A NIWA-led study has found New Zealand’s native forests are absorbing more carbon dioxide (CO2) than previously thought.
Study leader, NIWA atmospheric scientist Dr Beata Bukosa, says the findings could have implications for New Zealand’s greenhouse gas reporting, carbon credit costs, and climate and land-use policies.
She says forests – both native and exotic – play a vital role in absorbing CO₂ through photosynthesis, but previous studies may have underestimated the amount of carbon taken up by New Zealand’s mature indigenous forests, which were thought to be roughly carbon neutral.
Using advanced modelling and NIWA’s supercomputer, the researchers examined a decade of atmospheric data, from 2011 to 2020, to better estimate the amount of CO₂ absorbed by New Zealand’s land ecosystems. The NIWA team worked with collaborators at GNS Science and Manaaki Whenua as well as other New Zealand and overseas universities and institutes.
The team used an inverse modelling technique – this combines atmospheric greenhouse gases with a model showing how air is transported through the atmosphere to identify CO2 sources and sinks – and compared the results against New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory as well as ‘bottom-up’ models. While the Inventory applies a combination of field inventory, modelling, and remote sensing to quantify forest carbon stocks and stock changes, the ‘bottom-up’ models use calculations based on ecosystem processes, land use and climate across the country, says Dr Bukosa.
“It was thought that some areas and land use types were in a near-balance state with the absorption and release of CO₂. Earlier estimates of how much carbon was removed by New Zealand land ecosystems ranged from a net 24 to 118 million tonnes a year. Our research found that New Zealand’s natural environment absorbed approximately 171 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.” – Dr Bukosa
She says the largest differences between earlier estimates and the new findings came in the South Island.
“This was especially in areas dominated by mature native forests and certain grazing lands. We also found seasonal variation, as during autumn and winter, less CO₂ is released into the atmosphere than earlier estimates suggested.”
“That study was based on only three years of data, and we weren’t sure
if it was just a transient effect related to the climatic conditions, or
if the effect was confined to Fiordland. Our new study shows the carbon
sink is more widespread than we thought, particularly across the South
Island, with greater uptake of CO₂ extending up the West Coast.
“With improvements in our modelling techniques, and data coverage, we’ve
now shown the extra carbon uptake has persisted for at least a decade.
More research could help us understand exactly why our method has shown
such a difference in the carbon source and sink balance compared with
other methods.”
Inverse modelling provides an independent estimate of emissions that can complement inventory-based approaches for emissions reporting, she says.
“New Zealand was the first country to develop the capability to infer
national CO₂ emissions from atmospheric data and has since supported
other countries to develop similar capability.”
Dr Andrea Brandon, a Ministry for the Environment principal scientist who co-authored the study, said the findings help build a clearer picture of the role New Zealand’s natural systems play in absorbing emissions from the atmosphere. However, further work will be needed before they can be included in official emissions reporting.
“We continually improve the Inventory – New
Zealand’s annual record of emissions and removals – as new science and
evidence comes to light. This ensures we have robust information so that
we continue to meet our international reporting obligations.
“The findings from this study indicate there
may be additional carbon uptake somewhere in the system that we are
currently not tracking. We need to identify what we are missing so that
we can further refine our Inventory methods to capture it,” – Dr Andrea Brandon
Dr Bukosa says the results, due to be published shortly in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and available here in preprint, have important implications for New Zealand’s tracking of carbon emissions and climate policies:
“We need to better understand why our native forests are absorbing more
CO₂ than expected, and what this could mean for our efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and achieve our domestic and international
targets.”
The research was part of a NIWA-led, MBIE-funded Endeavour programme called CarbonWatch NZ, which ended last year. NIWA principal scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher led CarbonWatch NZ and says the team is now looking to extend this work to definitively solve the puzzle of the difference in carbon between inventory methods and atmospheric measurements.
“This research suggests that we could make the most of opportunities to
slow climate change through changes to land management. Projections
suggest New Zealand will need 84 million tonnes of emissions reductions
on top of what can be done at home to meet its 2030 international
commitments under the Paris Agreement. In addition to reducing the need
for overseas offsets, better management of our native forests and other
lands could enable New Zealand to be long-term stewards of our carbon
sinks and offer magnificent biodiversity co-benefits.” – Dr
Mikaloff-Fletcher
When people arrived on the shores of Aotearoa New Zealand and began to turn the land to their needs, they set in motion great changes.
