Agricultural Emissions Research Funding

- A Climate Change Discussion Document

Appendix 1Feedback form
Appendix 2The Government's policies for Climate Change
Download as a PDF file:
- Cover pages[PDF 227K]
- Discussion Document[PDF 577K]

Ministers' foreword

Pastoral farming is still the heart of the New Zealand economy. It thrives because this country has an equable, stable climate. That is why climate change threatens our economic interests and the long-term sustainability of New Zealand farming.

The Government's climate change policy recognises the value of farming. It recognises that farmers currently lack viable methods of reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

For these reasons the policy exempts the farming sector from charges on emissions from livestock and soil. The cost of projected growth in these emissions during the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period will be met by the Crown.

But agricultural greenhouse gases make up more than half New Zealand's total emissions. We simply cannot afford to let them grow unchecked.

Nor can we rely on other nations to deliver us a solution. New Zealand is unique amongst developed nations in its economic reliance on agriculture. The attention of the industrialised world is focused more on industrial and transport emissions.

New Zealand has the opportunity and the capacity to lead the world in developing research-based solutions for agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. We have internationally recognised strength in primary sector science and technology. Progress towards new methods for reducing farm emissions has already begun.

Success in this field is expected to ping both productivity gains and ownership of valuable new knowledge. The benefits would go to agriculture.

With that in mind, along with the sector's responsibility for addressing its emissions, the Government intends to levy farmers to fund research into agricultural emission reduction. This document seeks comment on the best way to proceed.

We believe there is good cause for farmers to regard this funding as a sound investment for the future. We trust the results will bear this out.

Hon Pete Hodgson
Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change

Hon Jim Sutton
Minister, Agriculture and Forestry

Executive summary

Under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, or to paying for any emissions over this target. Non-CO₂ emissions from pastoral agriculture account for more than half of New Zealand's emissions.

However, practical and cost effective farm practices and technologies to reduce agricultural emissions currently do not exist. There is also a need to improve the accuracy of our estimates of on-farm emissions.

Government has decided, therefore, that Government will bear the cost of the agricultural sector's non-CO₂ emissions, provided that the sector contributes to research into ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities.

Government has made the following in-principle decisions:

that farm businesses will pay an agricultural emissions research (AER) levy
that this levy will raise $8.4 million to pay for research into ways of reducing non-CO₂ emissions from agricultural activities
that the strategy for the research will be that proposed by the independent review, jointly commissioned by Government and the agricultural sector
that Government will continue its current level of commitment to funding such research.
Government seeks feedback on the best ways of funding and administering the levy.

The mechanism could be modelled on the mechanism in the Biosecurity Act 1993. This model requires industry consultation, accountability and reporting. The detailed mechanism design is in the regulations, where alterations can be made as circumstances alter over time.

The levy should be kept as simple as possible, and collected as close to source as possible. The Government proposes to base the levy on the average methane emissions per animal type (that is, sheep, beef cattle, dairy cattle, goats and deer) with an allowance for nitrous oxide emissions per animal. The levy could be collected using current collection channels ( that is producer boards and Dairy Insight ( thereby keeping collection and transaction costs to a minimum.

To administer the fund, the Government proposes to establish a limited liability company, jointly owned by the agricultural sector and the Crown. This agricultural emissions research (AER) body would:

hold the research funds
develop research plans
tender, monitor and evaluate projects
co-ordinate with other funders and providers.

To avoid conflicts of interest, the body would not undertake research in its own right. The AER body may have a role in collecting the levy, managing intellectual property and commercialising and promoting any technologies developed in order to ensure that they are adopted and applied by farmers.

Introduction

This discussion document is about implementing a research levy to fund research into reducing emissions of non-carbon dioxide (CO₂) greenhouse gases (methane and nitrous oxide) from agricultural activities.

The Government has recognised that the agricultural sector would find it difficult to adjust if it faced a cost on emissions of its non-CO₂ greenhouse gases in the first commitment period (2008-2012) under the Kyoto Protocol. The sector has therefore been exempted from charges on its emissions of methane and nitrous oxide in the first commitment period, on condition that it invest in research to find practical ways of reducing such emissions. CO₂ emissions will be dealt with under more direct Government policy measures.

A report by independent agricultural scientists, commissioned jointly by the Government and the agricultural sector, has identified an optimum funding level of $8.4 million per annum for this research.

