will drive the investment, unfortunately the investment is likely to require a significant input of energy….and that results in carbon emissions.

                 The only way to truely reduce our emissions is to recognise that FF consumption has to reduce in total and as I see it the only way is a sinking lid on the availability…and that will. demand a reprioritisation on what that reduced FF will be used for., preferably on a non monetary basis (i.e a ration )…and a substantial change to how we live our lives.

                 That change will be greatest for the currently well heeled.

                 All politcally problematic
                 • tsmithfield …

                   25 April 2023 at 10:06 am

                   unfortunately the investment is likely to require a significant input of energy….and that results in carbon emissions.

                   But isn't that the case with nearly anything that is done to innovate to solve the climate change problem? For instance, if we increase the production of solar panels, or solar batteries, that will increase carbon emissions as well.

                   But, it is a case of investing for the future. If the longterm benefit outweighs the initial carbon cost, then the initial investment is justified, even if there is an increase in carbon emissions from manufacturing the technology in the first place.
                   • pat …

                     25 April 2023 at 5:36 pm

                     It will depend upon the saving long term but much of the 'investment' proposed has a negative return (carbon)…so yes nearly all investment will create emissions and we have a very limited carbon budget so where that investment is placed needs to be exceedingly discerning
             • gsays …

               25 April 2023 at 8:06 am

               "….until we change how we live.

               And that is something that most are unwilling to accept, so we will continue to grasp for anything, including 'carbon credits' and methane reductions to buy some time to continue our lifestyles."

               That's it in a nutshell.

               This idea that CC mitigation is someone elses responsibility is fertiliser. Once 'the farmers', the Chinese, the supermarkets and the government are sorted then 'I' can look at making some changes.

               It all reeks of :Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;

               and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
               • pat …

                 25 April 2023 at 8:31 am

                 And then overlay national interest on top….if we (nz) behave logically but in isolation, it becomes illogical.
               • weka …

                 25 April 2023 at 5:44 pm

                 This idea that CC mitigation is someone elses responsibility is fertiliser. Once 'the farmers', the Chinese, the supermarkets and the government are sorted then 'I' can look at making some changes.

                 I tend to agree but I think part of that is because so many people still believe that green tech will save the day. Which is the responsibility of government and business and when they step up consumers will follow by buying the 'green thing. It's very neoliberal.

                 Green tech won't save the day, even if all governments and business got on board this week. We need green tech of course, but there is no substitute for FF to maintain BAU. We will powerdown, either intentionally as transition, or via eventual collapse.

                 This is the biggest challenge I see. People are so inured in the idea of BAU or nasty/brutish/short, that they can't see any other options, so have stuck their head in the sand.
       • bwaghorn 3.3.2.2

         24 April 2023 at 8:08 pm

         I find the emmisions per capita argument ridiculous when used against farming ,
   • Graeme 3.4

     24 April 2023 at 7:50 pm

     The pine forests may be going on productive land, but is that production profitable?

     The land use is simply transitioning to a more profitable usage. If the property was making a good profit the owners would be able to sell it to a buyer who would see the utility of the previous business and continue it.

     Reality is that sheep / beef on hill country isn't making as much profit as pines, simple economics, and been the case for a very long time on marginal hill country.
4. Ad 4

   24 April 2023 at 1:17 pm

   Volume and Price Driver. Annual milk production is declining and will continue to do so. Dairy farmers will still be driven by highest volume production until there are better pressures upon Fonterra who still commands over 80% of all dairy production here. A dairy solids price at $9-$10 is a pretty good attraction for sustained production.

   https://www.newsroom.co.nz/dairy-land-use-declining-1-a-year

   Lower dairy volume = lower dairy impact. Labour passed the DIRA Amendment Act late last year which removed the requirement for Fonterra to take all milk volume produced. But Fonterra itself need to determine whether they will ever shift meaningfully from volume to lower-volume+higher-value-density products. The water-to-wine value equation has been going through the roof; dairy value equations within Fonterra makes yearly promises and frankly just lies every single time.

   https://www.newsroom.co.nz/is-the-volume-to-value-mantra-true-yes-and-heres-why

   3 Waters and Stormwater. If you want to change farmer practices, you have to support the key outcome of Labour's 3 Waters reforms in the stormwater outcomes. That is the biggest hit upon lazy+fearful regional councils who regulate stormwater and water take. That is the thing to fight hardest for and what Federated Farmers have fought hard against. The Greens want to keep stormwater management in Council hands which is utterly dumb.

