Carbon Farming Group - new biological farming video.

Post written by R. Cretney

A new video released by the Carbon Farming Group demonstrates the case study of one farm in the Golden Bay area that is successfully applying biological farming principles.

Late last year Motu Research Analyst Zack Dorner compiled a comprehensive post on the arguments for and against biological farming as a method for increasing stores of soil carbon. The evidence put forward by scientists in this area shows that the evidence for biological farming is currently less than conclusive. Troy Baisden, who is mentioned in Zack's post, says that while the evidence is not currently strong in favor of the techniques, they are probably not harmful to soil carbon levels.

However this does not mean biological farming has no benefits for farmers. This latest video from the Carbon Farming Group details some of the other benefits that farmers using this technique might benefit from, including adaptation to different climates. Mark Manson, who narrates the video, discusses the benefits to his family farm. While reducing stocking rates he has maintained and improved the milk production of his farm through changes to the management of stock feed and soil conditions.

One of the features of his farm is that it is significantly comprised of land that is particularly dry– especially during the summer months. In past years this has led to Mark having to sell stock when feed supplies became low. Now however, through focusing on improving the base saturation of the soil (a focus on soil pH, magnesium, sodium and potassium), the soil is more resilient to climatic changes, more biologically diverse and experiences less compaction. Combined with a diversification of grass types this means that Mark can successfully run the same stock numbers throughout the year, even in dry conditions.

You can read more about biological farming from the Carbon Farming Group here.

Droughts cause pain for farmers and government

Post written by R. Cretney.

While it is now raining in some parts of the country - widespread declaration of drought has been one of the top news stories last week. The regions of Northland, South Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Coromandel and Hawke's Bay were first to be announced as drought zones. The government soon followed by declaring the whole North Island a drought zone this week. 

Some media stories are even declaring this the worst drought to ever strike New Zealand. This drought follows similar events in 2007, 2008 and 2010 indicating support for NIWA's prediction of more frequent and severe droughts in the next 30 years.

This image shows the soil moisture deficit as of 6th March 2013 compared to the same time in 2012 and the historical average deficit.

These events have severe impacts on farmers leading to reduced milk production, increased requirement for supplementary feed leading to increased expenses and financial losses.

Such an event also shows the potential effect of climate change on rural livelihoods and the national economy. Bill English recently said that farmers need to adapt to these changes as it is not sustainable for the government to continue provide financial assistance to farmers.

Such pressure from the weather and government may influence farmers to change their practices leading to changes in land-use patterns. This will be explored in a new research programme led by NIWA and Landcare Research. 

However, the long-term forecast is not necessarily bad for farmers, as one Motu paper by Stroombergen covered. This paper explores the potential effects of long-term climatic influence on NZ agriculture - including the impacts on the value of commodities we sell and the chance that increased CO2 will lead to higher production of some crops. Overall he assesses that the overall economic benefits may outweigh the losses from changes in average temperature and precipitation; he is however unable to assess the impact of extreme events such as droughts which may be where the real climate costs for agriculture bite.

Post written by R. Cretney.

Behind the Brands

Post written by R. Cretney.

Oxfam has just released several pieces of interesting research into food and agriculture. One is a report on sustainable development in the Pacific which highlights the important role of agricultural projects - including providing access to high value international markets (Report available here). The other piece of research has resulted in an in-depth campaign aimed at getting us to think more about where our food comes from and how it's produced.

Behind the Brands

Consumers are increasingly voting with their wallets and choosing to buy products that align with their values. A recent study on organic agriculture found that the industry showed significant growth and is now considered "mainstream" in some centers, despite overall higher prices than conventionally grown food.

Organics Flourish in New Zealand

What does this mean for New Zealand agriculture?

Well, it provides an opportunity and a threat. Some consumers are willing to pay more for higher quality and more ethical produce. Domestically and internationally this could prove a growing selling point for New Zealand products.

The Oxfam campaign shows a growing move to highlight weaknesses or issues with some companies. This begs the question, how would our own companies stand up to such assessment?

Oxfam uses the criteria of 

1. Transparency at a corporate level

1. Women farm workers and small-scale producers in the supply chain

1. Workers on farms in the supply chain

1. Farmers (small scale) growing the commodities

1. Land, both rights and access to land and sustainable use of it

1. Water, both rights and access to water resources and sustainable use of it

1. Climate, both relating to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping farmers adapt to climate change.

We might score very well on some of these counts - but others may need further work. One way that this debate is being played out in relation to New Zealand is through the current criticism of Tourism NZ’s 100% pure brand. One man is even taking the country’s advertising slogan to the Advertising Standards Authority to protest at the inaccuracy of the statement.

Recent research, by Woods and Coleman, could not find statistical evidence that New Zealand producers can influence their market power or move towards higher value markets in response to changing commodity prices. However, some NZ producers may be receiving a premium locally for niche sustainability products. Mike Barton from Taupo Beef who participated in AgDialogue has benefited from marketing his beef products as sustainably reared on the shores of Lake Taupo. Such a scheme is similar to the Irish "Origin Green" label mentioned in a previous post here. Farmers engaged in these practices show real potential for protecting and strengthening "Brand NZ". 

Proactive banking

Post written by R. Cretney.

Some positive news this week from ASB Bank. ASB has just released its first proactive banking scheme that aims to achieve the right balance between productivity and sustainability.

Proactive banking was one of the prototype ideas that arose from Agdialogue. The concept is targeted at farmers who want to invest in reducing their environmental footprint and increasing their sustainability. This is achieved in the ASB scheme by providing a low cost loan that is competitively priced at ASB's cost of funding with no extra customer margins applied.

Mark Heer, ASB General Manager Rural says in the article that "farmers consistently tell us that they are doing their best to ensure that their farms are operating to the highest environmental standards...In offering this new loan, ASB wants to be part of the solution by providing farmers with a low cost funding option to get their farm to where it needs to be".