The landscape of today bears little resemblance to that of a mere thousand years ago. More than 70% of forest cover has been lost since human arrival. Native bush has been replaced by tussocks, scrublands and, most of all, open agricultural land.
These changes affected our birdlife dramatically. Some species, like the moa, were simply hunted to extinction. Others fell directly to mammalian predators. Many species were victims of severe habitat destruction. The loss of suitable habitat remains a key conservation challenge to this day.
However, a changing distribution of plants is not a uniquely modern feature. New Zealand has seen equally radical shifts in habitat before – during the Ice Age, which lasted 2.6 million years and ended about 12,000 years ago.
This reconstruction shows the extend of glaciers during the height of the last Ice Age some 20,000 years ago.Shulmeister et al, 2019, CC BY-SA
At its height, parts of the country were up to 6°C colder than today, and glacial ice sheets spread wide fingers across the Southern Alps. The dry, cold climate resulted in widespread grass and scrubland. Forest cover became patchy everywhere except for the northern North Island.
Our new research tracks how bird life responded to these changes – in particular how exotic species took advantage of the shifting landscapes to make New Zealand home.
Ice Age invaders
Native birds responded to the Ice Age in a variety of ways. Kiwi populations became so isolated in forest patches they split into new lineages. Several moa species moved across the landscape, following their shifting habitat.
Some groups adapted, spreading into novel environments. Kea split off from their relatives the kākā, becoming more generalised. This is known as in situ adaptation; an existing group changing its habits or character to deal with new environments.
But where new ecological opportunities arise, species from elsewhere will also come to take advantage of them. Our research uncovers a pulse of colonisation by exotic bird species that coincides with the reduction of forest cover and the expansion of grasslands at the start of the Ice Age some 2.6 million years ago.
Many endemic New Zealand birds belong to young lineages that date back to landscape changes during the last Ice Age.Wikimedia Commons, Te Papa by Paul Martinson, CC BY-SA
These species were primarily generalists, able to take advantage of a variety of habitats. But there was also an influx of birds pre-adapted to more open conditions, such as the ancestors of Haast’s eagle, pūtangitangi (paradise shelduck) and pīhoihoi (pipit).
Where did these “invaders” come from? Principally, from Australia. For millions of years, they have ridden the winds across the Tasman Sea and, occasionally, established breeding colonies on our shores.
Over a long enough time, those new populations evolved to become distinct, endemic New Zealand species found nowhere else on earth. Pīwakawaka (fantail), ruru (morepork), weweia (dabchick) and kakī (black stilt), to name a few, are all descended from Ice Age Australian ancestors.
They arrived in a New Zealand characterised by scrub, tussock and grass during cold glacial periods, followed by slowly expanding forests during warmer interglacials.
History repeats itself
Today, open vistas once again dominate the landscape. This time they were sculpted by humans rather than a cooling climate. The changing environment means new ecological opportunities – and vacancies – have been left by the great number of species that have gone extinct.
The open landscapes of today mirror the impacts of the Ice Age. Forest cover is reduced, grass and scrub cover the North and South islands.Lubbe et al, 2025, CC BY-SA
Silvereyes have been here longer, first reported during the 1850s, while glossy ibis and barn owl only started breeding here this century. All likely flew across the Tasman to settle here.
Some arrivals seem to serve as ecological replacements of a kind. The kāhu (swamp harrier) is a stand-in for the now-extinct Eyles’ harrier and Haast’s eagle. The poaka (pied stilt) is a common sight where kakī once dominated. And Australian coots proliferate where New Zealand coots once waded.
Native habitats for native birds
These birds are following ancient patterns and processes. Where new opportunities appear, new organisms will rise to fill them. Our highly modified ecosystems are responding in the only way open to them, with exotic species expanding their range to take advantage of empty ecological niches – job vacancies in the ecosystem.
Indeed, these invasions are likely to become more frequent as species distributions shift in a warming climate. As our native species decline under threats of habitat loss and predation by mammalian pests, they will be ecologically replaced by other species.
Left to their own devices, Aotearoa’s plants and animals will look different in the future. The unique species that have called these islands home for millions of years will increasingly be replaced by more generalist species from elsewhere.
The route to protecting our native species in a fast changing world remains as clear as ever – protect and restore native habitat and eradicate mammalian predators.