What's in this document

This document is in three parts. Part 1 explains the in-principle decisions by Government regarding Climate Change, particularly as they relate to agricultural emissions.

Part 2 discusses the research requirements, and looks at the potential additional benefits of agricultural emissions research (AER), particularly improvements in productivity.

Part 3 seeks feedback on Government's proposed policy for:

funding and collecting the levy
administering the levy, including the function, structure and governance of an AER body to manage levy expenditure.

There are two appendices:

Appendix 1 provides a feedback form, with the specific questions to which the Government seeks feedback, and addresses to which you can send your submission. (The questions are also distributed through Part 3 of the document)
Appendix 2 gives more detailed coverage of the Government's Climate Change policies as piefly outlined in the body of the document.

Process for consultation

This discussion document forms part of the third formal consultation on agricultural policy for Climate Change legislation. It will be:

distributed to all national bodies in the sector
promoted through the Rural Bulletin
available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, www.maf.govt.nz , and the New Zealand Climate Change Office, www.climatechange.govt.nz

The consultation will also include:

public meetings held in the regions
a technical working group: agricultural sector organisations will be invited to form a technical working group to consider the detailed implementation issues
formal and informal meetings with agricultural sector organisations.

The Government will be seeking feedback from agricultural sector individuals and organisations by 1 August 2003.

Part 1: Climate change policies and agricultural emissions

Background

The international agreement

A concerted international effort is needed to reduce the extent and impacts of climate change. New Zealand has taken action as part of international efforts. Last year, New Zealand ( along with over one hundred other countries ( ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding international agreement that aims at slowing global warming. Under the Protocol, New Zealand has agreed to limit our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, or pay for any emissions over this target. Countries' targets are set for the period 2008-2012 (the first commitment period). (For more about the Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change, see www.climatechange.govt.nz )

New Zealand's climate change policies

In October 2002, the Government announced a policy package for meeting our Kyoto Protocol targets. These policies have been developed through a series of in-depth interactions throughout New Zealand over a lengthy period. There has been specific national consultation with farmers, farm-leaders, agricultural processors and industry organisations on policy that affects the agricultural sector on two previous occasions. These have included both informal and formal meetings, and workshops.

The principles on which government is basing climate change policies are:

Policies must result in permanent reductions in emissions over the long term by:

achieving real and sustainable reductions in emissions
avoiding production and associated emissions shifting overseas.

Policies need to be consistent with a growing and sustainable economy by:

recognising the need to maintain competitiveness
avoiding distortionary effects on investment
providing economic opportunities
being simple, fair and adaptable.

The key policies to address New Zealand's carbon dioxide (CO₂) greenhouse gas emissions include: an emissions charge on fossil fuels and industrial process emissions, Government incentives for emissions reduction projects, Negotiated Greenhouse Agreements, and forest sink policies.

SeeAppendix 2 for more details about the policies in the Climate Change package.

Policy for agricultural emissions

The Government determined, following consultation, that the agricultural sector would not be subject to a charge on its non-CO₂ emissions. Instead, the Government would bear this cost, provided the sector funds research into ways of reducing agricultural emissions.

Agricultural emissions are a major source of greenhouse gases

Agriculture is the sector with the highest total greenhouse gas emissions (composed of methane and nitrous oxide). Over half our total greenhouse gas emissions come from this sector. According to latest estimates, emissions from agriculture are about 12% above 1990 levels. Although in tonnage terms New Zealand emits more CO₂ than methane or nitrous oxide in a given year, these two greenhouse gases are both much more potent in terms of their 'global warming' effect than CO₂. (Methane is 21 times more potent, and nitrous oxide 310 times.)

Ruminant livestock (cattle, sheep, deer and goats) are the primary sources of New Zealand's methane emissions, accounting for almost 90% of our methane emissions. Ruminants produce methane in the rumen (forestomach) as a waste by-product of digestion.

Nitrous oxide emissions are also a waste by-product of agriculture, arising from processes of nitrification and denitrification in the soil. The major source of nitrogen for these processes is animal waste (urine and dung). Nitrous oxide emissions are also associated with use of nitrogen-based fertilisers, including the run-off and leaching contributions.

