Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ) is calling for changes to New Zealand’s climate change policies on the back of new research showing New Zealand is out of step internationally in key areas.
- Summary report (PDF, 281KB)
- Full report (PDF, 2.78MB)
The research compared a broad cross-section of 16 jurisdictions internationally, examining agricultural GHG reduction targets, approaches to reducing agricultural emissions and to recognising sequestration within farms.
B+LNZ Chair Kate Acland said the findings back many of B+LNZ’s positions. The report found that every country is looking to reduce agricultural emissions but in very different ways.
“The agricultural sector is committed to playing its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the rules need to be appropriate and fair. This study raises significant questions about New Zealand’s approach.
“Farmers are committed to the environment and are making substantial investments and progress. The carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and lamb from farm to plate is amongst the lowest in the world and absolute emissions from sheep and beef farms have also reduced by 35 percent since 1990.
“Despite this, there is currently a narrative in New Zealand that agriculture has been ‘let off the hook’ by excluding ruminant agricultural emissions from being priced in the ETS. This study shows New Zealand is in line with other countries by not putting biological emissions into their ETS.
“New Zealand still, however, currently intends to introduce a price on agricultural emissions by 2030.
“No other country, apart from Denmark, is currently intending to put a price on agricultural emissions. However, under the Danish policy proposal the impacts of the price will be offset with billions of dollars of additional subsidies to their farmers.”
Rather than pricing agricultural emissions, the majority of jurisdictions analysed plan to use subsidies and incentives to support emissions reductions in the future. Most governments are investing heavily in R&D technologies to reduce agricultural emissions.
“While we acknowledge there is an expectation that further progress needs to be made in reducing agricultural emissions, this report shows there are alternatives to an emissions price that can achieve the desired outcomes and B+LNZ strongly encourages the Government to look at these alternatives,” Acland said.
“We support market-led or other creative ways being explored to support the adoption of new technologies by farmers as these come on board and would like a more holistic approach being taken to what farmers can be recognised for.”
All jurisdictions analysed acknowledge the agriculture sector's complex nature and seek to reduce agricultural GHGs while maximising co-benefits such as biodiversity. 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 their soil carbon.
Acland says another critical area for reconsideration is how New Zealand approaches emissions reduction targets.
“New Zealand’s world-leading decision to have a split-gas target in our domestic legislation is not reflected in our Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
“While many other countries haven’t worried about this issue because agricultural methane is not a relatively large source of emissions in their inventories, there is a precedent for New Zealand to adopt a split-gas NDC in alignment with our split-gas domestic targets – this approach is used by Uruguay.
“A split-gas target for biogenic methane in New Zealand’s NDC would, in addition to following this precedent, be science-based and consistent with the Paris Agreement.”
The research also found that 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 (except New Zealand) have 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.
“These are hugely important considerations that should be part of New Zealand’s climate change policies,” Acland said.
Access the reports here:
ENDS
For media queries, email media@beeflambnz.com
Notes for editors:
- Sixteen jurisdictions were chosen as case studies (15 plus New Zealand). These jurisdictions are a combination of developed and developing jurisdictions and were chosen because:
- they were referred to by the New Zealand Climate Change Commission (NZ CCC) as implementing targets more ambitious than New Zealand, and/or
- are jurisdictions commonly used by New Zealand policymakers and/or
- are jurisdictions that are large livestock producers in geographically diverse regions.
- The term jurisdictions is used, rather than countries, as the European Union is included in the report, along with Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Uruguay, Brazil, Japan, South Africa and India.
- The report was written by independent consultant Macaulay Jones.