Every question and original answer

For a farming business in rural New Zealand, the 2026 election raises two closely connected questions:

1. Agricultural emissions: How much will your farm be expected to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions, how will those reductions be measured, and will there be a financial cost?
2. Climate adaptation: What practical assistance will be available to protect production, infrastructure, soil and water resources against droughts, floods, changing rainfall and other climate risks?

There is also a third issue worth separating out: rural service access. Climate and emissions policies can affect farm operating costs, but access to vets, rural contractors, transport, health services, telecommunications and emergency support can matter just as much to a farm outside a main centre.

I'll distinguish between parties' established policy directions, government decisions already made, and commitments that still need to be confirmed for the 2026 election. This is important because a party's previous policy is not necessarily its final 2026 manifesto.

1. Where the parties differ on agricultural emissions

The starting point is the current policy position, not just election promises.

In January 2026, the Government amended its emissions reduction plan following its decision not to introduce an on-farm agricultural emissions pricing system by 2030. Its stated alternative is a technology-led approach, using research, industry incentives and market-led schemes to encourage emissions reductions without adding significant costs to production. New Zealand's second emissions reduction plan 2026–30: Amended January 2026Updating our approach to reducing agricultural emissions

Here is how the main parties compare.

Party	Agricultural emissions position
National	Retains the technology-led approach, with no on-farm emissions pricing by 2030. Has changed the methane target while retaining international climate commitments.
ACT	Wants agriculture permanently excluded from the ETS. Also proposes removing the net-zero target and repealing the Zero Carbon Act.
NZ First	Opposes emissions pricing on farmers unless major trading partners introduce equivalent measures. Favours farm-level reporting, research and incentives for proven technologies.
Labour	Does not currently campaign on putting agriculture into the ETS. Supports reducing emissions through technology and changes in farming practice, while retaining international climate commitments.
Green Party	Wants substantially stronger agricultural emissions reductions and a stronger ETS, with tighter emissions limits and less reliance on carbon offsets.
Opportunity	Proposes strengthening the ETS by adding agricultural emissions, while recognising carbon sequestration through soil, wetlands and biodiversity-rich land.

Sources: party responses to the Science Media Centre and 2026 rural policy reporting. 2026 Election Q&A - ScienceWhat the parties are now offering rural voters2026 Election Q&A - Science

What this could mean for your farm

There are three broad approaches:

• Lower direct regulatory and pricing pressure: National, ACT and NZ First broadly favour avoiding direct agricultural emissions charges.
• Technology and productivity-led reductions: Labour supports reducing emissions through practical changes and innovation, without simply restoring its previous pricing approach.
• More formal emissions accountability: The Greens and Opportunity propose stronger mechanisms that would give emissions reductions and sequestration a more explicit economic value.

It is worth distinguishing methane from other agricultural emissions. Methane from livestock, nitrous oxide from soils and fertiliser, and carbon dioxide from energy use have different sources and policy implications. A farm's exposure will depend on its production system.

NZ First's proposals are particularly explicit about low-methane genetics and feed technologies. Opportunity's proposal is notable for potentially recognising soil and wetland carbon as sources of income or credits. 2026 Election Q&A - Science2026 Election Q&A - Science

2. Support for farms adapting to climate change

This is an important distinction: reducing emissions is mitigation, while protecting your farm against drought, flooding, erosion and changing weather patterns is adaptation.

The parties have different ideas about how much government should contribute to adaptation and which infrastructure should receive priority.

Party	Adaptation approach
National	Production-focused investment, including water storage, irrigation and more consistent national farming standards.
ACT	Greater emphasis on property rights, fewer regulatory barriers and local flexibility. Its detailed adaptation funding commitments need checking separately.
NZ First	Supports regional infrastructure investment, water storage, flood protection, irrigation and catchment-level management.
Labour	Supports national resilience investment, including flood protection, roads, bridges and infrastructure damaged by extreme weather.
Green Party	Wants a national adaptation framework, proactive preparation, fair sharing of costs and stronger protection for exposed communities.
Opportunity	Wants adaptation funding strengthened and proposes using some ETS auction revenue to help pay for adaptation.

