SOS Call: Save Our Sheep
Press Release – Federated Farmers
Since 2007, when the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was first introduced, our national flock has shrunk by 40%. Were now losing almost a million sheep every year.
OPINION: By Toby Williams, Federated Farmers meat & wool chair
From the golden age of wool to lamb roasts at Sunday dinner, sheep farming has sat at the heart of our national identity for generations.
We used to proudly say New Zealand was built off the sheep's back-but today our sheep farmers are sitting at a crossroads, unsure which way to turn.
Our sector is in crisis – and we can no longer face it alone.
Sheep are quickly becoming an endangered species in New Zealand. Their main predators? Pines, pigs, and poor Government policy.
To paint a picture for you: I'm only 44, and in my lifetime alone we've already lost over two-thirds of our national flock.
That's not just a scary statistic-it's a warning sign that our policy settings are badly broken and that something is very wrong.
Since 2007, when the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was first introduced, our national flock has shrunk by 40%. We're now losing almost a million sheep every year.
If that trajectory continues, within the next two decades there'll be no sheep left in New Zealand. Is that really the future we want for our country?
As sheep numbers continue to decline, huge pressure is being put on the critical infrastructure that supports our red meat sector, like meatworks, shearers and stock trucks.
Without sufficient livestock, our meat processors-already operating on tight margins-will struggle to justify the continued investment required to continue operating.
The economics simply don't work. Alliance's Smithfield meatworks in Timaru has already closed its doors, and that's not a one-off: it's a symptom of the times.
This is not the situation our farmers should be facing, but even with strong prices for red meat, farmers are still exiting the industry. Their confidence has evaporated.
When farmers aren't investing despite good returns, it means they're looking at the broader policy picture-and they don't like what they see.
So, what does a sheep farmer see when they look out their window? Right now, it's nothing but pine trees, pests, and politicians breaking promises.
New Zealand's climate policy is creating huge uncertainty, and the endless push to plant pine trees risks forever changing the face of our rural communities.
Between 2017 and 2024 alone, 260,000 hectares of sheep and beef land were converted to pine-not because forestry is a better use of that land, but because of our flawed ETS settings.
This is short-sighted, dangerous policy. We're sacrificing food production, rural jobs, and community resilience at the altar of carbon accounting.
Sheep farmers are not climate deniers. We've always been environmental stewards, understand the land better than most, and want to leave it in better shape for the next generation.
But regulation must be grounded in practical reality, not ideology. Blanket environmental rules that fail to consider the nuances of hill country farming are doing more harm than good.
The great irony in all of this is New Zealand sheep farmers are among the most efficient and sustainable producers of red meat in the world.
Our carbon footprint per kilogram of lamb is lower than virtually any other nation, and our wool is a renewable and biodegradable alternative to synthetic fibres and plastics.
So why are our sheep-farming families being punished, rather than rewarded, for the work we do behind our farm gate? The answer is simple: politics.
Unfortunately, the electoral math is not in our favour. Politicians will always chase the votes of big population centres like Auckland and Wellington over small rural communities.
There also seems to be an attitude in the halls of power that the farming vote can be taken for granted, but those who hold that view should tread carefully.
So, what's the solution? I think New Zealanders need to ask themselves a simple question: do we still value our sheep industry? Because if we do, we need to act-and fast.
It's time to start valuing food production and put an end to the broken climate policies that are turning productive farmland into pine plantations and pest havens.