New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions (stated in carbon-dioxide equivalent terms)

New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions (stated in carbon-dioxide equivalent terms)
Source: National Inventory 2001

Issues faced by the sector

Farmers face a range of issues in addressing greenhouse gas emissions not faced by other businesses. They are competing with off-shore farmers in countries with different or no Kyoto obligations. Practical and cost effective farm practices and technologies to reduce agricultural emissions currently do not exist. There is also a need to improve the accuracy of our estimates of on-farm emissions.

Decisions in principle

To address agricultural non-CO₂ emissions with these issues in mind, the Government has agreed in principle that:

it will work in partnership with sector groups to undertake increased agricultural emissions research aimed at identifying and developing practical and cost-effective technologies and farm practices to reduce agricultural emissions
it will encourage farmers to adopt these technologies and practices
so long as an appropriate research effort is undertaken, the sector will not face an emissions charge or other price measure on its non-CO₂ emissions prior to or during the first commitment period
as consultation with the agricultural sector has indicated that there would be major difficulties with using a voluntary approach to fund the necessary research, a compulsory levy will be established.

Timing

Research needs to start as soon as possible, as it will take some time for the research to come up with new technologies, for the sector to then adopt these, and for the changes to have an effect on emission levels. Therefore, the levy needs to be established as soon as possible. It will, however, be at least mid-2004 before the required legislation and regulations are in place to give effect to the compulsory levy.

Agricultural Emissions Research levy design

The Government is proposing that an agricultural emissions research (AER) levy mechanism be modelled on the levy provisions in the Biosecurity Act 1993. The contribution from each relevant sub-sector ( sheep, beef, dairy, deer and goats ( would be based on numbers of stock units in that sector, be payable by individual farming businesses, and be collected through existing channels such as meat, game and dairy processing facilities.

The Government believes that the sheep, beef, dairy, deer and goat sub-sectors should fund the research. It considered and decided against a levy on the pig and poultry sub-sectors as these represent only a very small fraction (less than 1%) of agricultural emissions. Other measures may be considered for these sub-sectors.

The contribution of the Crown

Current government research commitments

In 2003/04, the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) will spend approximately $4.715 million on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research, of which $2.48 million (53%) will fund inventory research (including forestry and carbon monitoring), $0.7 million will fund basic studies and $1.532 million will fund emissions reduction research.

The Government intends to continue this investment in research. The development and international reporting of emissions estimates is a Government obligation under the Kyoto Protocol, and the Government also needs to continue to support some underpinning public good research into the reduction of emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. In the future, New Zealand will need to be able to verify and quantify the impact of the adoption of emissions reduction technologies so that the benefits for the nation can be captured. This will also require research.

Crown responsibility for emissions

By exempting the on-farm agricultural sector from paying for its non-CO₂ emissions, the Crown is accepting responsibility for emissions in the agricultural sector above 1990 levels. During the first commitment period this cost is expected to be somewhere between $50-125 million per annum (five million tonnes above 1990 levels at $10-25/tonne).

Impact on farmers of the carbon charge on CO₂ emissions

Farmers will also be subject to some increases in costs due to the carbon charge on energy and transport. The figures in the tables below indicate the likely impact of an emissions charge on carbon dioxide as a percentage of total energy costs, and as a percentage of total expenditure for typical farming operations of the type described (Source MAF).

If carbon is priced at $10 per tonne

	Mixed livestock & cropping	Sheep and beef cattle farming	Dairy cattle farming	Other farming
CO₂ charge/total energy	4.6%	4.4%	4.7%	4.5%
CO₂ charge/ expenditure	0.08%	0.06%	0.13%	0.17%

If carbon is priced at $25 per tonne

	Mixed livestock & cropping	Sheep and beef cattle farming	Dairy cattle farming	Other farming
CO₂ charge/total energy	11.4%	11.0%	11.8%	11.3%
CO₂ charge/ expenditure	0.19%	0.16%	0.33%	0.43%

(The price is likely to be at the lower end of the range.)

The Government is currently working on a policy for small and medium enterprises for which energy costs are a significant part of expenditure, and for whom a carbon charge would have a significant impact on their competitiveness.

Part 2: Agricultural emissions research

Joint review

The Government and the Primary Industries Council (PIC - PIC is made up of representatives from the meat, wool, dairy and deer sectors, as well as Federated Farmers) jointly commissioned a review by three leading agricultural scientists to find out what agricultural emissions research (AER) was underway, what research was needed, and how much such research might cost.

