The temporary pause in the rapid implementation of HWEN provides a valuable opportunity for reflection.

Rarely do we witness the containment of a highly intricate policy problem, riddled with untested assumptions and unpredictable consequences, before it is unleashed upon an unsuspecting public. Even rarer is the introspection and careful consideration that seems to have taken place in the case of He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN), especially during the pre-election period when hasty lawmaking and last-minute urgency are the norm.

We should be grateful for the temporary halt and take this opportunity to reflect on what we truly desire, particularly as a nation and within rural communities.

While many have focused on the complexity of the underlying science and called for simpler, fairer, and more transparent alternatives to both HWEN and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), few have devoted sufficient time to understand the essential core that should have been the primary focus fr om the start: how to inspire farmers to embrace innovation and change.

There will always be a need for stringent measures to drive those who are unwilling towards outcomes that contradict their values, economic motivations, or land aspirations. Yet, regardless of the size of the stick used, the vastness of the rural landscape will provide ample room for evasion and defiance.

Regulations must, by their nature, be simple enough to implement. Otherwise, distinguishing between fully compliant and non-compliant parties becomes nearly impossible, particularly when those who are non-compliant have little incentive to reveal their status.

Unless we are prepared to employ armies of personnel to conduct frequent livestock counts on remote rural roads, enforcement is unlikely to be feasible.

For those who still believe that HWEN held the answers, it is crucial to understand the trade-offs involved. To implement any meaningful mitigation options at the farm level, farmers would have to collect and report an extensive array of detailed data to HWEN. This includes farm area, monthly or quarterly stock tallies for each livestock category and age group, weights by stock class and age range at regular intervals or after farm management interventions, records of animals moved to different forages, stand-off periods, imported feed, planned mating start, weaning percentages or replacement rates, sales dates, meat, milk, wool, and velvet production by stock class and age range, farm area by land slope class, effluent application methods, and monthly urea application rates with details on area, urease inhibitors, and application methods.

Every single farmer across the country would need to provide this extensive information continuously throughout the year for the system to be accurate. In return for this avalanche of data, farmers would initially only be eligible for minor mitigations if they used low-methane or low nitrous-oxide-inducing forages, employed fertiliser inhibitors, or practiced potential manure management.

If you happen to be a farmer without improved pastures or crops and don't use urea, I'm sorry to inform you that no mitigations are proposed for you until sheep genetics become more widely available, which is estimated to take around 10 years. So, you would be diligently gathering and reporting all this detailed information solely for the purpose of determining how much money will be taken from you.

Regarding sequestration, which was anticipated to be a game-changer (particularly for those participating in the ETS by planting pine trees), there were different challenges. The eligible trees proposed in HWEN would struggle to cover the costs of their own stock-exclusion fencing, let alone offset emissions liabilities or cover the expenses of sequestration measurement.

It's worth noting that even with NAIT, which tracks only one variable, compliance issues persist, including cases of non-compliance and unaccounted-for cattle. Despite the introduction of well-publicized enforcement measures, NAIT has taken a decade to achieve a meager indicative compliance rate of around 70%.

So, let's return to what we truly desire—a future wh ere change align