In my new research, I argue the time has come for the dairy sector to adopt a “just transition” framework to achieve a fair and more sustainable food future and to navigate the disruptions from alternative protein industries.
The concept of a just transition is typically applied to the energy sector in shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
But a growing body of research and advocacy is calling for the same principles to be applied to food systems, especially for shifting away from intensive animal agriculture.
Aotearoa New Zealand’s dairy sector is an exemplary case study for examining the possibilities of a just transition because it is so interconnected in the global production and trade of dairy, with 95% of domestic milk production exported as whole-milk powder to more than 130 countries.
Environmental and economic challenges
New Zealand’s dairy sector faces significant threats. This includes environmental challenges such as alarming levels of nitrate pollution in waterways caused by intensive agriculture.
This means livestock farmers, agricultural processors, fertiliser importers and manufacturers won’t have to pay for on-farm emissions. Instead, the government intends to implement a pricing system outside the Emissions Trading Scheme by 2030. To meet emissions targets, it relies on the development of technologies such as methane inhibitors.
The development of plant-based and fermentation proteins poses another threat to the dairy sector.Getty Images
In addition to environmental challenges, global growth and domestic initiatives in the development of alternative dairy products are changing the future of milk production and consumption.
New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra is pursuing the growth of alternative dairy with significant investments in a partnership with Dutch multinational corporation Royal-DSM. This supports precision fermentation start-up Vivici, which already has market-ready products such as whey protein powder and protein water.
Fonterra’s annual report states it anticipates a rise in customer preference towards dairy alternatives (plant-based or precision-fermentation dairy) due to climate-related concerns. The company says these shifting preferences could pose significant business risks for future dairy production if sustainability expectations cannot be met.
Pathways to a just transition for dairy
What happens when one the pillars of the economy becomes a major contributor to environmental degradation and undermines its own sustainability? Nitrate pollution and methane emissions threaten the quality of the land and waterways the dairy sector depends on.
In my recent study which draws on interviews with people across New Zealand’s dairy sector, three key transition pathways are identified, which address future challenges and opportunities.
Deintensification: reducing the number of dairy cows per farm.
Diversification: introducing a broader range of farming practices, landuse options and market opportunities.
Dairy alternatives: government and industry support to help farmers
participate in emerging plant-based and precision-fermentation industries.
While the pathways are not mutually exclusive, they highlight the socioeconomic and environmental implications of rural change which require active participation and engagement between the farming community and policy makers.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recently published a guide to just transitions. It maps out general principles such as social justice and job security.
For the dairy transition to be fair and sustainable, we need buy-in from leadership and support from government, the dairy sector and the emerging alternative dairy industry to help primary producers and rural communities. This needs to be specific to different regions and farming methods.
The future of New Zealand’s dairy industry depends on its ability to adapt. Climate adaptation demands balancing social license, sustainable practices and disruptions from novel protein technologies.
Last week, wildfire burnt through 650 hectares of forest and scrub in Christchurch’s Port Hills. This is not the first time the area has faced a terrifying wildfire event.
The 2017 Port Hills fires burnt through almost 2,000 hectares of land, claiming one life and 11 homes. It took 66 days before the fires were fully extinguished.
It is clear New Zealand stands at a pivotal juncture. The country faces an increasingly severe wildfire climate. And our once relatively “safe” regions are now under threat.
At all levels of government, New Zealand needs to consider whether our current investment to combat fires will be enough in the coming decades.
Our research integrating detailed climate simulations with daily observations reveals a stark forecast: an uptick in both the frequency and intensity of wildfires, particularly in the inland areas of the South Island.
It is time to consider what this will mean for Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), and how a strategic calibration of resources, tactics and technologies will help New Zealand confront this emerging threat.
The tinder-dry scrub and grass vegetation in the Port Hills – an area that was around 30% above “extreme” drought fire danger thresholds – drove the flammability of the region. And on February 13, when the latest fires started, a strong gusty northwesterly wind was blowing 40-50kph with exceptionally dry relative humidity values.
These conditions resulted in the extreme wildfire behaviour. Only the rapid and coordinated response of FENZ on the ground and in the air prevented this fire from becoming much worse.
While conditions are already bad, our study revealed a concerning trend: the widespread emergence of a new wildfire climate, with regions previously unaffected by “very extreme” wildfire conditions now facing unprecedented threats.
The most severe dangers are projected for areas like the Mackenzie Country, upper Otago and Marlborough, where conditions similar to Australia’s “Black Summer” fires could occur every three to 20 years.