The review report Abatement of Agricultural Non-Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Study of Research Requirements:

identified the desired outcomes and strategic objectives for AER
identified the research needs, including priority research and emissions reduction technologies for nitrous oxide and methane, covering mitigation, inventory and farming systems
identified opportunities for multiple benefits through reducing emissions while enhancing productivity and/or reducing other pollutants (such as nitrates in freshwater)
identified additional research needs in the measurement of methane and nitrous oxide and in modelling capability
commented on the overall management of the research programme and international collaboration
estimated the funding requirements to provide an optimum research programme, based on the additional scientific capability needed.

For a copy of the review report see www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/climate/abatement-of-agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions/httoc.htm

The review committee based its funding recommendations on the number of full-time scientist equivalents needed to put in place the programme it outlined. It identified the optimum need for an additional 23 full-time scientists working in this area. The total cost of funding and supporting a research programme involving 23 scientists, support staff and equipment is estimated to be $8.4 million per annum. Such funding would be in addition to current Government investment in emissions reduction research (about $4.715 million), and existing private investment including by the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium ($0.8 million).

Strategy

Experience in other similar research areas such as Possum Control/Bovine Tb research, which has a current investment of approximately $13 million per annum, indicates that a concerted, planned and sustained effort is needed to research ways to modify biological systems, and that, even in such circumstances, progress may be slow.

The Government believes a staged approach needs to be taken, based on the research priorities, strategy and topic areas identified in the report, to allow research capability to be built. It proposes that the funding target for the research levy in the first year be set at $4.5 million, rising to the optimum funding level of $8.4 million in the second year of the programme.

Raising $8.4 million per annum from the agricultural sector would cost farmers the equivalent of 9 cents for each mature sheep and 54 to 72 cents for each mature beef or dairy animal per annum. This is based on the average emissions of each stock type.

Funding

The total funding would be prorated across each sub-sector by dividing the total number of stock of each type processed at meat works to set a standard levy per sheep, cattle, deer or goat carcass. There would also be a levy per kilogram of milk solids in the dairy sub-sector. This would be sufficient to top up the levy charged at meatworks on culled dairy cattle to approximate the difference in emissions between dairy and beef cattle.

The total amount of funding made available will not be the only determinant of the research strategy. Other key determinants should be the research plan, which needs to be driven by the rate of progress that is required, and the difficulty of the issues that need to be addressed.

It is proposed that any change to the proposed levy will be by determined by negotiation between the Government and sector representatives, after consultation with stakeholders. Such a joint review would be undertaken every three years. This approach allows for longer-term research planning and will minimise compliance costs through not having to make annual adjustments to the levy.

Potential benefits of research

Priorities

The review report suggests that the research should focus on measures that ping the greatest production efficiency gain to farmers in the short to medium term, with a long-term objective of both achieving production efficiency and reducing total gas emissions.

Benefits to farmers

Farmers will have the potential to increase productivity or reduce production costs by accessing and using technologies and management practices that are developed as part of the research. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions both currently represent a wasted opportunity. Research has already shown that current high levels of both emissions are not an automatic consequence of animal and forage production. If the food digestion and soil processes that give rise to these emissions can be changed, the benefits are likely to be in improved food conversion, more efficient use of nitrogen in pasture production, and less wastage from the system of both food energy (as methane) and nitrogen (as nitrous oxide or nitrate pollution in ground and surface water).

Any technology developed could be protected through intellectual property (IP) law and could be commercialised. There would be widespread international interest in any significant technological peakthrough, with potential markets across the globe.

Part 3: Proposed levy mechanisms and governance

Funding and collecting the compulsory levy

Principles

A levy collection mechanism should:

be cost-effective, with low transaction costs and minimal additional compliance cost impacts on farmers and primary processors
avoid unnecessary duplication of levy collection processes and, where possible, use existing collection channels
be transparent, so that all levy payers are fully aware of their payment commitments, aware of any collection costs and informed about levy spending
be equitable and fair across all sub-sectors, so that levy payers are paying their appropriate share
provide the greatest assurance of funding, flexibility and control of funds
avoid free riders by ensuring farmers pay their fair share.

