Climate change policy globally

There are a range of approaches being followed by countries to reduce agricultural emissions.     

Our farmers are committed to the environment and are making substantial investments and progress.  

While we acknowledge there’s an expectation that further progress needs to be made in reducing agricultural emissions, we want to address the narrative that agriculture is being ‘let off the hook’ by recent policies (including no pricing on biological agricultural emissions and New Zealand’s methane reduction targets being revised).  

What B+LNZ is doing  

In 2024 we commissioned a scan of a cross-section of 16 international jurisdictions by independent consultant Macaulay Jones. We wanted to show how other jurisdictions are treating their agricultural emissions as part of their policies on climate change.   

We shared the research with Ministers and officials to reinforce our positions as part of trying to ensure that what farmers are being asked to do is fair, not out of step internationally, and based on the latest science.   

In May 2026 we released an updated report, again by Macaulay Jones, analysing developments since the original research. This updated report was again shared with Ministers and officials. 

The original report’s findings  

The report found that every country is looking to reduce agricultural emissions but in very different ways.   

One of the key implications of this research is that New Zealand is out of step globally in looking to put a price on agricultural emissions from food production.   

Rather than pricing agricultural emissions, the majority of jurisdictions analysed plan to use subsidies and incentives to support emissions reductions. Most governments are investing heavily in R&D technologies to reduce agricultural emissions.   

This means that if New Zealand farmers were to face a price on emissions from ruminants (as was the intent at the time of the report) they will face significant competitive disadvantage as our competitors spend billions subsidising or incentivising their farmers.   

The research also backs B+LNZ’s calls for the Government to amend New Zealand’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to take a split-gas approach aligned with our split-gas domestic targets, as Uruguay has done.  

Other important findings in the research include:  

  • Most jurisdictions analysed specifically acknowledge the important role of food production and want to use technology and improved farming practices to achieve emissions reduction goals, instead of reducing production or overall animal numbers.   
  • All jurisdictions analysed acknowledge the agriculture sector's complex nature and seek to reduce agricultural GHGs while maximising co-benefits.  
  • Nearly all jurisdictions analysed are incentivising farmers to integrate trees into their farms and reward the wider environmental benefits.  
  • Many jurisdictions have policies that reward farmers for retaining or improving soil carbon.  
  • All jurisdictions except New Zealand had limits on the amount of forestry offsets available to fossil fuel emitters and many have policies aimed at limiting the conversion of productive farms into carbon forestry. (Our government subsequently announced measures to curb farm sales to carbon farming. B+LNZ had been calling for action on this since 2019)  

The updated report’s findings 

International jurisdictions continue to focus on incentivising and subsidising farmers to achieve climate change outcomes, resulting in a widening competitive gap for New Zealand farmers, who are expected to adjust within a largely unsubsidised policy framework.  

Since the initial report, some jurisdictions have pulled back from climate change commitments, and most still focus on directing large-scale public funding to incentivising and subsidising farmers to achieve climate change outcomes.  

Across the jurisdictions reviewed, agriculture continues to be addressed primarily through economy-wide targets and enabling policy, with most governments relying on public funding, incentives and land-use integration rather than introducing new sectoral emissions obligations. 

While there have been some positive developments in New Zealand, with Government announcements around not pricing agricultural emissions, revised methane reduction targets and limits on the amount of carbon forestry that can be entered into the ETS, the competitive gap identified in the 2024 report is widening.  

What we’re calling for   

B+LNZ is not advocating for subsidies for our sector – we’re asking for more creative approaches such as exploring ways to incentivise reductions through a focus on efficiency gains and options such as emissions reduction credits for technology uptake.  

We will continue to urge the Government to amend New Zealand’s NDC to take a split-gas approach, among other policy recommendations resulting from this work.  

More information   

Original report: 

Updated report: 

Last updated: May 2026