A Negotiator’s Perspective: the Future of Agriculture in the UNFCCC Negotiations

Post written by H. Griffin.

With this year’s annual international climate change (UNFCCC) negotiations kicking off in Warsaw on Monday, now is a good time to look at agriculture’s place in the negotiations and where things might be headed in the future. 

Due in part to socio-economic and food security issues, progress in agricultural negotiations within the UNFCCC has been very slow. This is because of the role agriculture plays as a source of employment for many of the world’s poor, and the fact that many developing countries have had recent experiences of drought induced famine.

A new agreement is currently being negotiated and is expected to come into force in 2020 at the end of the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period. Whilst the Kyoto Protocol placed mitigation obligations on industrialised nations, the post-2020 agreement will be applicable to all nations. The negotiations are currently in a phase of design and preparation for the post-2020 agreement. It is particularly important that progress on mitigation and adaptation in the agricultural sector is made in preparation for the next agreement.

To give us a better idea about what is going on in the negotiations, Paul Melville from the Ministry for Primary Industries has kindly agreed to be interviewed for this blog. Paul is in Warsaw with the New Zealand government delegation as a negotiator in the area of agriculture.

Q. What is New Zealand hoping to achieve in relation to agriculture at the negotiations in Warsaw?

A. The discussions on Agriculture had a breakthrough at the inter-sessional meeting in Bonn this year. After many years of inconclusive negotiations, Parties agreed to a submission and workshop process as a first step of SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) work on Agriculture. This will be a useful opportunity for Parties to share experiences and lessons learned on agricultural adaptation and adaptation co-benefits. This workshop should facilitate more focussed negotiations on agriculture at Warsaw and future SBSTA sessions.

A successful work programme would aim to provide the UNFCCC with detailed scientific advice on issues relating to agriculture. One workshop will however unlikely deliver this. Though, it is often said that the hardest part of any process is taking the first step. The challenge for COP19/Warsaw is to ensure that Bonn was the first step in a wider process by continuing and building upon this work. If Warsaw was to fail to continue the progress made in Bonn we risk falling back into the previous pattern.

Q. What role can New Zealand play, both within and outside of the negotiations?

A. New Zealand likes to be a flexible thought leader wherever possible, piloting new ideas and working with a broad range of countries. We have expertise and a particular interest in issues related to agriculture, forestry and carbon markets.

Q. How is domestic policy in New Zealand relating to agricultural GHG emissions influenced by the international context?

A. There is a two-way relationship between domestic and international policy: domestic policy in New Zealand influences New Zealand’s international position; and international policy has an influence on New Zealand’s domestic policy.

While there is an influence in both directions, the two remain different. We promote international rules and commitments that are suitable for New Zealand’s domestic circumstances; and once agreed we implement commitments and rules using policies and measures that best suit our domestic policy environment.

Q. In your opinion, what would be the best outcome for agriculture in the post-2020 agreement?

A. The agricultural sector faces unique challenges. Agriculture is responsible for approximately 10–12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and is also an extremely vulnerable sector to the impacts of climate change. In addition to the challenge of having to simultaneously manage greenhouse gas emissions while adapting to climate change, it is forecast by the FAO that global agriculture will be required to increase production by 70 percent by 2050 to meet rising demand.

Outlining a best outcome for agriculture is difficult at this early stage of the negotiations as we are still working collectively in the UNFCCC on the design of the post-2020 agreement. However, by focusing on what we do know we can begin to understand what a good outcome for agriculture could look like.

We know the post-2020 agreement will include measures that will be ‘applicable to all’ Parties. We assume it will include, amongst other things, mitigation, adaptation and finance. We know that agricultural systems, including considerations of capacity, scale, culture, environment, efficiency and productivity are extremely varied, and it will probably not be possible to design a one size fits all rule set.

Therefore, in order to remain applicable to all, a key feature of any treatment of agriculture will be a need to adopt an approach with sufficient flexibility to cater for this broad range of national circumstances. In this sense, although agriculture has its own unique features, the broad principle of ensuring Parties are able to take commitments consistent with their specific national circumstances remains relevant here, too. New Zealand has outlined a concept of ‘Bounded Flexibility’ in a number of fora including the below submission which builds on this idea of a flexible framework.

http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/adp_new_zealand_workstream_1_20131015.pdf

Beyond outlining that any treatment will need to be sufficiently flexible to cater for national circumstances, it is very hard to predict or prescribe outcomes for a post-2020 agreement at this early stage.



About Paul:
I am a Senior Policy Analyst in the Ministry for Primary Industries International Policy Team. Our team covers environmental policy related to forestry or agriculture. In addition to agriculture in the UNFCCC, I also have responsibilities related to common metrics in the UNFCCC (global warming potentials), environmental footprinting policy and carbon footprinting policy. Prior to working for MPI I was a member of Fonterra’s Sustainability team. While at university and high school I paid my bills by milking cows and operating a successful calf rearing business on my parent’s dairy farm near Te Awamutu.

New Motu Working Paper Shows Significant Potential for Better Farm Management Practices to Improve Environmental Outcomes

Post written by H. Griffin.

This new working paper looks at differences in management practices of New Zealand dairy farms and the mitigation of nitrogen leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. Research on this topic in New Zealand to date has relied on simulation modelling and has been limited by the fact that different farms have generally been treated as homogenous. In reality, farms vary greatly – looking at this heterogeneity gives a better idea of the potential for better environmental outcomes through more efficient farm management practices.

Using data on 264 New Zealand dairy farms, the paper estimates the extent to which farm management and farmer skill could potentially reduce farms’ greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen leaching per unit of production. It suggests that significant feasible, relatively low-cost mitigation could be effected by less efficient farmers moving towards existing best practice, potentially reducing nitrogen leaching by more than 30 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent. The potential for such mitigation varies considerably across farms.

