Angus Kebbell argues that climate policy must be effective, and it must also be durable. But it must not negatively affect 'farming communities'

Looking back at agricultural policy debates from late 2022, what stands out most is not how much has changed but how much has not. The language may have softened, the timelines may have shifted and the political faces may have rotated through different portfolios, yet the central tension remains exactly the same. How does New Zealand address emissions while still sustaining the productive rural communities that underpin its economy, identity and export future.

At the time the discussion centred on emissions pricing, forestry expansion and the role of the Emissions Trading Scheme. Yet the debate in 2022 was never just about emissions. It was about what signals policy sends to land use, investment and the long-term viability of farming regions.

Then Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor framed the government’s position around responsibility and transition, arguing that “given our international obligations, governments ultimately are responsible for the liability,” and that the system needed to create incentives strong enough to drive mitigation technologies as they emerged. His message was essentially one of managed change. Climate policy, in that view, was not optional and agriculture would need to be part of the solution.

But even at that moment, there was unease about how the policy settings were shaping behaviour on the ground. O’Connor himself acknowledged the challenge of forestry expansion, noting that “none of us are comfortable with all of that forestry planting,” yet also emphasising the difficulty of intervening in land sales in a market economy. It was a candid admission that policy signals can influence outcomes even when governments do not directly control them.

Across the aisle, National’s then agriculture spokesperson Todd Muller articulated the concern many farmers were already feeling. His argument was not that agriculture should avoid emissions reductions altogether, but that the framework needed to be practical and grounded in science. As he put it at the time, “big policy change like we are seeing around emissions pricing should be led by science and not led by politics.”

Muller also highlighted a key principle that still resonates today, insisting that if farmers could demonstrate measurable sequestration, “that should be a point of principle” in any emissions framework. The underlying message was about credibility. Farmers would accept change, but only if the rules recognised the realities of working landscapes.

Fast-forward to the present and the policy landscape has evolved again. Plans to price agricultural emissions directly have been dropped, and instead the focus has shifted toward investment in technology and innovation, including substantial funding for research into methane reduction tools and on-farm mitigation options. That shift reflects a growing recognition that blunt pricing mechanisms alone may not deliver a politically durable or economically sustainable transition. Technology, genetics and management improvements are increasingly seen as the pathway to reductions that preserve productivity rather than displace it.

Yet the structural question raised in those 2022 interviews remains unresolved. Climate policy does not operate in a vacuum. It shapes land use decisions, capital flows and regional development patterns. When forestry becomes the dominant economic signal in marginal regions, the consequences ripple far beyond emissions accounting. Schools close, contractors lose work and young families find fewer pathways into the sector.

Thriving rural communities depend on active landscapes, not just carbon balance sheets. They depend on livestock systems, crop rotations, service industries and the social infrastructure that accompanies them. Climate policy that unintentionally favours low-labour carbon storage over productive agriculture risks undermining exactly the communities that have historically supported New Zealand’s export success.

That is why the debate heading into the next election should not be framed as farmers versus climate action. It should be framed as how New Zealand achieves climate progress while strengthening the productive systems that sustain the country.

Farmers have already demonstrated their willingness to adapt. Over the past two decades the sector has improved efficiency, adopted environmental management practices and invested heavily in research and innovation. The challenge has rarely been a lack of intent. It has been uncertainty about direction.

Policy stability matters because farming investment horizons are measured in decades, not election cycles. Sudden shifts in pricing frameworks, sequestration rules or methane targets can distort decision-making and delay investment in precisely the technologies that governments want to encourage.

A sustainable agricultural future therefore requires three pillars. First, credible long-term signals around emissions reduction that allow farmers to invest with confidence. Second, full recognition of the environmental role of productive landscapes, including vegetation, soil carbon and biodiversity embedded within farming systems. And third, a clear national commitment that climate ambition will not come at the expense of rural economic resilience.

Encouragingly, there is now broader agreement across politics that innovation will play a decisive role. Advances in methane inhibitors, vaccines and genetic selection offer the possibility of meaningful emissions reductions without wholesale land use change. That pathway supports both climate credibility and rural viability.

But technology alone will not determine the outcome. The economic signals surrounding forestry, carbon markets and investment incentives will remain decisive. If those signals continue to favour conversion over production, the structural shift in land use could accelerate regardless of the emissions framework.

This is why the coming election cycle matters so much for rural New Zealand. It will shape the balance between emissions reduction, land use and economic sustainability for the next decade. It will determine whether climate policy strengthens regional economies or unintentionally hollows them out.

The lesson from 2022 is that farmers are prepared to engage with change when it is grounded in science, fairness and long-term thinking. As Muller argued then, certainty and practicality must underpin any system if it is to endure. And as O’Connor acknowledged, governments ultimately carry responsibility for ensuring the transition works for the country as a whole.

New Zealand’s future will depend on getting that balance right. Climate policy must be effective, but it must also be durable. And durability in rural New Zealand, comes from policies that support thriving communities as much as they pursue emissions targets.

Have a listen to the podcast to hear the full story.

Angus Kebbell is a producer at The Weekly Hotwire. You can contact him here.