KEY POINTS:
Two reports from the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University prove that New Zealand farmers should be regarded as climate change heroes, rather than the villains some critics make us out to be.
The first report released last year found that New Zealand farmers use about half the energy to make the same amount of food as British farmers. Less energy means less emissions and that means less climate change, and less effect on the environment.
The second report shows that British dairy farmers had 34 per cent more emissions per litre of milk produced than New Zealand farmers, even including shipping to Britain.
There are other facts and figures backing the view that New Zealand farmers are global warming heroes.
But the critics are not interested in these facts.
They prefer to use arguments which are, at best, wrong and, at worst, wilfully misleading.
When blaming farmers, critics say New Zealand produces more greenhouse gases per head of population than any other country, and therefore is a climate change villain.
Critics will go on and point to the "food miles" argument as a basis for consumers in distant markets not to buy New Zealand-made produce - which is akin to economic treason in my book, especially when it comes from a prominent New Zealander.
We realise New Zealand produces more agricultural emissions on a per head basis than European countries, Japan and the United States. As an agricultural exporter, New Zealand has large numbers of animals - 40 million sheep, five million cows - compared with 4.1 million people. We don't deny it: animals and farming produce greenhouse gases.
But that's where the facts stop and the smoke sets in. It is obvious why our emissions are high per head of population. We are food producers to the world, not just our own population.
The reality is that most countries are not big agricultural exporters, at least not on New Zealand's scale. Most countries typically consume 90 per cent of the food they produce and sell 10 per cent to international markets.
New Zealand, on the other hand, exports 90 per cent of its meat and milk and consumes less than 10 per cent.
The critics are quick to point to food miles as another blight on New Zealand agriculture. The problem with the food miles argument is that transport is such an insignificant element of the footprint of a product going to market. The method of production is the core element, and we stack up well against producers in other countries - as the Lincoln University report makes clear. If production from New Zealand was reduced or stopped, the world would be significantly worse off in its efforts to reduce emissions. If New Zealand food was replaced by food produced in the Northern Hemisphere, where much more energy is used in agriculture, overall emissions would go up.
Unlike New Zealanders, farmers overseas keep their animals in sheds and bring the food to them. The sheds require lighting, heating and cooling. Stock food has to be gathered by machinery, processed and stored, and then distributed to the animals. Effluent in the sheds has to be mechanically removed.
All of these things require artificial inputs in the form of electricity, gas or diesel. Some of these farms are very small, meaning they can achieve little economy of scale.
Surely it would be better for the global environment if these inefficient food producers scaled back their food production, and instead bought more food from New Zealand.
It seems obvious that increasing greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand to produce more food is, overall, a better way to curb climate change. The whole world would be better off.
So the next time you hear someone having a go at New Zealand farmers stuffing up the climate, challenge it. Remember, compared with subsidised, inefficient farmers in most other countries, New Zealand farmers are climate change heroes.
* Farmers around the country are nervously awaiting the outcome of a landmark court case that could set a very bad precedent under the Resource Management Act.
The case involves a farming family which is seeking permission to fell 350ha of kanuka scrub on Waikatea Station, less than an hour's drive from Gisborne.
The Bayly family applied for and obtained a resource consent to clear the scrub, but the Department of Conservation, in its role as an environmental advocate, has appealed to the Environment Court.
What is alarming is that the challenge strikes at the heart of what has been an important aspect of farming on the East Coast for over 100 years.
The clearance of regenerating kanuka scrub is a normal farming activity on hill country stations in the Wairoa/Gisborne region.
Kanuka is not a threatened species; regeneration of kanuka on farmland is a relatively common feature of the New Zealand rural landscape.
The farming community is watching the Bayly case closely as there could be ramifications for all farmers if this case is lost.
In late 2004 the Bayly Trust applied to the Wairoa Council to cut down 550ha of kanuka on the 3500ha farm.
Last year, the council gave consent for 350ha to be cleared. The Hawkes Bay Regional Council and Federated Farmers supported the decision and the Bayly Trust has received wide support from the local community, including local iwi.
As part of the proposal, the Bayly Trust planned to construct 20km of fencing around 800ha of kanuka bush, retiring it from cattle grazing by putting it into a QEII Trust.
Conditions of the consent ensured that the areas of high significance were protected, which cannot be guaranteed if the consent is declined.
Some people believe that the land the Baylys set aside for regeneration may be over-generous. But it wasn't enough for DoC. It seems to want to go back in time and shut the whole country down.
DoC's attitude will only antagonise farmers. We think DoC has seriously damaged its relationships with farmers over this case. DoC thinks kanuka is of national importance but farming is not. On the farm, pasture pays the bills, kanuka does not.
DoC, with its appeal to the Environment Court and apparent need for quantity over quality, is in fact jeopardising the environmental benefits proposed by the Bayly Trust. This is another example that highlights flaws in the Resource Management Act.
DoC acting in an advocacy role has seriously undermined any incentive that landowners have to voluntarily participate in surveys, work with field staff, or invest time, money and labour into protecting conservation values on private land, especially where good stewardship is rewarded with aggressive advocacy.
DoC must reprioritise its efforts, first to looking after its own land, then restrict its advocacy to matters of true national importance. It must take a balanced approach that considers whole farm sustainability and the net conservation benefit to the nation.
There are plenty of advocates for the environment. Taxpayer-funded advocacy in the planning process by DoC must stop - a more holistic approach to on-farm conservation management is needed.
This is an important case and the Bayly Trust has the federation's full support. A decision from the court is likely before the end of the year.
* Charlie Pedersen is national president of Federated Farmers of New Zealand