   “The failure to separate stormwater management is another missed opportunity. Managing stormwater needs to stay as the responsibility of local councils because of the connection between land use and stormwater volumes and quality."

   https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2304/S00076/three-waters-rebrand-insufficient.htm

   If National wins the election there will indeed be a bonfire of water regulations on dairy farmers.

   SO: if Labour gets back in by some miracle it would take a fully implemented 3 Waters programme stormwater management revolution to turn it around as it is, and that would also require much stronger coalition partners.
5. ianmac 5

   24 April 2023 at 3:18 pm

   I asked a sheep farm manager what was the top farming regulation to be got rid of. She said she didn't really know. "Perhaps 3 Waters," she asked. I thought 3 waters affected mostly urban people. She thought maybe it was lack of labour.

   But I really think someone who knows about such things could tell us what regs to abolish.
6. ianmac 6

   24 April 2023 at 3:20 pm

   By the way I heard a whisper (just a little whisper) that the Nats have a leadership challenge on the go. I would rather Mr Luxon stayed on at least to the Election.
   • weka 6.1

     24 April 2023 at 3:23 pm

     lol, so would I. Or at least wait another few months for the challenge 😈
   • Ad 6.2

     24 April 2023 at 4:13 pm

     Don't even think it.

     Willis would suck female vote and that's all you need to get the win when it's this tight.
   • tsmithfield 6.3

     25 April 2023 at 9:33 am

     I haven't heard any such rumours. But who knows. Probably a seemless way to make a change would be for Willis and Luxon to swap roles. So, she becomes leader and he becomes deputy.

     That would require Luxon to be onside with the change. But, would be the least disruptive way to do it I would think.

     But, I doubt it will happen. National has already had enough instability. So, personally, I think they will stick with what they have.
7. Hunter Thompson II 7

   24 April 2023 at 4:12 pm

   Good idea to have "Debate of the Day" format.

   If the advertising by Fonterra and the others in farming sector were true there would be no need for regulation at all.

   Farmers definitely need to be regulated for the greater good (just as there are speed limits for motorists using the highway).

   But when it comes to climate change we all must respond, no matter where we live. Nature is now calling the tune, as anyone in Hawkes Bay will tell you.
8. SPC 8

   24 April 2023 at 4:33 pm

   The more enlightened farmers get it, but National seems to moving past FF towards Groundswell with its policy direction.

   Farmers need to have their environment, animal husbandry and GW positions respected in the wider world of foreign markets. As do we given their place in our economy.

   Which is why there should be interest free loans to farmers to help them meet any required farm standards (debt against the farm on sale).

   The methane from ruminant livestock is the big one and hopefully the work to realise a one dose (slow release) product which halves methane released is successful – this will change our and the global circumstance.

   https://cen.acs.org/environment/climate-change/scientists-want-cut-livestocks-methane/100/i36
   • georgecom 8.1

     29 April 2023 at 5:48 pm

     yes generally it seems so, the groundswell national party. I recently heard Damien O'Connor challenged on radio recently about the pace of legislative change on the rural sector, his answer, if things had been done during the 9 years National was last in power the farming sector would be further down the road for change. because it was 9 years of a do nothing government (ie groundswell) the farming sector is having to play catch up. Luxon and mates will mark another era of doing nothing government (ie groundswell)
9. bwaghorn 9

   24 April 2023 at 7:14 pm

   Definitely for nature and that's happening, I went recently to a day to learn the new regs on winter crop feeding, nothing to be afraid of in my opinion, of course boss is resistant and will nodoubt hold out on coming above the radar for a year or 2, but I'm the day to day guy so will be implementing the best practice stuff anyhow.