Farmers are sounding the alarm. This is our SOS. Please save our sheep-before it's too late.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Reform to ‘modernise' Fish & Game organisation
Southern Fish & Game councils say they broadly welcome proposed improvements to the organisation's operations, signalled by the government yesterday. Hunting and Fishing Minister James Meager has announced proposed new legislation governing Fish & Game, aimed at streamlining and compartmentalising the roles of the national body and its 12 regional councils. He said it would "modernise and strengthen" the organisation. "I want to make it as easy as possible for Kiwis to go hunting and fishing in New Zealand. This long overdue reform to Fish & Game will refocus the organisation on its core job of managing our sport fishing and game bird resources and implement a more professional approach to national decision making," he said. Key changes would include clarifying council and national body roles; shifting to a nationalised fee collection and funding distribution system; and voting changes. The proposed new act would also "require Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making". New national advocacy policy would restrict court proceedings to within that policy. Southland Fish & Game chairman David MacGregor said the minister had provided further clarification on that last point during interviews yesterday. "The minister has clarified that Fish & Game can still advocate for the health of waterways where it improves fisheries, which is entirely consistent with Southland Fish & Game's involvement in the Water & Land Plan, where the court found there were significant adverse effects on aquatic life," he said. Federated Farmers Southland clashed with Fish & Game Southland last year following a Court of Appeal decision regarding effluent discharge Federated Farmers claimed would prevent them farming. "Fish & Game has never taken frivolous court action, and funding for much of the Southland case came from the New Zealand council, so I can't see our advocacy function changing," Mr MacGregor said. Otago Fish & Game Council chairman Adrian McIntyre said he welcomed modernisation. "Making it easier for New Zealanders to go hunting and fishing is something we all support, and it's encouraging to see a proposal that retains strong regional decision-making — close to where the action is happening. "Regional autonomy is essential to what we do. It's great to see that the minister has preserved the ability of regional councils to make decisions based on local knowledge and direct engagement with hunters, anglers, landowners, iwi and scientists. That connection is one of our biggest strengths." A Federated Farmers spokesman said his organisation remained concerned about Fish & Game's political advocacy functions. "We're welcoming a review of Fish & Game's advocacy function, something Federated Farmers have been vocal in calling for, but we have serious concerns changes won't go far enough."
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Scale of planting to meet zero carbon goal ‘unachievable'
Dunedin City Council zero carbon manager Jinty MacTavish. File photo: Peter McIntosh It is "unachievable" for Dunedin to plant a path to its zero carbon goals, city councillors have been told. At a workshop yesterday, Dunedin City Council zero carbon manager Jinty MacTavish told councillors sequestration — capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide, often with trees or vegetation — needed to be combined with a community-wide effort to reduce emissions. Staff had carried out modelling to provide an idea of the trees required to meet the council's goal, although she warned councillors the results were "incredibly theoretical and incredibly indicative". Speaking to the modelling, senior zero carbon policy analyst Rory MacLean said the scale of planting needed to meet the city's zero carbon goal was "unachievable". The council had aimed for Dunedin to be a net zero-carbon city by 2030, excluding biogenic methane, but conceded in January this was unlikely, regardless of the level of investment. Mr MacLean said more than 100,000ha of indigenous planting would have been required to meet the goal by 2030 — "and that's just imaginary numbers really". If the goal was shifted to 2035, 27,000ha of indigenous plantings or 16,500ha of exotic plantings were needed for the city to become net zero as there was more time for the trees to grow. "At present there's about 17,000ha of commercial exotic forests in Dunedin, so you're talking about a doubling or almost tripling of the land area covered by forests." In an "accelerated ambition" scenario, 20,000ha of indigenous plantings or 10,000ha of exotic plantings would meet the 2035 goal. Still, this was an "enormous" land area to be converted to forestry, Mr MacLean said. "One of the assumptions in this is that all the plantings happen this year, which obviously would not happen. "So if you're actually looking to do this, the land area would be even larger because you would need to space out the plantings over multiple years." Ms MacTavish said decreasing emissions would reduce the amount of land required for planting. "The intention of this was just to show that this needs to be a whole of community effort rather than something that the DCC alone would take on if it were to be achieved." In 2021-22, the most recent year the council had full data for, Dunedin's forests absorbed 493,000tonnes of CO₂. "It's not insignificant, and that sets us apart from other cities that don't have the large land area that Dunedin has. " Forests were the only type of sequestration included in the Emissions Trading Scheme and emerging methods of absorbing carbon — such as blue carbon (wetlands) or increasing soil carbon — were not easily measurable and verifiable, she said. A report on carbon renewals would go to council later this month.