This shift is not merely an environmental concern, it is a socioeconomic one. The increased threat of wildfires will affect communities, the government’s tree-planting initiatives and financial investments in carbon forests.
Enhanced resources and agile response
New Zealand’s firefighting strategy emphases speed and manoeuvrability, especially in the initial attack phase, to prevent wildfires from escalating into large-scale disasters.
Approximately NZ$10 million is allocated annually to general firefighting aviation services, translating into around 11,000 flight hours. The aerial battle over the Port Hills peaked on Thursday and Friday. This effort cost over $1 million, with up to 15 helicopters active over the two days.
FENZ operations are primarily funded by property insurance levies. However, with the severity and frequency of wildfires on the rise, it may be necessary to review this funding model to match the evolving risk portfolio.
Climate change is already driving insurance retreat – a phenomenon whereby coastal properties are unable to renew their insurance due sea level rise. It is plausible insurance companies could take a similar stance in extremely fire-prone areas.
The agility of FENZ and associated rural fire teams, coupled with the investment and integration of advanced technologies and modelling for better wildfire prediction and management, can significantly enhance the effectiveness of firefighting efforts.
Policy adjustments and community engagement
Adjustments in policy and regulatory frameworks are also crucial in mitigating wildfire risks, and should be explored by experts.
To significantly reduce the ignition of new fires, there needs to be greater implementation of restrictions on access, and banning of high-risk activities, when areas are under “extreme fire risk”.
Moreover, community engagement and preparedness initiatives are vital. One successful example is Mt Iron, Wanaka, where a model was developed after interviews, focus groups and workshops with residents identified wildfire risk awareness and mitigation actions.
The emergence of a more severe wildfire climate in New Zealand calls for a unified response, integrating increased investment in FENZ, strategic planning and community involvement.
By embracing a multifaceted approach that includes technological innovation, enhanced resource, and community empowerment, New Zealand can navigate the complexities of this new era with resilience and foresight.
Image: Agrivoltaic farming — growing crops in the protected shadows of solar panels — can help meet Canada’s food and energy needs. (Alexis Pascaris, AgriSolar), Author provided.
NOTE: the following article about Canada is featured here as it proves background information that on systems that could be used in Aotearo. See also:
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. __________________________________________________________________________________
How shading crops with solar panels can improve farming, lower food costs and reduce emissions
And while the grass under your trampoline grows by itself, researchers in the field of solar photovoltaic technology — made up of solar cells that convert sunlight directly into electricity — have been working on shading large crop lands with solar panels — on purpose.
This practice of growing crops in the protected shadows of solar panels is called agrivoltaic farming. And it is happening right here in Canada.
Such agrivoltaic farming can help meet Canada’s food and energy needs and reduce its fossil fuel reliance and greenhouse gas emissions in the future.
Agrivoltaics provide numerous services including renewable electricity generation, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, increased crop yield, plant protection and so on.(U. Jamil, A. Bonnington, J.M. Pearce), Author provided
Many crops grown here, including corn, lettuce, potatoes, tomatoes, wheat and pasture grass have already been proven to increase with agrivoltaics.
Studies from all over the world have shown crop yields increase when the crops are partially shaded with solar panels. These yield increases are possible because of the microclimate created underneath the solar panels that conserves water and protects plants from excess sun, wind, hail and soil erosion. This makes more food per acre, and could help bring down food prices.
In the U.S., social science studies have shown the photovoltaic industry, farmers and the general public are enthusiastically looking forward to the implementation of such projects.
In Canada, agrivoltaics has primarily been applied to conventional solar farms and used by shepherds and their sheep. While the shepherds get paid to cut the grass on solar farms, the sheep use the grass and pastures under the solar panels for shade and grazing. Sheep-based agrivoltaics is found throughout Canada.
A map showing the agrivoltaic potential in Canada. The colours indicate the solar flux (amount of solar energy per unit area) in the areas that are currently farmed.(U. Jamil, A. Bonnington, JM Pearce), Author provided
This is great, but to remain competitive with other major agriculture producers, Canada needs to start large-scale agriculture in the shadow of solar panels. This will enable the production of numerous crops that have been known to increase yield when covered.
This would include vegetables like broccoli, celery, peppers, lettuce, spinach and tomatoes as well as field crops like potatoes, corn and wheat.