Check out the new paper here.

New OECD Report: Policy Instruments for Green Growth in Agriculture

Post written by H. Griffin.

An OECD Green Growth report on agricultural policy instruments was released on Monday. The report synthesises the experience of OECD countries in developing and implementing green growth policies in the agricultural sector. In addition to looking at experience in the areas of improved resource-use efficiency and decreased local environmental impact, the report explores policy potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A key conclusion of the report is that whilst a wide range of policies are being used throughout the OECD, the degree of ambition is extremely variable between countries.

Check out the full report here.

Special Event - Feeding the World without Consuming the Planet

Make sure to catch this event via livestream on the 6th November 8am NZDT.

Effluent to Biofuel

Effluent processing plants that turn dairy cow effluent into biofuel could be the way of the future for New Zealand dairying.

Agribusiness manager Natasha King, winner of the Nuffield Farming Scholarship, has done research into whether gas and electricity can be generated from effluent. Whilst unable to reveal details about the proposed solution just yet, plans are underway to trial effluent processing on a 1000-cow farm in Canterbury.

Reframing the Policy Approach: Lessons from Niki Harré

Post written by H. Griffin.

Niki Harré’s Psychology for a Better World explores how we can create a society in which governments, organisations and individuals take pride in their efforts to protect the planet and each other. In the video below, Harré summarises the key messages of her book.

In a previous post, we looked at how individual environmental action can be motivated. Harré’s work is not only relevant to individuals, but also to policy-makers. The design and implementation of policy can have a huge impact on its effectiveness. Harré highlights the importance of positivity in encouraging creativity and cooperation. Positive emotions also play a vital role in facilitating behavioural change.

Framing the way agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are addressed in a more positive manner could be very beneficial. Approximately half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions relate to agriculture. The mitigation of these emissions is particularly challenging because current mitigation options are mostly associated with farm management practices and must be implemented by tens of thousands of farmers. There are currently no ‘silver bullet’ technologies that can be imposed or implemented by agricultural processing/distribution companies on behalf of farmers. Furthermore, incorporating agriculture into the ETS – which has been the focus of public debate – risks generating large wealth transfers. Because of this, it is crucial that communication of the issue is productive in facilitating positive action.
 

Political debate on the issue so far has been polarised, negative and unproductive. Harré shows us that reframing the policy conversation could potentially better equip New Zealand’s agricultural sector to face the challenges ahead.

As explored in this Motu note, New Zealand can play an important role in global climate change mitigation efforts as a policy leader. Positively reframing our policy debate domestically is an important step in enabling New Zealand to play this role.

 Instead of tales of terror, we need to be telling tales of joy. We also need to be designing policy that facilitates the acknowledgement of positive behaviour of farmers. Harré suggests that making positive behaviour more visible to other farmers could have multiplying effects as people tend to copy each other.

100% Perception: DCDs and our International Image

Post written by Hannah Griffin


The recent food safety controversies involving Fonterra have highlighted the critically important interdependence between NZ’s exporters and our international brand. Further controversy surrounding DCD traces followed by a botulism scare were linked with river water quality in a wide ranging attack by the UK’s Daily Mail, alleging our ‘100% Pure’ slogan was “pure manure”. Whilst some have claimed the 100% Pure line should be taken with a grain of salt, export bans put in place by unaffected countries demonstrates the serious consequences of mishandled communications.

In the past month, bans and suspensions of Fonterra’s products have variously occurred in Russia, Sri Lanka and most recently Bangladesh. Particularly unsettling is Sri Lanka’s focus on DCD residues and Bangladesh’s related “nitrate in the milk powder” concerns.

Regardless of the (disputed) extent to which DCD residues have been detected, it is absolutely essential that we effectively communicate with our trading partners to avoid our brand being unnecessarily tarnished. Although DCD is non-toxic and presents no food-safety risk, many international markets have little to no tolerance of any level of chemical residue in their food - there is no international standard prescribing an acceptable level of DCD.

But why are we using DCD in the first place? DCD (technically ‘Dicyandiamide’) is one of the most promising technologies available for reducing the environmental impact of agriculture - it is the only product recognised under New Zealand’s National Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Inventory as a mitigation tool. This, and its additional effect of reducing the level of Nitrate leaching into our waterways, makes its usage very compelling, from an environmental perspective.

Approximately half of NZ’s emissions relate to agriculture and of these, 20% are related to livestock emissions from nitrous oxide and a further 6% from Nitrogen-heavy fertilisers. Motu and Landcare Research studies have shown that regulating nutrient run-off in water catchments or GHG emissions will generally lead to improvements in both; this is largely driven by changes in land use but also on-farm management decisions. Other, pre-experimental modelling under the Pastoral 21 programme has suggested it may be technically feasible to enact a 30% reduction in N leaching using current technologies even with a 20% increase in production. This suggests that significant nitrous oxide reductions may also be possible.

But do the economics stack up? Since agriculture is not included in the emissions trading scheme, farmers cannot use DCD to directly benefit from the reduction in CO2-e emissions. Positively though, DCD usage can in some circumstances boost pasture production by 5-10% but most studies suggest that its use will still come at a cost to profitability. DairyNZ work suggests that 20% reductions in leaching may be possible on dairy farms in Canterbury, while maintaining farm profitability.

Technological advances in agriculture represent a huge opportunity to increase the sustainability of our farming systems, without compromising food safety. It is essential that we pre-emptively address the potential concerns of our trade partners so as to enhance, rather than jeopardise our clean, green reputation.