IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mtu/wpaper/17_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling the potential impact of New Zealand’s freshwater reforms on land-based Greenhouse Gas emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Daigneault

    (Landcare Research)

  • Suzie Greenhalgh

    (Landcare Research)

  • Suzi Kerr

    (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)

Abstract

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) establishes the need to set and manage water resources within limits. This report is the first national assessment of the indirect impacts of the NPS-FM on New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The water quality improvement aspect of New Zealand’s freshwater reforms are expected to drive significant changes in land and water management across the country. Emissions benefits through the freshwater reforms could potentially result in significant savings for New Zealand by starting the transition to low emissions in the agricultural sector and helping to achieve New Zealand’s overall climate goals. For farmers, changes in land use and management to meet water quality targets will reduce their potential future exposure to needs to reduce GHG emissions. GHG emissions reductions are a combination of reduced emissions through changes in management and de-stocking and increased carbon sequestration associated with planting riparian buffers or afforesting part of the farm. Key results are that without land use change, agricultural GHGs (primarily methane and nitrous oxide) could be reduced by 2.4% or 0.82 million metric tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent per annum (MtCO2e/yr) along with an additional 0.11 MtCO2e of forest carbon sequestration as a result of planting riparian buffers and pole planting for erosion control (for a net reduction of 0.92 MtCO2e/yr or 13%). If afforestation is perceived to be a feasible freshwater mitigation option, up to 800 000 ha of additional trees could be planted, thereby increasing carbon sequestration by 5.4 MtCO2-e/yr. In this case gross (net) GHGs could be reduced by 2.9 (8.2) MtCO2e/yr, primarily through reduction in stock numbers and increases in forest carbon sequestration. This option could reduce net emissions by nearly 80%. The majority of the emissions impact occurs in the sheep and beef sector, with a gross (net) reduction of 0.61 (0.72) MtCO2e/yr. Nitrogen targets most strongly drive on-farm GHG reductions for all the modelled scenarios that limit mitigation to on-farm changes. This is primarily because actions to mitigate N are most closely related to practices that can also mitigate GHGs (e.g. stock management).

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Daigneault & Suzie Greenhalgh & Suzi Kerr, 2017. "Modelling the potential impact of New Zealand’s freshwater reforms on land-based Greenhouse Gas emissions," Working Papers 17_10, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:17_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/17_10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Daigneault & Suzie Greenhalgh & Oshadhi Samarasinghe, 2018. "Economic Impacts of Multiple Agro-Environmental Policies on New Zealand Land Use," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(4), pages 763-785, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xu, Su Xiu, 2021. "Overexploitation Risk in “Green Mountains and Clear Water”," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Djanibekov, Utkur & Walsh, Patrick & Soliman, Tarek, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of Sediment Reduction Measures at Farms in New Zealand," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315299, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Heather Craig & Ryan Paulik & Utkur Djanibekov & Patrick Walsh & Alec Wild & Benjamin Popovich, 2021. "Quantifying National-Scale Changes in Agricultural Land Exposure to Fluvial Flooding," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Soliman, Tarek & Djanibekov, Utkur, 2018. "Assessing dairy farming eco-efficiency in New Zealand: A two–stage data envelopment analysis," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Kaye-Blake, William & Schilling, Chris & Monaghan, Ross & Vibart, Ronaldo & Dennis, Samuel & Post, Elizabeth, 2019. "Quantification of environmental-economic trade-offs in nutrient management policies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 458-468.
    6. Gawith, David & Hodge, Ian & Morgan, Fraser & Daigneault, Adam, 2020. "Climate change costs more than we think because people adapt less than we assume," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. Monge, Juan J. & Daigneault, Adam J. & Dowling, Leslie J. & Harrison, Duncan R. & Awatere, Shaun & Ausseil, Anne-Gaelle, 2018. "Implications of future climatic uncertainty on payments for forest ecosystem services: The case of the East Coast of New Zealand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 199-212.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Water quality; climate change; agriculture; emissions; New Zealand;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:17_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Maxine Watene (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/motuenz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.