This in turn can help the nation honour its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the non-emitting share of electricity generation to 90 per cent by 2030.
Agrivoltaic solar farms outstrip electricity demand
The potential of agrivoltaic-based solar energy production in Canada far outstrips current electric demand. This solar energy can be used to electrify and decarbonize transportation and heating, expand economic opportunities by powering the burgeoning computing sector and export green electricity to the U.S. to help eliminate their dependence on fossil fuels as well.
This solar energy from agrivoltaic farms can be used to electrify and decarbonize transportation and heating.(Shutterstock)
Despite the numerous benefits of agrivoltaic farming, there are some barriers to its distribution in Canada. There are well-intentioned regulations that are holding these farms back.
In the old days that made sense. We did not want to repeat the U.S. fiasco of raising food prices for energy crops. Now we know that with agrivoltaics we can get more food while using solar technology to make electricity.
The other main issue holding agrivoltaics back is capital costs. Agrivoltaics has a much higher capital cost per acre than farmers are accustomed to, but the revenue is much higher. So even though it is profitable it is difficult for farmers to implement large agrivoltaic systems on their own.
This means we need new methods of financing, new partnerships and new business models to help Canada take advantage of the strategic benefits of agrivoltaics for our farmers and the country.
“The Guardian and researchers from Corporate Accountability, a non-profit, transnational corporate watchdog, analysed the top 50 emission offset projects, those that have sold the most carbon credits in the global market.”According to our criteria and classification system:
A total of 39 of the top 50 emission offset projects, or 78% of them, were categorised as likely junk or worthless due to one or more fundamental failing that undermines its promised emission cuts.
Eight others (16%) look problematic, with evidence suggesting they may have at least one fundamental failing and are potentially junk, according to the classification system applied.
The efficacy of the remaining three projects (6%) could not be determined definitively as there was insufficient public, independent information to adequately assess the quality of the credits and/or accuracy of their claimed climate benefits.
“Overall, $1.16bn (£937m) of carbon credits have been traded so far from the projects classified by the investigation as likely junk or worthless; a further $400m of credits bought and sold were potentially junk.” – keep reading
Infographic: How are carbon offsets supposed to work?
Carbon Brief have also released a detailed analysis and mapping, including carbon credits claims made by New Zealand companies:
Beneath our feet, remarkable networks of fungal filaments stretch out in all directions. These mycorrhizal fungi live in partnership with plants, offering nutrients, water and protection from pests in exchange for carbon-rich sugars.
How much bigger? These microscopic filaments take up the equivalent of more than a third (36%) of the world’s annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels – every year.
As we search for ways to slow or stop the climate crisis, we often look to familiar solutions: cutting fossil fuel use, switching to renewables and restoring forests. This research shows we need to look down too, into our soils.
This shows how mycorrhizal fungi (fine white filaments) connect to plant root systems (yellow) and out into the soil.Scivit/Wikipedia
This fungi-plant partnership is 400 million years old
Mycorrhizal fungi are hard to spot, but their effects are startling. They thread networks of microscopic filaments through the soil and into the roots of almost every plant on earth.
But this is no hostile takeover. They’ve been partnering with plants for more than 400 million years. The length of these complex relationships has given them a vital role in our ecosystems.
Sometimes fungi take more than they give. But often, these are relationships of mutual benefit. Through their network, the fungi transport essential nutrients and water to plants, and can even boost their resistance to pests and disease.
In return, plants pump sugars and fat made by photosynthesis in their leaves down through their roots to the fungi. These compounds are rich in carbon, taken from the atmosphere.
How do these fungi fit into the carbon cycle?
On land, the natural carbon cycle involves a delicate balance. Plants take CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, while other organisms emit it back into the atmosphere.
Carbon is captured by plants through photosynthesis, some of this carbon then goes into the networks of mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi also will release some of this carbon as CO₂ and as compounds into the soil.Adam Frew/Author provided using BioRender
Now we know the carbon transfer from plants to mycorrhizal fungi isn’t a side note – it’s a substantial part of this equation.
By analysing almost 200 datasets, the researchers estimate the world’s plants are transferring a staggering 3.58 billion tonnes of carbon per year to this underground network. That’s the same as 13.12 billion tonnes of CO₂ – more than a third of the world’s 36.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted yearly by burning fossil fuels.
To be clear, fungal carbon doesn’t present a climate solution by itself. It’s a missing piece in the carbon cycle puzzle.
