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, B+LNZ is concerned about many of New Zealand’s current climate change policies.  

There is currently a narrative in New Zealand that agriculture was ‘let off the hook’ by excluding biological agricultural emissions from being priced in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The Government intends to put a price on agricultural emissions by 2030, which B+LNZ has long argued against.  

What B+LNZ is doing 

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

The 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, 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) 

What we’re calling for  

We’re urging the Government to consider an alternative approach, where the importance of food production is at the heart of climate policy and farmers are supported or rewarded for taking action to reduce emissions, rather than penalised. 

We will continue to urge the Government to commit to no pricing of agricultural emissions or inclusion in the ETS, and to amend New Zealand’s NDC to take a split-gas approach, among other policy recommendations resulting from this report. 

More information  

Last updated: December 2024