2019

Executive Summary

The New Zealand Net Zero Carbon Act’s main objective is that New Zealand contributes no further to global warming by 2050, a target commonly known as ‘Net Zero Carbon 2050’. To reach this vision, targets have been set for all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in New Zealand. Agriculture, as New Zealand’s largest GHG emitting sector, will face pressure on productivity and profitability as it works towards Net Zero carbon. Other sectors will also face pressure, particularly the energy sector which is New Zealand’s second largest GHG emitting sector. Forecasts show that not only will the energy sector need to transition to low emission alternatives, but the mix of energy types (electricity, gas, oil etc.) will need to shift to meet new technological innovations and increasing energy demand.

Given this challenge, I believe there are opportunities for the sectors to work together for mutual benefit. My travels and report seek to answer the question:

What energy farming opportunities could New Zealand farmers pursue to help our country reach Net Zero Carbon 2050?

Energy farming is where farms generate a form of energy (electricity, gas, fuel or heat) on farm that can be exported for use elsewhere in the economy. To be successful in helping achieve Net Zero Carbon 2050, the farmed energy must have lower GHG emissions that the fossil fuel alternative it is often replacing, and be technically and economically viable for the farmer.

Energy farming may become vital to future energy generation as forecasts show New Zealand’s current energy path, particularly our perceived reliance on hydroelectric power and electric vehicles, will not move the industry far towards Net Zero Carbon 2050.

I set out on my travels to visit a range of energy farming operations in Ireland and California. Both Ireland and California, like New Zealand, have a large and successful agricultural sector and face similar pressure to reduce GHG emissions from all sectors.

Technologically, the range of energy farming options is diverse. Some are already common in New Zealand, like solar and wind power. Others are rare, but innovating rapidly using such technology as Agrovoltaics and anaerobic digestor biogas with refining. Each operation aims to take advantage of local weather conditions or available feedstocks to create a usable energy product. Every energy farming operation in this report could technically work here in New Zealand.

Environmentally, the GHG emissions from each operation was more favourable that the fossil fuel alternative with some even sequestering more carbon than they emit. Consequently, each option would help lower energy GHG emissions in New Zealand.

Economically however, each energy farming operation I examined was influenced heavily by local policy and incentives to make them competitive with cheaper fossil fuel alternatives. The policy and incentives in both California and Ireland were imbedded in their respective government’s energy strategies.

To make these technically and environmentally feasible energy farming opportunities profitable to New Zealand farmers, New Zealand needs an energy strategy that is similarly supportive of energy farming. It turns out, we are in the early stages of developing such a strategy in New Zealand, but the agricultural voice is absent.

To resolve this economic roadblock, I recommend three actions:

1. Create a Farming Energy Working Group (FEWG), by pulling in expert knowledge from across the agricultural sector in advocacy, science and development. In addition to agricultural experts, include some external energy advice to create a group uniquely skilled in leading energy farming to New Zealand.
2. The FEWG should enter the New Zealand energy strategy conversation and work alongside the energy sector and government to advocate for, and implement, policy to economically support energy farming. Such polices could include low interest funding of energy farming investments, standards to replace liquid fossil fuel with biofuel alternatives and long term price guarantees for farmed energy.
3. The FEWG should collate local and international knowledge on energy farming to create case studies and systems that can be demonstrated on farm, both to policy makers and farmers, to build confidence in the future of energy farming.

By implementing these recommendations, every energy farming option outlined in the report, could successfully be pursued by farmers in New Zealand to help the country achieve Net Zero Carbon 2050.

Read the full report here:
 Farming Energy: Opportunities to help New Zealand reach net zero carbon 2050.
-Cameron Henderson, 2019

Executive Summary

In 1974 a product was developed that would revolutionise agriculture. It would go on to be the most used chemical spray in global agriculture largely due to its low toxicity, negligible soil residue and zero plant back period. That product was glyphosate and was sold under the trade name Roundup. It was the product of intensification, of specialisation and globalisation.

There has been much dialogue in the last few years regarding glyphosate and claimed negative impacts on the environment and human health. This dialogue is in part due to its association with genetically modified plants and also as it is the world’s most widely used agrichemical. The classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer has led to calls for a reduction in use and led to a ban in some European Countries.

The aim of this study was to establish, from a farmer’s point of view, what the issues are around glyphosate use, how it is regulated in New Zealand and what farmers in New Zealand could learn from others if a ban or de-registration were to become a reality.
Science is conflicted over glyphosate and its use. However there appears to be no definitive answer or evidence that glyphosate is detrimental to human health or the environment. In contrast there is much correlation between these two factors and a robust conclusion is difficult to draw.

Farmers overseas are successful in reducing their reliance and applications on glyphosate by adopting a more holistic approach to their agronomic management. In cases such as the seed industry in Denmark, the loss of glyphosate would see a shift in farming policy and a move of the industry off shore.

I found no real need for alarm in New Zealand as our current inputs of glyphosate are relatively low and are confined to 6% of our land area. It is important that we retain the option of this product and we as farmers need to be mindful of its use and avoid applications such as pre-harvest weed control.

In isolation farmers can certainly do without glyphosate but at an industry level and global level the loss of this tool would mean a loss of yield, an increase in alternative chemistry, an increase in carbon emissions, higher costs to the farmer and an increase in the price of food.

Central to this issue is a social problem that stems from fear of the unknown, due to a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer but also the farmer. The linear nature of the current value chain means feedback to either end is virtually impossible. This is the biggest challenge of all.

As a result of my observations and reflections I can recommend the following actions for industry:

1.   Avoid pre-harvest weed control on cereal crops and pasture.
2.   Discuss openly the future of agriculture including GMO
3.   Establish a communication loop in the value chain between the consumer and the
farmer
4.   Model Glyphosate’s contribution to the economy in New Zealand.

Read the full report here:
Can we farm without glyphosate? – Hamish Marr, 2019.