We still have big gaps in data from particular ecosystems and geographic regions. For instance, this study didn’t have any data of this kind from Australia or Southeast Asia – because it doesn’t yet exist.
This image shows mycorrhizal fungi (blue) growing inside plant roots, where they obtain carbon and provide plants with access to resources such as nutrients.Adam Frew
What does this mean for the climate?
We already know mycorrhizal fungi help soils retain carbon by releasing specific chemical compounds. These compounds contain carbon and nitrogen. Once in the soil, these compounds can be used by other soil microorganisms, such as bacteria. When this happens it helps to form a highly stable soil carbon store that is more resistant to breakdown, and this store can accumulate more than four times faster in the presence of mycorrhizal fungi.
When these fungi die, they leave behind “necromass” – a complex scaffold of dead organic material which can be stored in soil, and often inside clumps of soil particles. The carbon inside these clumps can stay in the soil for close to a decade without being released back to the atmosphere.
In fact, other studies suggest this fungal necromass might contribute more to the carbon content of soil than living fungi.
But these fungi also naturally cause carbon to escape back to the atmosphere by decomposing organic matter or changing water and nutrient availability, which influences how other organisms decompose. Mycorrhizal fungi also release some carbon back into the atmosphere, though the rate this happens depends on many factors.
What does this mean for climate change? While atmospheric CO₂ concentrations keep rising, it doesn’t necessarily mean fungi are storing more of it. Recent research in an Australian woodland found higher atmospheric CO₂ did see more carbon sent below the ground. But this carbon wasn’t stored for long periods.
We need more research to better understand the role of mycorrhizal fungi in the carbon cycle across different ecosystems, including in agriculture.Dylan de Jonge/Unsplash
Protecting our fungal networks
When we cut down forests or clear land, we not only disrupt life above the ground, but underground as well. We need to safeguard these hidden fungal networks which give our plants resilience – and play a key role in the carbon cycle.
As we better understand how these fungi work and what we’re doing to them, we can also develop farming methods which better preserve them and their carbon.
We’ve long overlooked these vital lifeforms. But as we learn more about how fungi and plants cooperate and store carbon, it’s well past time for that to change.
We can’t just sit around and wait to see what will happen next. We need positive action.
I’ve read a lot of Climate Adaptation Plans and Strategies over the past the last few years, but He Toka Tū Moana Mō Maketū (Maketū Climate Change Adaptation Plan) is hand-down the best. It’s clearly laid out, outlines the community’s priorities, and can readily serve as a template to help every community around Aoteara develop their own Climate Adaptation Plans. Most important of all:
It’s iwi led, community driven, it’s a plan that’s been decided by those who live here. – Elva Conroy, Kaitohotohu / Facilitator (Video; to listen Watch on Youtube)
In the words of the Maketu Iwi Collective, ‘we will be resilient like the anchor stone Takaparore – strong and steadfast against the elements and tides of change and uncertainty. Regardless of what happens as a result of a changing environment, we will remain standing’. – New Zealand Planning Institute, April 2023.
The recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscores the urgency of emissions reductions. For Aotearoa New Zealand, where 50% of emissions come from agriculture in the form of methane and nitrous oxide, this means the primary sector must be part of the response.
New Zealand is indeed the first country to investigate introducing a price on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
The most recent pricing proposals would require farmers to pay a levy on their agricultural emissions. To begin with, only 5% of emissions would be priced, with proposals to reduce the 95% free allocation gradually over time.
Much of the existing modelling shows emissions could be cut by up to 10% by reducing the intensity of production, often through lowering animal numbers and fertiliser use. This doesn’t necessarily mean lower profitability. With good pasture management, farmers may be able to reduce stocking rates and increase profits.
But Aotearoa is already one of the most efficient producers of meat and dairy products globally. If we reduce emissions here, will that not simply lead to other, less efficient countries picking up the lost production, while our farmers pay the price?
This idea is known as “carbon leakage” and is often used as an argument against any domestic policy that could result in reduced agricultural production. The issue is important as New Zealand depends heavily on agricultural exports. In 2022, of all merchandise trade, 65% were agricultural commodities.
Understanding whether carbon leakage will occur or not is a complex task. Here, we look at what evidence we have and insights from agricultural trade modelling.
