Farm machinery sale one of the biggest
Glen Islay Station is selling more than 120 items tomorrow through the agricultural services company Carrfields, including 12 tractors, 13 other farm machines and 21 motor vehicles.
Carrfields livestock representative Matt McBain said the volume of equipment for sale was the biggest he had seen for several years, which was to be expected from about 8000ha of farming land. He said he would not comment on the sale any further as per the wishes of the station's owners, the Roy family, who own land around Eastern Southland and South Otago.
Although Glen Islay Station is thought to have been sold for forestry conversion, the Roy family has declined comment.
This follows several livestock sales on the property, with trees having already been planted in some areas.
The conversion of farmland to forestry is a contentious issue among farmers, because as well as being lucrative, planting and then replanting trees can offset carbon emissions, earning carbon credits.
Under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) these credits can be converted into extra profit.
In December, the government put a halt to entering the ETS and receiving carbon credits if converting actively farmed land into exotic forests.
Only last week, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay said in a statement that restrictions on full farm-to-forest conversions on LUC 1-6 farmland would be in place this year and reaffirmed they would take effect from December 4, 2024 — the date of the original announcement.
"The government remained concerned about the effect that farm conversions were having on highly productive land — particularly sheep and beef farms in Northland, the East Coast and parts of Otago and Southland,' Mr McClay said.
Vocal Southland farmers and beef and lamb lobbyists alike have said converters are exploiting that intent loophole and it was leading to a rush of farms converting to forestry before the government clamps down any further.
A month ago, Federated Farmers meat and wool executive member Dean Rabbidge, of Wyndham, said the growing number of conversions was a "gold rush'' that would lead to fewer jobs in small rural communities.
Beef and Lamb NZ climate change programme manager Madeline Hall said the market moves and finds loopholes faster than the government.
Research commissioned by Beef and Lamb NZ showed from 2017-24, 261,733ha — bigger than Stewart Island — of sheep and beef land was converted into forestry.
ella.scott-fleming@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
16 hours ago
- Scoop
Three of New Zealand's biggest emitters no longer have to reveal their climate impact
, Climate Change Correspondent Three of the country's biggest greenhouse gas emitters no longer have to reveal how much planet-heating gas they produce. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)'s company-level emissions data doesn't include agriculture, after the government ended compulsory reporting for the farming sector. The change means companies responsible for around half the countries' greenhouse gases no longer have to supply information to the EPA every year giving a rough total of their methane emissions, unless they happen to be captured by other disclosure rules (for example climate disclosure rules covering stockmarket-listed companies). Meat processors Affco and Alliance no longer have to supply emissions data. Nor does Open Country Dairy, the country's second biggest milk exporter after Fonterra. All three were previously among the country's top ten emitters. RNZ asked Affco, Alliance and Open Country Dairy for their totals, but none had responded by deadline. The two biggest greenhouse gas producers in the farming sector - Fonterra and Silver Fern Farms - still disclose their emissions tallies in their own annual reports, as well as listing measures to reduce their impact. "It's critical that everyday people are able to find out who is responsible for New Zealand's climate pollution," said climate advocate Alex Johnston, of the Don't Subsidize Pollution campaign. "To not have big corporate from agriculture, the sector responsible for more than half of the country's emissions, required to report their emissions footprint is not responsible governing. "It's like closing the door on your kid's bedroom when they've left the heater on and then wondering why the power bill is so high." The change came about because the government removed farmers from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Agriculture was previously included in the scheme as a backstop in case voluntary discussions between farmers and government didn't result in an agreement to price methane. The backstop provision was removed and voluntary pricing talks were scrapped and re-started after the last election. Farming companies never had to pay for their methane emissions under the ETS the way petrol importers, coal miners and gas producers pay for their carbon dioxide emissions. However, until this year, they had to submit annual totals giving a rough estimate of their climate impact. ETS emissions reports were the only public information available for comparing individual companies, because some companies choose not to voluntarily disclose emissions. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told Newsroom last year that officials had prepared an option to keep compulsory reporting while otherwise removing farming form the ETS. The government decided not to take it. He said the government was pursuing farm-level reporting instead. The change means reported emissions in the report have halved compared with last year, down from 65.7 million tonnes to 32.5 million tonnes. The difference is almost entirely because of the removal of the 33 million tonnes previously reported by the agriculture sector. When Fonterra is included, top 10 emitters collectively produce more than half the country's emissions, with Fonterra in the top spot followed by big petrol companies Z Energy, BP and Mobil. Farming companies - or their fossil fuel suppliers - still have to report and pay for any coal, gas or other fossil fuel they use in New Zealand under the ETS, for example coal used to dry milk or process meat. Affco reports its energy related emissions on its website, but not the larger total that comes from methane produced by farming the meat it processes. Alliance's website also discusses progress at reducing coal at its processing plants and said it completed a full lifecycle assessment of all its emissions last year, however doesn't appear to list the total. Open Country's website also discusses successful conversion of coal boilers to clean heat and said it is committed to reducing emissions from agriculture through the He Waka Eke Noa programme. He Waka Eke Noa was the programme scrapped by the coalition government after the election and replaced by direct engagement with farming groups through the government's Pastoral Sector Group. The new group is yet to announce a pricing plan or targets.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Industrial users demand electricity market reform amid rising prices
