In the pipeline
Meeting with Minister James Shaw on the 17th of this month. We were disappointed that both Minster O’Connor and Minister Jones failed to recognise the opportunity in front of them. The ministers failed to listen to the very real concerns and issues farmers have with policies affecting their lives and Minister Jones demonstrated a complete disregard for our democratic right to deliver our message. Farmers are frustrated, angry and uncertain because they are not listened to, are treated with disdain, and our achievements and science ignored, even though we are a critical part of the economy.
We are meeting with Minister Shaw and hope to discuss our concerns which include:
1. Carbon offsetting with trees is a folly, it will not achieve any change in behaviour. Simply put: laundering emissions.
2. The potential for adverse environmental outcomes is extremely high despite what the forestry sector states.
3. The social cost of significant land use change will impact initially in concentrated areas (Wairoa, Tararua, Northland, Ruepehu) before becoming widespread
4. The economic cost will be borne by the provinces initially and then ultimately the wider economy. The major benefit will be a ‘feel good’ factor for some people, at least until the effects of the policy start to bite
5. The messaging being sent by these policies by the government is incentivising the acceleration of afforestation by carbon investors with no lasting benefit - The only winners will be the investment sector
6. NZ will be the big loser, socially, economically and environmentally
7. Lack of monitoring
We want to be constructive, we are passionate about NZ and it is extremely concerning not to be taken seriously, for the government to constantly quote out of date data figures regarding blanket afforestation, to ignore it’s not only applications coming through the OIO that are resulting in the perverse outcomes of policy. As far back as June this year, two mayors, and one rural farm consultant, all of whom know their patch pretty well raised their concerns, and they, in a snapshot in time gave a more accurate account than slowly flowing data that doesn’t capture the whole picture