Presentation to the New Zealand Primary Industry Summit in May 2016, about the Paris Climate Agreement and its impact on New Zealand agriculture.

1. AVOIDING A PARIS
HANGOVER DOWN UNDER
The new international climate regime and New Zealand
agriculture

2. OUTLINE
A. Assumptions
B. Background: the UNFCCC regime 1992-2015
C. The Paris Agreement
D. What Paris means for New Zealand primary industry
E. Response pathways

3. (A) ASSUMPTIONS
1. That mainstream climate science is correct
2. That governments will ratify the Paris Climate Agreement

4. (1) MAINSTREAM CLIMATE
SCIENCE IS CORRECT
1. Climate change is real (It’s a thing).
2. Climate change is anthropogenic (We’re causing it).
3. Climate change is harmful (It will be bad for people and
businesses).

5. THE SCIENCE
1. Mean global temperatures have
warmed by 1ºC (Hawkins).
2. Atmospheric CO2 is now consistently
above 400ppm.
3. One tonne of methane has 21 times
the warming impact over 100 years
as one tonne of CO2 (UNFCCC).
4. We are looking at 2.7-3.5ºC warming
this century (Hare et al).

6. (2) GOVERNMENTS WILL RATIFY THE
PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
Donald Trump last week threatened that, if elected, he will “a minimum […]
be renegotiating” the Paris deal, but:
1. 175 states signed last month and 15 have ratified;
2. We need 55 countries representing 55% of emissions to ratify;
3. Negotiations continued last week and this, and the word on the
ground is that it’ll probably enter force this year.

7. (B) THE UNFCCC FROM 1992-2009
1. Rio 1992: The Convention
2. Berlin Mandate and Kyoto Protocol
3. Bali Action Plan and Copenhagen
4. Durban Mandate and Paris

8. (1) THE CONVENTION (1992)
The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and
future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance
with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead
in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.
- UNFCCC, art 3(1)

9. (2) BERLIN TO KYOTO (1995-
1997)
‘In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet
you want us to give up riding on a bus.’
- Lead Chinese negotiator, COP 3 in Kyoto, 1997
• Berlin mandate imposed strict firewall of differentiation
• Carried over into Kyoto Protocol
• So, the US refused to ratify Kyoto - and it only entered
force in 2005

10. (3) BALI TO COPENHAGEN
(2007-2009)
1. With the US outside Kyoto, by 2006 most states
recognised a need for something more.
2. In 2007, negotiations started on a new climate deal, due
to be concluded in Copenhagen in 2009.

11. COPENHAGEN
Oh dear.

12. (4) THE DURBAN RESET:
APPLICABLE TO ALL
• New process launched.
• Three key points:
1. an agreement ‘with legal force’
2. ‘under the Convention applicable to all Parties’
3. to be agreed in 2015 and implemented from 2020

13. FROM DURBAN TO PARIS
• By 2013, the architecture of a new climate deal was in
place.
• It would be a mixture of bottom up targets and top down
review structures.

14. (INTENDED) NATIONALLY
DETERMINED
CONTRIBUTIONS
• Bottom up commitments made by all states throughout
2015.
• New Zealand offered a 30% cut by 2030 from 2005 levels,
or 11% off 1990 levels (Hare et al described as
“inadequate”).
• Percentage targeted submitted ranged from 9% to 100%+.

15. (C) THE PARIS CLIMATE
AGREEMENT
• Agreed last December, signed in April.
• Aims to limit warming to “well below 2ºC” and aim for 1.5ºC (art 2).
• Nationally determined mitigation targets to be reviewed every five
years:
• “Facilitative dialogue” in 2018 (Decision, cl 20).
• “Global stocktake” of mitigation commitments scheduled for
2023 (art 14).
• Wide range of (less relevant) finance and adaptation mechanisms.

16. THE REVIEWS
ARE KEY
• Current targets have moved us
~1ºC closer to goal.
• But we’ll have blown our 2ºC
emissions budget by 2036 (New
Scientist) unless we ramp up
ambition.
• Climate Interactive and Climate
Action Tracker both present
mitigation pathways for 1.5ºC and
2ºC.
• Possible, but challenging.

17. (D) WHAT PARIS MEANS FOR
NZ PRIMARY INDUSTRY
• Agriculture accounts for around 50% of our emissions
(~18% globally per UN FAO).
• New Zealand is currently reviewing our emissions trading
scheme.
• Agriculture is outside the review.

18. PARIS TARGET CANNOT BE
MET WITHOUT AGRICULTURE
• New Zealand is already under pressure to lift its mitigation
target.
• University of Vermont study (17 May 2016):
• need to cut global farming emissions by one gigaton
per year from 2030 to meet 2ºC goal; and
• Current agricultural reduction targets are 21-40% of
that needed for 2ºC goal.

19. WE WILL BE UNDER
PRESSURE IN 2018, THEN
2023, THEN…
• Based on current targets, New Zealand’s per capita
emissions are projected to exceed the US’s within the
decade.
• Negotiating blocs have also shifted, leaving New Zealand
more distant from traditional allies.
• Therefore, New Zealand can expect real pressure in the
2018 review.

20. (E) RESPONSE PATHWAYS
New Zealand primary industry can respond four ways:
1. Develop new technologies;
2. Renegotiate methane’s role;
3. Cut high emissions production; or
4. Do nothing.

21. (1) TECHNOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT
• There is some promising research into new grass varieties etc to
lower dairy emissions.
• Government established the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse
Gas Research Centre in 2010.
• Government committed NZ$5.4 million per annum to Pastoral
Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, public-private partnership.
“Between 1990 and 2011 these improvements have led to an 18 per cent
decrease in emissions from dairy cattle per kilogram of milk solid; a 23
per cent reduction in sheep emissions per kilogram of lamb and mutton;
and a 27 per cent reduction in non-dairy (beef) emissions per kilogram of
beef.” – NZ to UNFCCC, 2014

22. (2) RENEGOTIATE METHANE’S
ROLE
• New Zealand hosted a side event in Paris, proposing that
we should renegotiate the Kyoto Protocol mix of gases to
place focus on carbon dioxide.
• Based on 2015 study by Niel Bowerman (Oxford), David
Frame (Victoria) and others.
• But cold reception in Paris.

23. (3) CUT PRODUCTION
• Unlikely to be popular with industry and government.
• Comes at economic cost.
• May face overseas pressure to do so.

24. (4) DO NOTHING
• Our Paris targets are non-binding, so we could ignore
them or rely solely on international emissions trading to
meet them.
• But this will be diplomatically compromising, and may
ultimately restrict our access to some markets.

25. MIXTURE OF APPROACHES
NEEDED
• There’s no one silver bullet.
• This is a hard challenge, and one that all sectors need to
be involved in – especially agriculture.