Opinion: The recent OECD Committee for Agriculture (COAG) meeting highlighted New Zealand’s world-leading role in taking action on climate change.
The first meeting of the OECD Committee for Agriculture (COAG) since 2016 was held in Paris at the beginning of November, just before the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27 – the 27th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
The COAG meeting was co-chaired by Minister for Primary Industries, Hon Damien O’Connor.
The significance of the timing and New Zealand’s leadership role should not be overlooked. Agriculture and climate are linked, and New Zealand is ahead of other counties in taking action.
Investment in research and development and infrastructure for agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has already increased significantly, and a new Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions has been established to accelerate progress.
New Zealand is also in the midst of a discussion about how to bring agricultural emissions into a priced framework to meet the targets established in 2019 in the Climate Change Response Amendment Act.
Other countries are not yet as far advanced as New Zealand in considering introducing pricing of agriculture emissions, but many are facing targets to reduce them.
This means that New Zealand is sharing in the vision for governments on the actions needed to transform agriculture and food systems with a view to i) ensuring food security and nutrition, ii) strengthening sustainability and iii) ensuring inclusive livelihoods.
Given the debate on agriculture and emissions domestically, the sharing in global objectives is reassuring - we are in the global waka.
By placing food security and nutrition first, the Declaration echoes the Paris Agreement of 2015, which stated that countries should do everything they can to reduce GHG emissions without reducing food production.
New Zealand farmers are doing their best, and the latest research from AgResearch shows that for meat and milk we still have the lowest footprint globally.
Other countries have made gains, and nobody intends to rest on any laurels, but the data suggest that if New Zealand reduces flock and herd size in an effort to reduce emissions, the global situation for GHG could worsen.
This has been the concern voiced by groups such as Federated Farmers of New Zealand. The assumption is that less efficient countries would pick up the space that New Zealand produce had been occupying.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Photo / Supplied
And though assumptions might not be right, if they are, afforestation, driven by the Carbon price and the ETS, means that we are already on a poor trajectory.
The Government’s response to the pricing proposal from He Waka Eke Noa (the Primary Sector Partnership) assumed that over a million hectares of land would be going into forestry over the next few years.
The effect on the sheep sector would be an 18 per cent reduction in production (at a medium price levy). Although dairy production in the modelling reduced by only 4 per cent in milk solids (in the same scenario), the ripple effect of the afforestation on the sheep sector was not considered. Land going into forestry also affects dairy beef which then affects the beef footprint.
And beef and sheep are often integrated with deer because having different stock classes can assist with pasture and land management and is part of creating a resilient business.
The ripples also reach schools, medical practices, shops etc. which means that point three in the Declaration - inclusive livelihoods – is also hit.
Point two in the Declaration, strengthening sustainability, is fundamental in New Zealand. It has been the focus of work for over a century. Definitions of sustainability have changed over the years, and New Zealand farmers have adapted and adopted new approaches and technologies.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
The new Declaration brought to the fore the importance of the OECD’s agri-environmental indicators “based on science, to foster environmental and climate stewardship of agriculture, and the conservation of land, water and biodiversity”.
No scientist would suggest basing anything as important as food security and the environment on anything but science … noting that the dismal science economics, is included.
As the genesis of the dismal science descriptor is thought to be Malthus’ prediction that population would grow faster than food supply, the inclusion is appropriate.
It is also appropriate to remember that until very recently, food production kept up with population growth because of scientific research enabling productivity gains.
COAG provided the setting to identify opportunities and challenges facing food production and identify potential solutions for the globe.
Productivity gains must be part of the future. But so must the goals articulated by Minister O’Connor of “establishing the right settings for our people, environment and agricultural sectors to thrive”.
New Zealanders in general, and farmers in particular, can take heart: thriving is what everybody wants for their families, their businesses, New Zealand and the world.
Perhaps it is the settings of the ETS that need changing.
- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor at Lincoln University, has a PhD in Soil Science (nutrient cycling) and is a Director of Ravensdown, DairyNZ and Deer Industry NZ. The analysis and conclusions above are her own. jsrowarth@gmail.com
