Skip to main content.

2 Māori Contribution to New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In considering whether Māori bear a proportionate or disproportionate share of greenhouse gas mitigation costs under the ETS, it is relevant to enquire as to the relative contribution of Māori to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. To compare Māori and non-Māori emissions it is necessary to consider both emissions from consumption, as well as from Māori productive activities (such as deforestation of pre-1990 forests). Furthermore, it is necessary to consider not just direct emissions by Māori (eg, through electricity and liquid fuel consumption), but also indirect emissions. These indirect emissions may arise, for example, through the consumption of goods and services which require electricity and liquid fuels for their manufacture or supply.

Using 2004 household expenditure data from Statistics New Zealand, the total expenditure by Māori households is 14 per cent of total household expenditure. Given Māori constitute 15 per cent of the New Zealand population this suggests Māori contribute marginally less to New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions measured in consumption terms than non-Māori, all other things being equal, but not significantly so. However, further data presented in Sections 5 and 6 on Māori household electricity and motor fuel consumption suggest that certain Māori sub-groups have relatively high direct emissions from these sources, so the use of overall consumption figures may not be an accurate guide as to relative Māori emissions.

In production terms, analysis by NZIER suggests the “Māori economy” constitutes only 1.4 per cent of total economic value added in New Zealand,4 which likely reflects a relatively low proportion of the New Zealand productive sector owned by Māori (eg, only 6 per cent of all land in New Zealand is Māori land). The distribution of Māori value added is relatively uneven, however, with Māori value added estimated to constitute 37.1 per cent of total fishing value added, 7.5 per cent of agriculture value added, 2.0 per cent of forestry value added, and lower proportions of total value added in other sectors. Assuming these economic value added statistics correlate with emissions, on a per capita basis Māori contribute a greater share of fishing-sector related emissions than non-Māori, all other things being equal. However, for all other sectors, including forestry, Māori contribute less per capita to New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions than non-Māori, all other things being equal.

Conversely, Māori emissions based on land use and land-use change data may be relatively high compared with non-Māori. Data presented in Section 3 suggests there is a relatively high proportion of Māori land in more emissions-intensive activities such as beef farming, as well as relatively low Māori interests in lower-emitting sheep farming, compared with the proportion of non-Māori land in each such activity. While Māori have relatively high interests in pre-1990 forestry (both indigenous and exotic), there is evidence to suggest that the greater part of emissions relating to deforestation (ie, changing land use out of pre-1990 forestry) comes from non-Māori sources.5 Also, while Māori interests in high-emitting dairy farming, and lower-emitting mixed sheep and beef farming, are relatively comparable to those of non-Māori, evidence exists for more conservative stocking policies on Māori farms and greater Māori farming of under-developed or marginal land as compared with non-Māori farms. Given the significance of mixed sheep and beef farming for total land use, relatively lower Māori emissions for these farm types may mitigate any greater emissions from other sources, hence the net relative contribution of Māori to emissions from land use and land-use change is unclear.

Taking these crude approaches into account, there may be reason to speculate that Māori contribute less to New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions per capita than non-Māori, and hence could expect to shoulder only a commensurate burden of greenhouse gas mitigation costs. However, without more reliable data it is not possible to state any definitive conclusion. While in principle the ETS should only charge Māori for the emissions they actually make, practical arrangements could hinder or help Māori groups or individuals relative to non-Māori to access opportunities or mitigate costs from the ETS, thus creating distributional inequalities.

4 NZIER, 2003, Māori Economic Development: Te Ohanga Whanaketanga Māori, p.9.

5 Smith B, Horgan G, 2006, Area of Forest ‘at Risk’ from Deforestation, August, www.maf.govt.nz.

[ |