   But get after those river destroying dairy practices.

   On cc 8 billion people need to eat, so emmisions need to be reduced but should be treated alot differently to pointless pollution like tourism, .
   • Patricia Bremner 9.1

     24 April 2023 at 9:17 pm

     Great points.
10. tsmithfield 10

    25 April 2023 at 8:06 am

    One reason I want to see farmers incentivised/compelled to plant native plants on their unproductive land is that it is amazing how quickly native birdlife returns to those areas.

    I was taking my grand-children for a walk through the little nature area in the botanical gardens the other day. And there were beautiful fan tails flitting around, land on people's arms, and some native parrots as well. It was fantastic, just in that small area.

    It would be wonderful to see that extended across more of our land. Those pine forests aren't really compatible with our native species as far as I know. Which is one of the reasons I really dislike them, and don't want to see them expanding across the country side.
    • bwaghorn 10.1

      25 April 2023 at 11:53 am

      If you want to make real difference to nz native forests, get the government to get the wild game recovery industry going again, I started my hunting years when you could sell wild deer to the chillers, deer numbers where low, and it was a tidy little income for some, goats could be treated the same,

      1000s of deer are being shot and left to rot on farms with bush blocks on or next to them
      • weka 10.1.1

        25 April 2023 at 12:00 pm

        why can't shooters sell deer now?
        • arkie 10.1.1.1

          25 April 2023 at 12:11 pm

          MPI forbids it, unless they’re registered as a listed hunter:

          You can't sell recreationally hunted meat under any circumstances. All commercially traded meat (including commercially hunted wild game meat) undergoes thorough procurement, hygiene and processing standards and controls before it reaches the consumer. Recreationally collected meat doesn't go through these processes.

          https://www.mpi.govt.nz/outdoor-activities/hunting-and-gathering-biosecurity-and-food-safety/risks-restrictions-and-rules-for-wild-food/
          • weka 10.1.1.1.1

            25 April 2023 at 12:28 pm

            that doesn't seem unreasonable (depending on the process and cost).

            If shooters are leaving deer carcasses to rot, that's just stupid.
        • bwaghorn 10.1.1.2

          25 April 2023 at 12:27 pm

          Looks like you can but when I did it there was a chiller in every town , most of us sold the odd one but there where a few that did large numbers, I'm picking bureaucracy is the big killer.

          It must be quit hard as I genuinely have heard of chopper shooters shooting 1000s to rot, from easily recoverable areas.

          If there was an extra $ in it they would recover them
          • weka 10.1.1.2.1

            25 April 2023 at 12:31 pm

            sounds like two things to me

            1. no-one is doing the mahi to make it easier for hunters to register

            2. the infrastructure isn't there any more.

            Part of that will have been 1080 and the need to make sure deer weren't coming from poisoned areas.

            Also, if chopper shooters are leaving the carcasses, that's free food for stoats, rats etc, so DOC, regional councils etc should be paying for retrieval. Make them into pet food ffs.

            These are not hard things to solve, it's just systems, and intention to do things well.
            • bwaghorn 10.1.1.2.1.1

              25 April 2023 at 2:57 pm

              1080 is what killed it if my rumors where correct late 90s I believe. .a deer got poached from a 1080 block and was sold into Europe and it was picked up there,
11. Jimmy 11

    25 April 2023 at 7:35 pm

    Does Farming need too be regulated?

    Well maybe.

    However it looks to me as if the market will regulate farming.

    As a farmer supplier to Fonterra, it seems as though Fonterra is ahead of Government and local council.

    If you want to supply Fonterra, you will need to prove that you use less than 135kg/N/per hectare or face a financial penalty, yet the Government limit is 190Kgns/N/per hectare.

    you also need to prove you are discharging effluent to land, and not water, regardless of regional council rules.

    you will need to prove you are not dumping or burning plastic waste on farm.

    You will need to prove you are not destroying bobby calves on farm.

    You will need to know what your GHG emissions are for your property, and comply with Fonterra limits.

    There are more rules comming from Fonterra, market driven, not Government.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS