Sheep and beef farms make up 40% of New Zealand’s land mass, presenting significant opportunity for increased carbon sequestration. Farming systems can be net sinks of carbon rather than sources. By modifying farming practices, the soils, forests, tussocks, and wetlands present on farms can offer valuable carbon sequestration potential.Similarly the rise of carbon-positive farming practices such as silvopasture, permaculture and other regenerative practices present opportunities for farms to contribute towards national carbon reduction goals.

There is a growing global consumer demand for low carbon or carbon positive products. Taking climate action can be a win-win for farmers as they build ecological health on their farm and meet the sustainability demands of premium markets. Agriculture and forestry are unique in their ability to be carbon positive, and therefore represent key opportunities to lower atmospheric carbon. A carbon positive goal means sequestering more than we emit and is needed to remove historical emissions. New Zealand’s farmers must be supported to become global leaders in carbon sequestration.

What would this look like in reality?

● The narrative of climate change becomes based around opportunity, rather than a threat to farming in New Zealand

● Farmers are provided with strong support systems to encourage the sequestration of carbon that also meets biodiversity, economic, cultural and social goals.

● An increase in carbon farming (carbon-positive) land use uptake, forestry of native and endemic trees. This may include the increase of silvopasture and permaculture solutions.

● Farmers are empowered to realise their potential as a solution to climate change and New Zealanders are proud to have climate action embedded into our agricultural landscapes.

Currently, the ETS is inaccessible for kiwi farmers, with high upfront consulting fees and legislation that favours large forestry blocks over regenerative native bush on farmland. If we are to encourage large scale carbon sequestration that meets other social and ecological goals, it is critical that New Zealand creates avenues for more vegetation types and sizes to be recognised in carbon trading schemes. New science will enable us to access new methodologies for carbon trading, for example, through the development of novel soil carbon methodologies for scrubland and tussock. In both the regulatory and voluntary markets farmers should be able to access increasing types of carbon credits that meet additionality and permanence requirements. Farmers must simultaneously be liable for their emissions while being rewarded for sequestration.

What does this look like in reality?

● Carbon revenue portfolios are diversified to include a variety of forms of natural carbon storage such as wetlands, native forests, tussock land and soil carbon.

● Voluntary carbon markets are supported and encouraged to diversify payments for carbon sequestration efforts on farm.

● Price futures should be available on voluntary markets to facilitate investment in novel farm practices such as the markets created by Toha.

● Farmers that meet additional requirements and provide verification for high quality emission abatement credits are able to receive credits for their emission reduction.

● The ETS adapts quickly to new methodologies for carbon trading and facilitates fast micro transactions for farmers nationwide with low consultation fees.

● Ultimately Asparagopsis (methane reducing seaweed feed supplement), methane vaccines, low genetic stock breeds and other ways of cutting methane emissions are recognised with the ability to receive carbon credits via globally standardised abatement methodologies.

● Introduction of a national strategy to plant shelterbelts and integrate trees wherever possible into agricultural landscapes including native trees, food producing trees and timber trees that offer biodiversity, cultural and economic gains.

● Soil is recognised for carbon sequestration when managed sufficiently.

● Gross methane emissions are reduced from a 2021 baseline by 20% at 2030 and 100% at 2050. This 20% by 2030 is halfway between the global methane pledge and NZ current targets balancing viability with globally agreed values while driving innovation and research.

Pine forests have high initial carbon sequestration rates, but have a negative impact on biodiversity and water cycles. Carbon farming with pine trees also is a relatively small contributor to local communities and economies as they threaten sheep and beef farming and traditional timber forestry. In comparison, native forests are biologically diverse, support healthy water cycles and hold cultural significance, while also sequestering carbon for a longer duration than pine. Native forestry must be the dominant form of forestry used for carbon credits.

Other ecosystem provisions must also be monetised so a wider range of ecological dimensions are considered in forestry, conservation and restoration projects. For example, biodiversity credits can provide economic pathways for our native biodiversity to be valued, protected and incorporated alongside carbon into financial and economic decision making in rural landscapes.

What would this look like in reality?

● Biodiversity and water impact are priced into the true cost of pine credits.

● Prevention of the planting of exotic forests in perpetuity for carbon sequestration.

● Native carbon credits should be traded at a significant premium on the ETS.

● A diverse supply of native trees promoted in lumber markets and sustainable harvest of new plantings of natives to become established.

● New Zealand farmers can access native bush carbon credits amongst a diverse potential portfolio of carbon revenue to encourage sequestration on farm.

● Farmers are ultimately able to receive payments for ecosystem services beyond carbon from ecosystem service markets, like biodiversity credits for habitat protection and eutrophication alleviation credits for restoring waterways.

● Eco-sourced planting are encouraged wherever possible.

Many regions had industrial Radiata plantations established on steep and fragile terrain both with and without government support. These plantations have held the soil together and reduced risk of erosion and landslides while standing (compared to pasture). However, the industry’s persistence in using clear-cutting as the only viable harvest system, particularly on steep and/or fragile land, has been a large part of the problem.

Large and extreme rainfall events were not uncommon in the past but now with climate change, the frequency and intensity of these events is creating havoc, particularly after extensive clearcutting and for 5 to 8 years following (the so-called ‘window of vulnerability’). The impacts are not limited to slash moving off hillsides into waterways, onto land downstream and into the marine environment in large or extreme weather events.

Sediment is even more pervasive. The amount of sediment entering waterways, inundating land and damaging estuaries and the sea will be greater in volume and impact than the slash in any given event. It’s less visible and rarely quantified. While mobilised slash may result in damage to farms, houses, and infrastructure, sediment is ubiquitous everywhere downstream, even in moderate rainfall events. Fundamentally, we need to acknowledge that the scope of the problem goes far beyond the damage caused to the built environment.

What would this look like in reality?

There are several key areas to address the inadequate management of fragile land, while achieving high-quality timber output. We strongly encourage that all of these recommendations are implemented at all stages of the supply chain and beyond.

Research

● Urgently increase funding for research into timber species of higher value that possess higher root strength (more stable), or retain live root systems.

● Urgently increase funding for research into alternative harvest systems (shelterwood & continuous canopy) that reduce the risk of erosion, landslides and sedimentation.

● Urgently increase funding for research into the viability of more appropriate harvesting (felling and extraction) equipment that reduces ground disturbance, sedimentation and landslides.

● Develop a comprehensive Standard (structure, format, process and training) for full cycle forestry risk assessment. Develop an industry-wide tool that allows forest managers to match management options with the assessed risk.

Policy

● Amend the NES-PF Regulations to include limits on clearcut size and aggregation.

● Amend regulations to specify realistic limits (by location or susceptibility) for non-point sediment discharge, particularly suspended sediment.

● Amend regulations to set specific limits on the size of slash and debris that may be left on the cutover site.

● Amend regulations to allow Councils to require amendments to, or rejection of, Harvest and Earthworks Plans.

● Introduce government-imposed penalties for Councils that fail to implement changes to their resource management plans within specific timeframes and that fail to set and implement effective policies for compliance, record-keeping and enforcement.

The current targets for emission reductions as set out by the climate change commission are not sufficient for New Zealand to meet our climate goals. Agriculture must reduce emissions at rates comparable with other industries and be included in the New Zealand ETS. As such, farmers need clarity if the ETS will be administered at the farm level or industry group level. The structure of regulatory and voluntary markets must change to make it easier for farmers to register their regenerating native bush for carbon credits. Financial incentivising of farming practices that sequester carbon must be encouraged.

What would this look like in reality?

● A wider range of vegetation types are eligible for carbon credits so farmers can realise the true value of their farms carbon sequestration, e.g. shelterbelts, non woody vegetation and tussock.

● Every farm in New Zealand must get its carbon budget number by the end of 2022 as per He Waka Eke Noa legislation.

● The ‘carbon’ centred climate change conversation must instead focus on greenhouse gases, which include methane and nitrous oxide allowing for the split gas approach.

● Future Farmers He Waka Eke Noa position statement15 recommendations are taken on board.

● Agricultural emissions are offset by a producer levy, this levy starts at 5% in 2025 and increases by 2%, 3%, 4% each year until 2030 to cut agricultural emissions by 20%.

● Emissions and sequestration should be treated separately, as a liability and income stream on farm accounts. This simplifies the process and means farmers can access different sources of revenue for their sequestration than just the regulatory market.

A common excuse that is used for climate inaction is that New Zealand is too small to make a difference on the global stage. While it is true that New Zealand has a relatively small contribution to global emissions (0.14%), New Zealand also emits more than the global average for emissions per capita and has a significant leadership role to play globally in climate action. Our innovation in agricultural technology and policy can inform global climate action beyond merely moving the dial on our own carbon budget.

Furthermore, this narrative is embedded in the ideology that responding to climate change is a burden, when in fact, it is an opportunity for embedding nature-based solutions into our industry and futureproofing our communities and our economy. Regardless of our size, we have a responsibility to act, for both the global community, and for ourselves and future generations. The risks of inaction are very well known. There is no excuse for complacency.

What would this look like in reality?

● We need to have emission budget targets beyond neutrality and 2050. We must have targets for 2100, 2150 and 2200. These should be targets where we become carbon positive, locking in more emissions than we emit, which are integral to reversing the damage of climate change.

● A yearly goal of 0.4% increase in top soil carbon on farms in New Zealand where possible and soils are low in carbon to align with New Zealand voluntary commitments at COP21 for the ‘4 per 1000’ initiative.