New Zealand modelling
It’s difficult to know exactly what might happen in agriculture, as emissions pricing on agricultural products has not yet been used elsewhere. There is no historical evidence to draw on.
International modelling studies present a mixed picture of the likelihood of leakage: an OECD study estimated 34% of agricultural emissions would be leaked, mostly to developing countries.
Recent modelling for New Zealand examines a series of scenarios of domestic pricing on its own as well as international pricing. The results show that for the current proposal where only 5% of emissions are priced to begin with, with a 1% increase each year, New Zealand’s production of meat and dairy products could decline by 2050.
The effect on dairy producers would be a loss of returns of under 1%, while meat producers would face a 6% decline. Some of the production would be taken up by other countries, but the overall volume would be lower than in the baseline situation, where no emissions pricing existed.
This graph shows the displacement of global dairy production in 2050, resulting from a levy on 5% of emissions from 2025, and increasing by 1% annually.Author provided, CC BY-ND
This shows leakage may occur, with reductions in production of New Zealand dairy products. But global meat and dairy production by 2050 would be considerably lower than without the policy, which would have a positive overall impact on the climate.
As the proportion of emissions that are priced increases, we expect the quantity of meat and dairy produced in New Zealand to decrease. This in turn could increase the volume of leakage. –
More sustainable future diets
It is important to remember that although there is a reduction in meat and dairy production, there is likely to be an increase in the production of other types of food which doesn’t contribute so much to climate change.
A recent study shows how food consumption alone could contribute an additional degree of warming above preindustrial temperatures by 2100. This demonstrates the importance of food choices in addressing climate change.
Many of New Zealand’s trading partners are exploring and beginning to implement their own agricultural emissions-reduction goals and targets. Internationally, there is an increasing focus on the role international trade rules can play in addressing climate change, including border carbon adjustment mechanisms and environmental standards for imports.
In a similar scenario as described above, but where New Zealand’s main competitors also take action, New Zealand may actually see a small increase in production by 2050, despite the domestic pricing policy.
The extent of leakage therefore really depends on how other countries tackle their own emissions. Economy-wide net zero emissions targets are in place for Australia, Chile, European Union countries, the US and the UK by 2050, and for China by 2060.
New Zealand could decide to be a leader and demonstrate to the rest of the world a commitment to reducing emissions from our highest emitting sector. This may result in some leakage initially, but this would likely decline as other countries take similar action.
Or we can wait until other countries begin to take more serious action on agricultural emissions. But in the meantime, emissions reductions will increasingly be driven through finance and private-sector initiatives, for example through access to processing companies, which are progressively requiring emissions reductions throughout their value chains and through lending and finance, where banks are beginning to offer reduced interest rates for sustainable practices.
In a historic first for the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has certified that Upside Foods chicken made from cell cultures is safe to eat.
Nearly two years after Singapore approved the Good Meat company’s cellular chicken for sale at select restaurants in the Asian foodtech hub, and Supermeat opened a restaurant in Israel serving cultured chicken on its menu, U.S. buyers will soon get the chance to taste a potential future of food for themselves.
California-based Upside Foods is the first company to receive a pre-market safety clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While the pending facility for Upside Foods will need to meet U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and FDA requirements, the agency said it has “no further questions at this time” about the meat’s safety.
Issued on November 16, the approval could open the door for other cultured meat in the U.S. including the FootPrint Coalition-backed salmon biotechnology company WildType.
Using muscle samples, stem cells from animals, and fats animal tissue is “cultivated” from tiny samples into large portions of meat. In Upside’s case, the startup uses chicken’s primary cells of a fertilized egg to create “The fried chicken chicken’s dream about.
Different from plant-based, companies like Upside and Wild Type offer diners the option of real meat without the requirement of animal death or the meat industry’s environmental consequences and contributions to the climate crisis. The meats also have lower risk of contamination from bacteria because they’re not slaughtered. It is still animal meat, which means the target audience isn’t the vegetarians and vegans of the world, but their carnivorous counterparts.
The United Nations estimates the meat industry accounts for nearly a fifth of our total greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most polluting industries in the world, especially in the US, one of the planet’s most meat-consuming countries.
According to a study published at the University of Oxford, cultivated meat could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 96% compared to conventionally produced meat.
Additionally, switching to cultured meat can cut our water consumption between 82 and 96%, depending on the animal. It can also reduce the quantity of land dedicated to the meat industry, which is the main driver of tropical deforestation and land degradation.