The Spinoff
3 days ago
- The Spinoff
Changing our methane standards could set a ‘dangerous precedent', scientists warn
A group of scientists from around the world is urging the New Zealand government to ignore a methane report it commissioned that 'redefines the goal of climate action'. Shanti Mathias explains. I hear there's an open letter. What's that about? Twenty-six climate scientists have signed an open letter urging the government not to adopt a standard that would limit the amount of methane reduction New Zealand needs to achieve to reach its climate target. A review of New Zealand's methane targets, conducted in 2024 by a government-appointed group separate from the independent Climate Change Commission, looked at the goal of 'no additional warming'. The open letter says that 'no additional warming' is a goal that 'ignores scientific evidence' and could jeopardise New Zealand's ability to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. What does 'no additional warming' mean? This term is a way to avoid responsibility, says the open letter. 'It redefines the goal of climate action as simply stabilising the warming impact of emissions from any given source at current levels – rather than seeking to 'minimise all greenhouse gas emissions' and their contribution to global warming.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is supported by agricultural lobby groups like Beef and Lamb and Federated Farmers. It would mean that methane emissions could be kept at current levels, as long as they don't increase; essentially an endorsement of the current amount of climate change. 'It's kind of like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river and it's killing life. If I go and pour 90 barrels of pollution in, I should get credit for it,' Paul Behrens, a professor at Oxford University and signatory of the letter, told the Financial Times. Farming lobby groups are pushing for the government of Ireland to adopt a similar approach, which scientists have also criticised. Why are New Zealand and Ireland being singled out? Both countries have large agriculture sectors which produce a lot of dairy and beef for export, and have very high per-capita methane emissions. The vast majority of methane emissions come from agriculture; more than 85% in New Zealand, from grass-eating animals like cows and sheep burping it out as they digest their food. Methane made up 28.9% of Ireland's emissions in 2022 and 43.5% of New Zealand's emissions in 2020. By comparison, methane is about 12% of the United States' emissions. Drew Shindel, an American professor who chaired the UN Environmental Programmes 2021 global methane assessment, told RNZ that the 'no additional warming' target set a 'dangerous precedent'. If New Zealand and Ireland adopted this standard and were followed by other countries, methane emissions wouldn't be reduced fast enough to meet Paris Agreement targets that are already in jeopardy. Methane is a particularly dangerous source of emissions. While it stays in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide, it causes 80 times as much heating, and causes that heating almost immediately – meaning that if methane continues to be emitted, its dangerous warming effects will continue, too. As a recognition of its more short-lived nature, the amount of methane New Zealand needs to reduce by 2050 is a separate goal to carbon emissions reductions. By 2050, New Zealand is aiming to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions and a 24% to 47% reduction of methane. By 2030, New Zealand is aiming to have a 10% reduction of methane from 2017 levels. How have New Zealand politicians reacted to this call to reduce methane? Fairly predictably. Christopher Luxon, to whom the letter was addressed, said that the scientists, whom he described as 'worthies', 'might want to direct their focus and their letters to other countries'. He told RNZ 'I'll stack New Zealand's record up against any other country on the planet Earth around our methane emissions,' saying that if New Zealand limited dairy or beef production, those emissions would be produced elsewhere by countries with less environmental efficiency. Chlӧe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Green Party, said that the 'no additional warming' measure could damage New Zealand's reputation and threaten its exports. 'It's really clear that Christopher Luxon has to end any further speculation that his government is on the climate denial bandwagon, they have wasted a year playing around with this mythical notion of 'no additional warming' and now international alarm bells are ringing,' she said. Following the report of the methane panel last year, Cabinet will decide whether to adopt a different methane target. Is New Zealand on track to meet its climate targets otherwise? No. Current policies rely on tree planting and a carbon capture and storage project in the Kapuni gas field, which currently seems completely unviable. The second emissions reduction plan, released last year, put the net zero 2050 target out of reach with domestic targets, meaning New Zealand will likely have to buy millions of dollars of international carbon credits. The organisation Climate Action Tracker rates New Zealand's progress as 'highly insufficient' with current policies headed towards heating of more than four degrees Celsius. Changes to climate finance in the recent budget also mean that New Zealand is not doing its part to support less well-off countries adapt to a warmer planet and reduce their emissions.