Bridget Abernethy, the chief executive of the Electricity Retailers and Generators Association, argues that major disruption to the electricity market structure is the 'last thing we [New Zealand] can afford' As a major energy user and economic contributor, we would argue the opposite – New Zealand cannot afford the status quo to continue. Taking a 'we'll be right' attitude to nine years of price increases for wholesale users has had negative impacts for all consumers. Citing a 'decade of flat electricity prices' for household consumers, Abernethy notes a short-term period of marginal increases is inevitable. What is missing from this statement is that electricity costs have been anything but flat for wholesale users, with spot prices increasing 3.5 times in nine years. (Index graph– Averaged Spot Market Real Time Pricing with forecast to April 2026). How can this disparity between retail and wholesale pricing occur in a properly functioning market? Could it be because residential consumers would demand earlier political intervention if their bills skyrocketed to the same degree as that of wholesale consumers? We accept that inter-year volatility will increase with the rise in intermittent renewables. However, it is not the main factor hurting large industrial users – it is this rising average price that cannot be insulated by hedging forward. Hedging contracts are now unaffordable for most large users because futures hedge prices are linked to the rising spot prices. The wealth transfer from large industrial users to generators over the past decade in the form of inflated prices has not resulted in investment into more net supply. The market has not created sufficient incentives to build new generation ahead of when it is needed. Pan Pac general manager Tony Clifford at the Whirinaki plant. Photo / Warren Buckland Instead, generators have sat on approved RMA (Resource Management Act) consents and continued to profit at the expense of business. We have seen the impact on manufacturers in regional areas no longer able to operate profitably. Residential consumers are then affected through loss of employment and services, while the economy and our communities suffer. Blaming the shortage of gas as a driver of rising prices is overstating its impact. Electricity generation from gas makes up less than 10% of all electricity generated. While prices would have increased because of gas shortages, we dispute the premium over the relationship to the gas costs. Independent analysis of generator margins shows at least $38/MWh of increases cannot be explained by gas or ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) charge increases. In summary, the gas shortage should not be impacting the electricity pricing to the extent claimed. However, the shortage of gas has been used to justify many years of high profits for generators and large dividend payouts to shareholders (which include successive Governments). These profits have not been reinvested into new generation until the recent threat of market intervention. We are not blaming generators for maximising profit; they are working within the existing market rules that incentivise them to keep the market on the edge, but we do have an issue with them telling only a part of the story to regulators, politicians and the public, that they can do nothing about rising costs and that consumers just have to ride it out. Market regulators and successive Governments have seen this train wreck approaching from a long way off but have chosen to do little. Simply not making a bold decision is a decision in itself.
NZ Autocar
3 days ago
- NZ Autocar
Mercedes CEO worries the European car industry could collapse
Only a few years ago, Mercedes-Benz was going all-in on EVs in Europe. In 2021, it projected that by 2030 it would stop selling ICE cars, at least in some markets. Now, like many others, the situation has changed and the company has done a U-turn. Mercedes boss, Ola Källenius, is now saying that without ICE vehicles, the local automotive industry could 'collapse'. He warned that if the EU's sales ban on ICE cars remains for 2035, Europe's automotive industry may not survive. 'We need a reality check. Of course, we have to decarbonise but it has to be done in a technology-neutral way. We must not lose sight of our economy.' The Mercedes boss is also the president of the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA). He predicts customers will rush to buy ICE-powered cars ahead of the deadline, which is now less than 10 years away. And that certainly won't help to mitigate climate change. Electric vehicles are nowhere near the 100 percent market share the EU so desires. So far this year, EVs accounted for 18 percent of total sales in EU and UK. ACEA data also shows that plug-in hybrids represented only 8.7 percent of total deliveries. Traditional hybrids made up 35 percent, but that figure includes mild hybrids. And these are simply more fuel efficient ICE powered vehicles. The EU's 2035 ban is not yet hard and fast legislation but is scheduled for review in the coming months. In March the European Commission (EC), the EU's executive arm, reaffirmed its commitment to 0g/km CO₂ emissions for new cars sold from the middle of the next decade. At the time, the EC said it may even impose an earlier date for the ban. While Mercedes is worried for European car makers in general, it has every right to be concerned for its own business. EV sales accounted for 8.4 percent of its global shipments in the first half of this year, down from almost 10 per cent a year ago. Even when including PHEVs, electrified models comprised just one-fifth of its total deliveries in the first six months of the year. Given strong opposition the EU is facing from car makers, there is hope the ban could be eased slightly. A sensible compromise may be to let new plug-in hybrids and possibly full hybrids continue to sell beyond 2034.
