New Zealand has become the latest country to recalibrate its approach to agricultural emissions. The government has announced that its 2050 reduction target for biogenic methane will be lowered to 14–24% below 2017 levels, down from the previous range of 24–47%. While its net zero 2050 goal for long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide remains in place, this adjustment recognises a growing scientific and political consensus that not all greenhouse gases behave the same way in the atmosphere, and they shouldn’t be treated as if they do.

The change, which will require amending New Zealand’s Climate Change Response Act by the end of 2025, applies to domestic methane reporting only; its international commitments under the Paris Agreement remain untouched. Yet the decision marks a significant step in how agricultural methane is being understood and managed. By distinguishing short-lived gases like methane from long-lived ones like CO₂, New Zealand is embracing what’s become known as a “split-gas” approach — one that more accurately reflects real-world warming impacts.

The revised range is seen as more realistic and achievable for farmers, easing the strain of drastic herd reductions or expensive unproven technologies. It helps preserve rural livelihoods and food production capacity, while still encouraging the sector to innovate and improve efficiency. Built into the plan is a review point in 2040, allowing flexibility to respond to scientific developments and global progress.

However, critics see potential downsides. Some warn the government risks being accused of watering down its climate ambition, especially since agriculture is a dominant source of national emissions in New Zealand. Others worry it could dampen investment in methane-reduction technologies or send confusing signals internationally. The revised targets are also less aggressive than global initiatives like the Global Methane Pledge, which aims for a 30 % reduction by 2030.

For the UK meat and livestock sector, this development feels particularly relevant. As the we recently highlighted in our article Methane vs CO₂: A Smarter Way to Count Emissions, a growing coalition of global farmer groups, including voices aligned with UK producers, is urging governments to adopt dual reporting and split-gas accounting. They argue that methane should be stabilised rather than driven to net zero, since it breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere, while net zero should apply only to long-lived gases. This distinction could lead to fairer, more accurate emissions profiles and more proportionate expectations on ruminant supply chains.

If the UK were to move in this direction, it could mean separate methane inventories and targets, greater transparency in product lifecycle assessments, and a more scientifically grounded conversation about what constitutes a fair and achievable emissions reduction goal for the meat sector. As policymakers prepare for the next stages of climate reporting reform, New Zealand’s approach may offer a timely blueprint for balancing environmental responsibility with agricultural reality.