Beef and Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ), a organisation representing cattle and sheep farmers in New Zealand, has said that the country’s climate change policies in relation to agriculture are “out of step internationally” in keys areas.
The group commissioned a report comparing New Zealand’s policies to other countries.
The research compared a “broad cross-section” of 16 jurisdictions internationally, examining agricultural greenhouse gas (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,” Acland claimed.
“Farmers are committed to the environment and are making substantial investment and progress. The carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and lamb from farm to plate is among the lowest in the world and absolute emissions from sheep and beef farms have also reduced by 35% since 1990,” she added.
Acland hit out at what she said was a “narrative” that agriculture has been “let off the hook” by excluding ruminant agricultural emissions from being priced in an emissions trading scheme (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,” Acland said.
According to B+LNZ, the majority of other countries in the research are planning to use subsidies and incentives to support emissions reductions in the future. Most governments are investing heavily in research and development 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.”
B+LNZ said that all jurisdictions analysed in the research “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 jurisdiction have policies that reward farmers for retaining or improving their soil carbon,” the New Zealand farm organisation said.