Mechanisms

The government believes the levying powers in the Biosecurity Act 1993 provide the most appropriate model on which to base the design of a levy mechanism for inclusion in new legislation, and would meet the criteria listed above.

The Biosecurity Act enables the making of regulations under the Act to collect a levy from a sector for a specific purpose. For instance, the meat industry's funding contribution to the Animal Health Board (AHB) for expenditure on the Tuberculosis strategy is collected by levy regulations made under the Act. The AHB is an incorporated society. MAF collects the levy under the Biosecurity Act and passes it on to the AHB.

The Biosecurity Act model requires industry consultation, accountability and reporting. The regulations contain the detailed levy mechanisms that could be altered in future as circumstances and requirements change.

Non-CO₂ grenhouse gass emissions by emitting sub-sector

Non-CO2 grenhouse gass emissions by emitting sub-sector
Source: National Inventory 2001

Close to the source

To ensure fairness, the agriculture emissions research (AER) levy should be charged as close to the source of emissions as possible. To minimise compliance costs and ensure fairness the levy should be kept as simple as possible and be based on the average methane emissions per animal type (that is, sheep, beef cattle, dairy cattle, goats and deer), based on the census of agricultural livestock numbers in 2002. An allowance should be made for nitrous oxide emissions per animal based on estimated average nitrogen throughput. To avoid unnecessary complexity, it is proposed that no allowance be made for the variable nature of nitrous oxide emissions due to soil types and climatic conditions in the different locations animals are farmed.

Direct collection of small amounts from individual farmers would have high transaction costs. For this reason, the Government is proposing that the AER levy be collected using existing levy collection channels in the agricultural sub-sectors. It will, however, be identified as a separate levy from levies collected for biosecurity or other industry good reasons.

For sheep, beef, goats and dairy cattle, MAF currently collects levies from meat companies for the New Zealand Meat Board and for the Animal Health Board (AHB). The levy is on livestock slaughtered and is deducted at point of slaughter. The Game Industry Board collects its levy in a similar way through game processors. Dairy InSight collects a levy on milk-solids from dairy companies. Subject to discussion and agreement with these parties, these channels could also be used to collect an additional AER levy.

The use of these collection channels would lower collection and transaction costs and would avoid duplication of the collection process. They would also provide a cost-efficient means to consult with and report to the industry for the use of levy money.

Potential collection avenues

The Agricultural Emissions Research body

A body will need to be either identified or established to receive AER levy funds and manage the research investment. The Government considers this body's ultimate aim should be to manage research funds and oversee the development and implementation of new AER practices and technologies

This body will need to be familiar with:

research practices nationally and internationally
the management of any related intellectual property rights to technologies developed and the commercial exploitation of those technologies
the means of implementing emissions reduction technologies and management systems on farms through new and existing avenues.

What would it do

The AER body would need to:

1. Hold research funds: The body could hold any industry (and possibly Government) contributions to the agricultural emissions research. The AER body would have the task of administering and spending those funds.

2. Develop research plan(s): While the overall research strategy could be set in legislation, or by agreement negotiated between the proposed AER body and the Crown, the AER body will have the task of developing more specific longer-term and annual research plans. This would require consultation with key stakeholders, especially those providing the funds. In keeping with the review recommendations, plans might have a sub-sectoral as well as a generic focus.

3. Contract/tender projects: The AER will require major annual investment in research, spread among numerous national and international research providers. The proposed AER body would need systems in place to ensure that research projects are contracted to the most suitable providers that will deliver the best outcome in the most cost-efficient manner. The question of research capability building in New Zealand may also need to be considered.

4. Monitor/evaluate/report: As the proposed AER body will have large sums of sector (and possibly public) funds to manage, as well as managing significant research contracts, it would need to monitor contracts, evaluate outcomes, and report to Government and those providing the funds. Any reporting could be through an annual report to the sectors and Ministers that could also be tabled in the House.

5. Co-ordinate with other funders and providers: There are bodies in New Zealand and in other countries that already undertake and/or fund relevant research. The proposed AER body would have to co-ordinate its research programmes with these other bodies in order to deliver outcomes in the most cost-effective manner and to avoid duplicating effort.

Most of these activities are essential for the effective running of the body, although some core activities could be contracted out. To avoid conflicts of interest the body would not undertake research in its own right.

