Dr Jacqueline Rowarth: Emissions reductions - we’re all in this together

All Kiwis should be involved in reducing emissions, not just farmers. File photo / Pexels

Opinion:

It’s time to stop writing reports full of “helpful” suggestions for the productive sector and let all New Zealanders climb on board the emissions reduction waka.

The number of reports coming from government and companies focused on the vision of an improved primary production system is increasing.

target="_blank">KPMG’s Agribusiness Agenda has been joined by reports from MPI and groups (often supported by Government funding).

Add in the global reports (McKinsey for instance) and it isn’t surprising that confusion is occurring about who said what and why.

This is at least in part because the number of individuals who are promoting ideas about how New Zealand farmers and growers should be producing food has also increased.

Encouraged by social media and conventional media outlets, these people have become the proponents of a better future – even though they have no affiliation with productive land and often no background in food production systems.

Statements such as “no ambition to change” and “defeatist attitude” are repeated without ground truthing.

At ground level (on the soil), New Zealand farmers and growers are regarded highly by the global agricultural community.

Whether in farming (as indicated by farming and teaching tours) or science (indicated by the NZAGRC leading the Global Research Alliance on methane) New Zealand is remarkable for its impact in leadership.

Pastoral farmers involved in meat and milk production also hold the record for the least environmental impact per unit of production.

This is what consumers and customers say they want... even though for the bulk of the population, taste, cost and convenience matter more than the environment.

The New Zealand challenge continues to be achieving a reduction in emissions for the whole country to meet international agreements.

Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Photo / Supplied

Agriculture is committed to doing its part and continues to strive for efficiency gains.

He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) has spent three years trying to identify how emissions could be reduced without putting farmers out of business and ruining the New Zealand export economy.

The work of HWEN has not stopped commentators from having their own theories about how emission reductions can be obtained.

“Reduce animal numbers and obtain a premium by adopting regenerative/organic principles” has been around for a while.

But no premium has yet been forthcoming beyond what we already achieving by being grass-fed with high animal welfare (except through processor adjustments between suppliers).

Further, reducing animal numbers (always depending on the starting point) in the New Zealand extensive pastoral system can result in a deterioration in pasture quality (seed heads and weed ingress) and in animal body condition score.

Poor quality pasture and drought/floods lead to animals losing weight which is associated with decreased production and increased emissions per kg of product.

None of the frequently explained facts has stopped environmentalists from repeating their solution at all possible opportunities.

Of course, the starting point is the main factor – a farm with a high stocking rate and reliance on imported feed might be able to reduce stocking rate and improve efficiencies, including increased returns and decreased environmental impact.

Lincoln University research on the dairy farm showed exactly this – reducing from a high stocking to the district average improved all measures.

Similarly, Align Farms on the Canterbury Plains is making their comparisons of a conventional and regenerative approach publicly available.

The stocking rate on the conventional farm is 3.8; on the regenerative farm, it is 3.3, the same as the average for the region.

The conventional farm is producing more milk at the same emissions intensity (kg greenhouse gases per kg of milk solids) as the regenerative farms, there are no data indicating a change in milk quality between systems, and at this stage, the soil organic matter is higher in quantity on the conventional farm than the regenerative comparison.

The farmers involved are very helpful in making their data publicly available.

Another suggestion is to stop using synthetic fertiliser.

The fact that Sri Lanka didn’t do well under an organic regime doesn’t stop promotion.

Riots in New Zealand are unlikely to reach those of the proportion of Sri Lanka where 80 per cent of people are connected with the land.

In New Zealand, there are only about 15 per cent (4 per cent on the land and 11 per cent in support) but those people live and breathe improving their operations.

Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:

Is it likely that a report writer based in a central office will come up with a better plan?

Rod Oram, business analyst, is right when he says that what New Zealand needs is “behaviour change across all businesses, all of society to be carbon conscious and actually reducing emissions”.

The point about He Waka Eke Noa, roughly translated as “we’re all in this together” was to create a partnership across the primary sector with one goal.

It is now time to stop writing reports with helpful suggestions about the productive sector and let all of New Zealand climb on board the waka to do an ever-better job in emissions reduction.

Team New Zealand should be to the fore of our thinking. This means supporting the people who back the economy and prop up the balance of payments.

- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, is a member of the Science Advisory Council of the World Farmers’ Organisation and on the Board of Directors of several agricultural organisations. The thoughts and analysis presented here are her own and should not be ascribed to any of the organisations with which she is affiliated. jsrowarth@gmail.com