Dr Jacqueline Rowarth: Climate change - the problem with mitigation and adaptation

Dr Jacqueline Rowarth takes a closer look at the mitigation and adaptation debate. Photo / Pexels

Opinion: Mitigation and adaptation will continue to be the focus of New Zealand agriculture but all New Zealanders need to play their part as well.

Mitigation AND Adaptation. Climate Change Minister James Shaw has stated frequently that it must be both.

The problem is “how”?

New Zealand has a small population, needs the primary sector for the export economy and relies mostly on fossil fuel transport, which has been the escalating contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Speaking at the NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Conference (NZAGRC) at the end of February, Minister Shaw told the delegates (a mixture of scientists, farmers, rural professionals, media and policy analysts) that adaptation is a poor cousin to mitigation… and that New Zealand has “not done that well” on mitigation.

He went on to say that there was a muddle in the rural sector about the Paris Agreement.

This has a clause that has been interpreted as “doing everything you can to reduce GHG without impacting food production”.

To Minister Shaw, the Paris Agreement isn’t a “get out of jail” card for New Zealand; we have to bring methane down.

He also stated that we have to divorce food security and famine from profit.

For the farmers in the audience, who haven’t been asking for a free pass and who are struggling with economic viability, the implication hit a sour note.

The latest milk price forecast from Fonterra has put many dairy farmers into the red. Beef and sheep farmers are in a similar position.

Analysts making comments about “strong prices” have overlooked the impact of spiralling costs.

For dairy farmers, the mid-point of Fonterra’s current milk price ($8.50) is the cost of production, leaving nothing for environmental upgrades or coping with the increases in bank interest rates.

This is why He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) has been the subject of so much debate.

It isn’t that farmers are stick-in-the-mud, too old to change, suffering psychological resistance…. or any of the other explanations that are used to imply slow change… it is that most have done everything they can already over the last 30 years in the ongoing chase for efficiency and productivity.

New Zealand’s agricultural productivity gains have been twice as great as those in the OECD.

In the last decade, multifactor productivity has exceeded 2 per cent in agriculture, which is almost double that achieved in the OECD.

Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Photo / Supplied

By focusing on efficiencies, New Zealand farmers have achieved world-leading status in terms of the least environmental impact.

They are facing the HWEN levy when costs of production mean there is no surplus income and no tools to assist GHG reduction.

The NZAGRC GHG conference at the end of February showcased all the approaches that scientists are taking to identify ways of reducing methane and nitrous oxides associated with animals.

It was scientifically terrific. But in terms of practical options on-farm, nothing was put forward that could be implemented on-farm without considerable capital input, legislative change or more time to develop.

This applied to eco-pond, nitrification inhibitors and breeding, respectively. Vaccines were also in the last category – more research is necessary.

This leaves New Zealand with a problem. And trees are not the answer.

Trying to offset New Zealand’s emissions through sequestration and carbon credits was discredited at the NZAGRC Conference by both the Chair of the Climate Change Commission Rod Carr, and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton.

In fact, to quote Dr Carr “it’s nonsense”.

He went on to suggest that offsets which are neither permanent nor enforceable are greenwashing, and to point out that the oil and gas industry globally is continuing to explore reserves… with the expectation of revenue whether the fuel is burned or not.

“The potential to pollute becomes a ransom on society – what will you pay me not to pollute?”

This concept also applies to agriculture. Dutch farmers are being bought out by their government in an effort to reduce emissions.

Environmentalists here have suggested that farmers should be paid to destock their farms.

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

But they’ve also suggested that they can do so without reducing profit.

The research does not support the belief – the Northern Dairy Development Trust Future Farms trial has shown that a system aimed at low emissions resulted in lower production and income than the current farm system.

A 9 per cent reduction in emissions per kg milk solids was achieved with a 38 per cent decrease in milk and 40 per cent decrease in income.

The results don’t mean that farmers will stop trying to improve efficiencies, but there are, as yet, no silver bullets available to reduce GHG without compromising food production … and the export economy of the country.

In contrast, there are things that New Zealanders can do. Fossil fuel use is one of them. Another is fast fashion.

While the general concerns about the cost of living continue, with ongoing statements about the importance of keeping the fuel subsidy for Business As Usual (BAU), we also need to remember that food and fibre exports contribute over 80 per cent of the export economy – and without exports, the New Zealand lifestyle would be significantly reduced.

Mitigation and adaptation will continue to be the focus for agriculture. The same needs to apply to personal decisions: BAU is not OK.

- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, is a director of DairyNZ, Deer Industry New Zealand and Ravensdown. The analysis and conclusions above are her own. jsrowarth@gmail.com