The AER body might also:

6. Collect the levy: The collection of the compulsory levy could become the responsibility of the proposed AER body. However, the government's preference is for the levy collection role to remain separate from the AER body and be collected through existing channels.

7. Manage intellectual property: Some research is likely to lead to outcomes that could be protected by intellectual property rights such as patents, plant variety rights and technologies. The proposed AER body could take responsibility for managing intellectual property (IP) on behalf of all the stakeholders. This is discussed more fully on page 13.

8. Commercialise technologies: Technology developed as a result of AER-supported research could be commercialised, either by the AER body or under contract through another entity.

9. Knowledge transfer: The technology developed in the course of AER research will need to be promoted to farmers for adoption This may be done by the AER body or through existing channels.

The body is likely to be more effective if it has an active role in the development, commercialisation and transfer of technologies in collaboration with the agricultural sector. This will help to encourage the uptake of new technologies by farmers within the timeframes that will impact on New Zealand's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

What sort of body?

The Government proposes that the AER body is established as a new body, with its primary focus of meeting the Government's climate change objectives in agricultural emission reduction research. The body should, however, draw on the skills and experience of current research bodies to carry out its task.

The Government proposes that the AER body be an entity owned jointly by the Crown and a consortium of sector bodies. The detailed requirements of governance would be established through an agreement between the AER body and the Crown. The body would have both sector and Crown representation on the board.

Legal status of the AER body

Government believes a company structure offers the best ability to hold and commercialise IP and carry out all the functions of the body, as well as provide accountability mechanisms as specified in the Companies Act 1993. The agricultural sector has the dominant capacity and capability to commercialise and transfer technologies and practices to farmers, and the research would benefit from partnership between the Crown and the sector.

The Government proposes that the body should be a limited liability company. This company would comprise key agricultural sector bodies and government as shareholders. The Crown could appoint members from the agricultural sectors to the board of the body after nominations from the sector.

The Government considers that there would need to be an agreement between the AER body and the Crown that covers:

the Government's needs in addressing climate change in agriculture
a preamble containing guiding principles and purpose statements
a clearly stated objective for engaging in the research effort
a strategy for agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation research
a prioritised and costed description of potential research projects
a description of key milestones for meeting the objectives and implementing the strategy
dates for delivery of research outputs, as applicable
arrangements for the ownership of intellectual property and/or an agreed approach to resolving issues of intellectual property ownership on a case-by-case basis
periodic review arrangements
review arrangements in the event of 'peakthrough' technologies or any lack of progress
dispute resolution arrangements
sanctions and termination arrangements
arrangements and/or principles for the commercialisation and transfer to farm of mitigation technologies
set time frames for review of the strategy and reporting to Government on progress
identification of any legislative or other regulatory requirements
a budget for the body and any working groups.

Other issues

Intellectual property rights

Intellectual property (IP) rights give monopoly rights to IP holders for a set period of time, in exchange for making the basis of the IP public knowledge, thereby enabling new knowledge to be developed. Most of the benefits from the levy-funded research will take the form of knowledge that is applied by farmers, leading to reductions in emissions and farm productivity gains.

However, IP such as patents and plant variety rights may also emerge. IP is not valuable unless it is commercialised, for example, through licensing arrangements. Most of the benefits from IP will come not from royalties from the IP itself, but from the IP being imbedded in new products, processes, services and production regimes, and potentially the sale and control of New Zealand-discovered technologies offshore.

It is important that such IP is managed in a way that ensures it is commercialised, adopted and applied by farmers.

The Government considers that there may be a need to maintain a public good interest in the intellectual property for situations where it is in the national interest in meeting New Zealand's climate change commitments, and therefore it would be desirable for the government to intervene. Examples include monopoly profits and high prices being charged for new technologies that limit their uptake and therefore emission reductions, or the sale of IP offshore limiting access in New Zealand.

Who 'owns' the funds?

As the levy will be collected through a compulsory mechanism mandated by legislation to meet the specific climate change objectives for the agricultural sector, the funds will be classed as Crown revenue. Such funds will, however, be used for the stated purpose of research, its commercialisation and/or transfer and not for broader climate change or other government policies.

Contact for Enquiries

Please send submissions to:
Natural Resources Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington

Fax: +64 4 894 0746
Contact this person