The Climate Change Commission has been accused of ignoring the realities of farming and new government policy.
Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford said the commission’s latest advice on emissions budgets and targets fails to provide economic modelling or an understanding of the implications to the sector of its advice.
He said the commission’s report, which looks at the fourth emissions budget period from 2036–2040, also ignores the government’s recent announcement of an independent review of the 2050 targets for agricultural biogenic methane.
“It’s a bit disappointing they haven’t adapted or evolved,” Langford said.
He said agricultural businesses need certainty, something that the commission’s report lacks.
DairyNZ corporate affairs manager Nick Robinson said the body disagrees with the commission’s assumption that farmers can reduce stocking rates by 23% and still maintain milk production.
“We intend to sit down with the commission to understand their modelling and assumptions,” Robinson said.
He said advice sought by the commission from the AgriBusiness Group last October had noted that “with stocking rate reductions above 15-20%, it was very hard to achieve improvements in productivity in order to maintain or improve farm profitability”.
The commission report said that the Biological Emissions Reference Group (BERG) and the NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre have identified that changes such as lowering stocking rates and fertiliser use can reduce emissions while improving animal performance.
It quotes one scenario of a 23% reduction in stocking rates for dairy and 12% for sheep and beef farms by 2050, compared to 2021.
The commission said this would reduce methane emissions while, for dairy, production could remain steady due to improved efficiency, though production and revenue would not grow as projected.
For sheep and beef, stock numbers would continue to fall due to continued land use changes resulting in meat production falling 17% in 2050 relative to 2023 levels, also lowering methane levels.
Dr Hinrich Schaefer, an atmospheric scientist with NIWA, said the independent review of the methane targets raises questions about the commission’s reduction targets and whether it will differ from the work of the commission.
“Short of a new definition of methane’s climate impact relative to other greenhouse gases, which would have to be endorsed internationally, different agricultural emissions will require a rebalancing of the emission budget with adjusted contributions from other sectors or different mitigation through domestic carbon uptake or offshore obligations.”
