The Government needs a suite of policies to ensure rural communities aren’t decimated and livelihoods aren’t lost if its controversial proposals to lower agricultural emissions – which prioritise forestry over food production – go ahead, economists warn.
Farming advocacy groups, National and ACT have largely condemned the proposals which would see farmers pay for the greenhouse gasses livestock produce by 2025, plans modelling expects will drive down agricultural production– New Zealand’s largest export earners – by as much as 9.8% for milk solids, 23.6% for lamb, and 65.4% for beef.
But the flow-on effects of slimming-down the sector will be concentrated acutely in rural areas, and the Government’s drive towards a low-carbon economy may propel economic decline.
It is an issue New Zealand has grappled with in the manufacturing sector, and through the loss of freezing works and timber mills Craig Renney, economist and policy director of the Council of Trade Unions said, warning against the creation of “ghost towns”.
READ MORE:
* How the ‘zero carbon’ claim could change for business
* 10 simple things you can do to help protect the environment
* Climate Explained: What if we took all farm animals off the land and planted crops and trees instead?
“Some job losses will be inevitable but it’s how we avoid the second and third round effects, so that you don’t end up where communities don’t lose all their jobs, losing all their facilities, where kids don’t get pulled out of local schools because suddenly everyone has to leave,” he said.
“How the Government works with farmers and with those rural communities to make sure there are job opportunities, to make sure there are training opportunities if necessary … If we are going to change .. how do we do so in a way that doesn’t load the costs on the local community.”
Westpac senior agri-economist Nathan Penny said the Government’s plans – which incentivise land-use change towards planting trees – didn’t strike the right balance between environmentalism, sustainability, and meeting the country’s commitments to global food insecurity.
“We need a plan and policies that help the environment – climate change, water quality, biodiversity; we also need to talk about food insecurity, economic growth and the health of the rural community,” he said.
“I don’t think we have the balance right. It is not an even playing field between forestry and food production.”
High production costs on the farm will likely flow onto consumers, he said, and drive up prices at the supermarket – pain felt more keenly by those on the lowest incomes.
New Zealand also had an obligation under the United Nation’s sustainable development goals to help achieve global food security.
A reduction in food output will mean other – less efficient – food producers will fill the global gap, he said, so the emissions will still take place.
Dr Bill Kaye-Blake, principal economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, said it’s not yet clear what it means for the agricultural sector, but overall costs of meeting the country’s targets and proposed emissions budgets were likely to be less than 1% of projected GDP.
Climate change was moving faster than scientists forecasted, he said, which meant governments also needed to act more quickly.
© 2022 Stuff Limited