Sources: Science Media Centre 2026 election responses and rural policy reporting. 2026 Election Q&A - ScienceWhat the parties are now offering rural voters

Some particularly relevant proposals

National – water infrastructure

The rural policy package includes $300 million in concessional lending for water-storage projects, alongside a national water-infrastructure pipeline. This could be relevant to farms exposed to increasingly variable rainfall. What the parties are now offering rural voters

NZ First – regional resilience

Its proposed $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund includes regional water storage, flood protection, managed aquifer recharge and irrigation. It also proposes an Infrastructure Equalisation Fund of $100 million annually for local water infrastructure. 2026 Election Q&A - Science

Labour – national resilience funding

Labour points to the $6 billion national resilience fund it established following Cyclone Gabrielle, intended to support infrastructure such as roads, bridges and flood protection. It says the subsequent Government removed that funding. 2026 Election Q&A - Science

Greens and Opportunity – natural resilience

Both place importance on environmental protection and longer-term resilience. The Greens emphasise fair adaptation funding and proactive planning; Opportunity proposes recognising soil, wetland and biodiversity sequestration economically. 2026 Election Q&A - Science

3. Rural services and the cost of living outside main centres

For a farm well away from a town, adaptation funding is only part of the picture. You may also want to consider:

• Roads and bridges: Who will fund repairs after flooding, slips and storm damage?
• Water infrastructure: Will there be support for water storage, irrigation and reliable rural water supplies?
• Healthcare: What commitments are there to rural medical services, hospitals and access to emergency care?
• Connectivity: Will broadband and mobile coverage improve in isolated farming areas?
• Rural skills and services: Will there be investment in apprenticeships, agricultural training and regional workforce availability?

There are some useful points of agreement. Federated Farmers reports that all six parties it surveyed supported practical, industry-led vocational training and coordinated pest control across public and private land. However, parties disagree considerably on local government structure and the extent of regulatory flexibility for farmers. Federated Farmers voter guide highlights party policy differences

One important distinction: a party promising infrastructure investment is not necessarily promising better access to doctors, vets or telecommunications. Those need to be assessed separately.

4. Environmental obligations and productive farmland

There are other policy differences that could affect your operating costs.

Issue	Broad party differences
Freshwater rules	National favours consistent, risk-based rules; ACT favours further regulatory flexibility; Greens favour stronger environmental standards.
Nitrogen fertiliser	Greens propose phasing out synthetic nitrogen fertiliser.
Farm environmental plans	NZ First supports catchment-level planning and farm environment plans.
Carbon forestry	National has restricted some forestry conversions but has not committed to ending incentives for whole-farm conversion. Labour, Greens and Opportunity support further restrictions.
Farming consents	National, ACT and NZ First support greater freedom to choose farming activities without resource consent; Labour and Greens do not support that proposal.

What the parties are now offering rural votersFederated Farmers voter guide highlights party policy differencesWhat the parties are now offering rural voters

These differences matter because environmental compliance can involve more than emissions. Water testing, nutrient management, effluent systems, farm plans and consenting can all affect your annual costs and investment decisions.

5. What is still uncertain before voting?

There are some important evidence gaps.

The Science Media Centre asked parties directly about climate science, natural hazards and adaptation.

• National and Te Pāti Māori did not respond by its deadline.
• ACT declined the invitation.
• NZ First said some policies were still being finalised.
• Labour and the Greens provided detailed responses.
• Opportunity also provided detailed responses.

This means you should be cautious about treating the absence of a published proposal as proof that a party has no policy. 2026 Election Q&A - Science

For further checking, two useful independent resources are:

• Science Media Centre – 2026 Election Q&A: direct party responses on climate, research and natural hazards.
• Federated Farmers – 2026 voter guide coverage: comparison of parties on practical farming and rural issues.

6. A practical way to assess the policies against your farm

Rather than looking for a party that sounds most supportive of farming generally, consider how each proposal would affect your actual business.

Your concern	Question to ask each party
Annual operating costs	Will emissions reporting, environmental compliance or new levies increase costs?
Future investment	Will there be grants, loans or incentives for emissions-reducing technology?
Drought	Will water storage and irrigation receive practical financial support?
Flooding and erosion	Who pays for farm infrastructure and catchment protection?
Environmental obligations	Will rules be nationally consistent, locally determined or more restrictive?
Rural isolation	What funding will improve roads, healthcare, connectivity and emergency services?
Long-term viability	Will policies protect productive farmland and support succession and investment?

My overall observation: The biggest political divide is between parties that prefer technology, industry incentives and less direct emissions regulation, and parties that want stronger emissions accountability and more formal environmental obligations.

On climate adaptation, there is more common ground around the need for resilient infrastructure, but significant differences over who pays, how funding is allocated and how much responsibility sits with central government, councils and individual landowners.

Your farm's exposure to those differences will depend on its location, production type, water requirements and existing infrastructure.

One further consideration

I would pay particular attention to the difference between a policy announcement and a funded commitment. For example, a $300 million lending programme is not the same as a grant, and a national adaptation framework is not the same as guaranteed funding for an individual farm.

That distinction can make a substantial difference to your business planning.

The most useful next step would be to compare the parties against your farm's particular circumstances, especially whether you are primarily concerned about livestock methane, drought, flooding, freshwater compliance or access to rural services.