This is great news for farmers and the environment!

The ASB article can be found here.

The good, the bad and the ugly: how do different greenhouse gases compare?

Which greenhouse gas contributes the most to global warming? The bad news, for those who want a simple answer, is that it really depends on how you define the question. 

One oft-quoted statistic is that three quarters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are made up of carbon dioxide. Another is that in New Zealand almost half our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. And these emissions aren't carbon dioxide - rather, roughly 2/3 are methane and 1/3 are nitrous oxide. 

But what do these figures mean? Does agriculture produce roughly one out of every two kilograms of gas we emit? Or is agriculture ultimately responsible for roughly half our contribution to global warming? 

Somewhat mysteriously, the answer is – neither. There are three important variables to keep in mind when comparing carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The first is the quantity in kilograms of gas emitted - more gas causes more warming. The second is how long gas molecules linger in the atmosphere - and this varies significantly across types of gas. The third is how much energy a kilogram of each type of gas traps in the atmosphere per unit time.

The statistics referred to above don't tell us about the number of kilograms of each gas emitted, nor about the total amount of energy that each type of gas will trap in the atmosphere in the long run. Rather, they are calculated by taking the number of kilograms of each gas that we emit, and multiplying it by a "global warming potential" (GWP). A GWP is the amount of energy that one kilogram of that gas traps in the atmosphere over a 100 year period relative to carbon dioxide. For instance methane's GWP is more than 20, which means that in the 100 years after a kilogram of methane is emitted, it will trap over 20 times as much energy in the earth's atmosphere as one kilogram of carbon dioxide will.

The thing about GWPs is that they only look 100 years into the future. If we care only about the short term, then GWP - or an even shorter term measure - might be the best to use. But if we want to consider the impact of gases more than a hundred years forward, then we might think that GWP over- or understates the effect a gas has on warming. How far ahead should we look? The question remains open for debate.

In this video, Dave Frame from the Victoria University of Wellington Climate Change Institute discusses these differences between the three types of gas. The results might be surprising! Note that Dave’s comparisons are per-kilogram, and don’t necessarily reflect the aggregate contribution to global warming of each gas.

Concerns and capabilities lead to action

The AgDialogue process Motu recently ran was designed to create a dialogue amongst agriculture sectoral groups, government, academics and individual farmers around dealing with New Zealand’s agricultural GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. One of the outcomes of this discussion was the creation of a matrix to describe how we can get action on wicked problems such as lowering agricultural GHG emissions: who can act and what can they do.

In this short video, Suzi Kerr explains the thinking behind the matrix.
 

Below is the matrix. Rather than being a large computer programme set up to create an alternate reality, the AgDialogue matrix is really a simple way of visualising what Suzi explains in the video.

Basically, an action intended to help reduce our agricultural GHGs can fit into one or more of the boxes in the matrix. The ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) for example, would fit into the top right box, as a national level regulation designed to incentivise emission reductions. The Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Center would fit in the top-middle box.

However, as Suzi points out in the video, we need adequate concern and capabilities as well as regulations to reward good and penalise poor behaviour. By using the AgDialogue matrix, we can identify who could undertake actions, and what these actions could aim to achieve. When we have populated it with a set of existing actions, if there are any gaps, we can come up with creative ways of filling in these gaps – as we did through AgDialogue.

A piece of research, done by Taciano Milfont at Victoria University of Wellington backs up the thinking behind the matrix. Importantly, his research was carried out in New Zealand – something that is very valuable as we often have to rely on research coming from larger countries, and apply their findings here.

Using data from a one year study, Taciano concludes: “Knowing more about global warming and climate change increases overall concern about the risks of these issues, and this increased concern leads to greater perceived efficacy and responsibility to help solving them.”

Taciano’s research paper can be found online for free here.

A special thanks to former Motu Research Analyst Zach Dorner for drafting this post.

Community involvement in environmental education and governance

Environmental education is crucial for engaging people from all walks of life to make informed decisions about issues such as biodiversity loss, climate destabilisation and resource depletion. Ardoin, Clark and Kelsey's recent paper "An exploration of future trends in environmental education research" has explored the possible future directions that environmental education may take. The authors' study was undertaken with an awareness of the increasing impact of global trends such as the technology revolution, the urban age, and the globalisation of environmental issues.

A number of interesting findings flow from the authors' research. One suggestion made is that that environmental education and research may broadening in focus from the individual to community level. The idea that education and research can be inclusive and collaborative is well-instanced in the project around which this blog was founded - the Agricultural Emissions Dialogue process. The project brought together farmers, iwi, economists, scientists, government and other experts to discuss issues around agricultural emissions. Whilst the group conducted no formal research, the dialogues proved to be the catalyst for a number of pieces of research by Motu (see the bottom of this page) and our recently published short film and teaching materials. Two of the earlier entries on this blog have specifically considered the process of dialogue - this post by Ana Ngamoki, and this post by Geoff Simmons.

It may be the case that environmental governance, like environmental education, will increasingly broaden towards a community-focussed approach. The Land and Water Forum's recent series of reports on how freshwater management in New Zealand can be improved called for community decision-making at catchment level, within a framework created by central government. The Forum's third report emphasised the need for community buy-in to ensure regulation is effective, and the importance of giving weight to community-specific needs and values in decision making.

Another issue that Ardoin, Clark and Kelsey touch on is the highlighted opportunity for engagement that social media brings. With that in mind, this is probably a good point at which to remind readers about ways in which they can engage with this blog. Comments are most welcome, as are suggestions for topics (email us at info@motu.org.nz). And to subscribe to receive updates when posts are made, simply enter your email address in the "Follow By Email" field to the right.