The Climate Change Commission yesterday confirmed what farming leaders and the Agriculture Minister have been denying for some time.
On current settings, farming will not make the post-2017 10 per cent reduction in methane emissions by 2030 required under the Net Zero legislation.
The Commission implies that the only way to meet the target would be to change land use from livestock farming to horticulture.
Its report poses a major challenge to the coalition Government.
Both ACT and New Zealand First oppose the Net Zero legislation.
New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters reiterated at his party’s weekend conference that he wants New Zealand to withdraw altogether from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
ACT, as part of its election manifesto, wants Parliament to revisit the farm Emissions Reduction Plans.
“ACT will reset these around realistic targets, the split-gas approach, and genuine environmental outcomes rather than compliance with a framework designed for industrialised economies with fundamentally different emissions profiles to ours,” the manifesto says.
That leaves National stranded in the middle.
The original legislation was passed on a bipartisan basis by the Ardern Government, but whether that consensus remains is a moot point.
With opposition from New Zealand First, National would need ACT and Labour to get a majority in the House if it wanted to review the targets.
But it doesn’t have to.
The Zero Carbon Act contains no penalties if targets are not met and the Paris Agreement itself also contains no sanctions or penalties.
However, sanctions could still emerge from other areas.
Under their Free Trade Agreement, New Zealand and the EU pledge not to take actions or omissions that materially defeat the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement.
Unlike past trade deals, core Paris Agreement obligations in the FTA are ultimately subject to government-to-government consultations and, as a final recourse, potential trade sanctions.
The Climate Change Commission’s report yesterday says reductions in agricultural emissions show a marked slowdown, down just 0.3% in 2024, and are expected to flatline in 2025.
“Government projections have worsened and now show Aotearoa New Zealand well off-track for the 2030 biogenic methane target,” the report says.
The current projections fall short of the target of a 10% reduction by 2030, with projections for agricultural methane indicating only a 6.6% emissions reduction.
However, last November the Government reduced the 2050 methane targets to 14 – 24 per cent.
There was no move to reduce the 2030 target, but obviously if the 2050 target is 14 per cent then an undershoot in 2030 doesn’t rule out farming meeting the 2050 target.
Meanwhile, the Government has placed an emphasis on the public-private partnership AgriZeroNZ, which invests to accelerate the development and deployment of tools for farmers to reduce agricultural emissions.
It is half-owned by the Government and half-owned by major agribusinesses and banks and is currently investing in 14 separate products and processes that offer the possibility of being able to reduce methane emissions from livestock.
The Government has committed $400 million to investment in methane reduction technology.
But the Climate Change Commission is sceptical.
“The risk of over-reliance on technological solutions with high uncertainty can be addressed by strengthening the transition to high-value, low-emissions land uses and other mitigation options,” it says in yesterday’s report.
“High value low -emissions land uses” is code for reducing livestock numbers, some4hting Greenpace ghas been campaigning on for some years.
Their response yesterday to the Climate Change Commission Report was predictably scathing about farm methane.
“Methane is our climate emergency brake,” said spokesperson Will Appelbe.
“Reducing methane emissions from the intensive livestock industry now will give us a fighting chance of preventing the worst of the climate crisis.
“That’s why it’s so concerning to watch this Government recklessly cave to agribusiness lobbyists like Federated Farmers, and undermine any attempt to reduce methane emissions from intensive livestock farming.”
Dr Nathanael Melia, Founding Director of the independent research organisation Climate Prescience Limited and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at Victoria University of Wellington, said yesterday that the Commission’s report put New Zealand in an uncomfortable middle: not uniquely failing, but behind the strongest performers.
“Ireland is a useful comparator. It now faces similar agriculture and transport problems, but started with dirtier electricity and has a demanding target: 51% below 2018 by 2030,” he said.
“It is also badly off track.
“Australia still has substantial coal-to-renewables gains available, and land-use change accounts for a significant share of its historical headline progress.
“Its post-2030 pathway is also insecure.
“This context makes New Zealand’s slow progress more understandable, but not acceptable.
Clean power should help us electrify vehicles and industrial heat.
“Our targets also rely heavily on forestry and give biogenic methane a separate reduction pathway, so the difficult emissions mix is not a complete excuse.
“The fair conclusion is that many countries are struggling as they move beyond electricity into transport, buildings, industry and agriculture.
“But New Zealand is underperforming relative to its advantages. The next 12–24 months are critical for turning renewable electricity, efficiency and agricultural innovation into durable cuts, rather than depending mainly on forests or reduced economic output.”
The Government is optimistic that technology will soon arrive that can reduce methane production by livestock and at the same time it hopes that farmers will adopt the technology voluntarily without having a punitive levy imposed on them if they don’t.
But is it too optimistic?
After all, it was only in April last year that Agriculture Minister Todd McClay claimed farmers were on track to meet the 10 per cent reduction by 2030 that the Commission found yesterday would not be met.
Statistics NZ yesterday also reported on emissions, and they found that seasonally adjusted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by industries and households decreased 0.2 percent over the March 2026 quarter.
But that decrease largely came from mining, and with the decrease came an economic downside.
“In the March 2026 quarter, emissions from the mining industry decreased by 18.4 percent,” said Stats.
“This was primarily due to a decrease in oil and gas extraction over the quarter, consistent with a decrease in GDP from the industry.
“Mining was the largest downward contributor to New Zealand’s gross domestic product in the March 2026 quarter, down 11.6 percent.”
That reflects the dilemma facing both the Government and industry; it is easy to reduce emissions if you reduce economic activity.
But given the country’s economic reliance on farm exports, that is not a realistic option.
“New Zealand cannot afford to reduce emissions through the planting of food-producing land or further reduction of stock numbers,” Agriculture Minister Todd McClay said last year.
Agriculture increased its emissions over the quarter by a relatively modest 1.1 per cent.
But to reach the 10 per cent reduction by 2030, it has to be continually reducing emissions.
And that’s the challenge, and the problem.
.
