Thursday, 05 July 2018 09:55

Subsidies no good for environment

Written by  Dr Jacqueline Rowarth
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Dr Jacqueline Rowarth.

OPINION: Farmer subsidies don't help environmental issues.

By taking nitrogen (N) from the air to make fertiliser, the Haber-Bosch process has been called the greatest invention of the 20th century; without it almost half the world’s population would not be alive today. 

The availability of nitrogenous fertiliser removed the key constraint to crop productivity.  

That story was broadcast on RadioNZ earlier this year in the series ‘Fifty things that made the modern economy’.

Global agriculture has, however, become steadily more dependent on synthetic nitrogenous compounds. This dependence has been described as a ‘deadly addiction’ because overuse of N leads to losses into waterways and increases in greenhouse gases.

Production versus environment is a global conundrum and American researchers stated this year that identifying what changes can be made to farming operations to reduce N losses while maintaining productivity and profitability is still a challenge. For some countries it will be more of a challenge than others, and NZ could be one of the lucky ones.

At the end of May, the UK Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) published ‘Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2017’. The report shows that the N balance (the difference between N coming into the UK and that leaving it) was 90.7kg/ha, an increase of 4%. Despite no change in inputs, yields had decreased, so more N was assumed lost.

The N balance in NZ reported widely last year was 49kg/ha. While it is true that it had increased in the last decade (to 2009 in the OECD Environmental Performance Review 2017), it is also true that the countries praised for reducing their impact, for example the Netherlands, had reached about 204kg/ha (down from 302 kg/ha in 1998-2000). The UK was 97 (down from 120kg/ha in 1998-2000).

In a different report in February, Defra indicated that in the 2014/15-2016/17 period, 16% of farms made a loss even with ‘support’ (which we term subsidies). Without these payments from the government, 41% of farms would have made a loss.

Further analysis shows that only the top 25% of farms actually made money from farming; the next 25% broke even on farming but made money on the payments; the next 25% lost money on farming which was partially offset by the payments; and the bottom 25% simply lost money.

Across all farm types, 61% of farm business income came from direct payments, with grazing livestock and mixed farms most dependent. 

The UK subsidies include direct payments based mostly on area of land, but with a third on ‘Greening’. The EU states that the ‘Greening’ payment “supports action to adopt and maintain farming practices that help meet environment and climate goals as market prices do not reflect the effort involved in providing these public goods”. Permanent grassland (which dominates NZ agriculture) is supported because it helps maintain biodiversity and soil carbon.

Subsidy payments are also for diversification (non-agricultural on or off farm, but using farm resources), and agri-environment. The latter was set up because ‘Greening’ was failing to meet environmental objectives. Agri-environment is paid on an ‘opportunity cost’ or ‘income foregone’ basis, recognising that environmental initiatives might impact on profitability – recognising, in fact, that it is hard to be green when you are in the red. 

Discussions are occurring about how the payments in the UK might be phased out. More efficient use of fertiliser, changing the timing and amount, has already been proposed; so has soil testing.

NZ, with its excellent soil testing services, and heightened awareness of losses and what might reduce them using Overseer as a guide, has a part to play in assisting UK farmers, and others, to reduce losses. NZ was mentioned in the US research as having made great progress, including on a catchment basis. 

And, of course, the NZ LAWA 2018 report states that more rivers are improving, including in nitrate, than deteriorating. All without subsidies.

Why aren’t more people pointing this out?

• Dr Jacqueline Rowarth has a PhD in soil science and has been analysing agri-environment interaction for several decades.

Featured

NZ household food waste falls again

Kiwis are wasting less of their food than they were two years ago, and this has been enough to push New Zealand’s total household food waste bill lower, the 2025 Rabobank KiwiHarvest Food Waste survey has found.

Editorial: No joking matter

OPINION: Sir Lockwood Smith has clearly and succinctly defined what academic freedom is all about, the boundaries around it and the responsibility that goes with this privilege.

DairyNZ plantain trials cut nitrate leaching by 26%

DairyNZ says its plantain programme continues to deliver promising results, with new data confirming that modest levels of plantain in pastures reduce nitrogen leaching, offering farmers a practical, science-backed tool to meet environmental goals.

National

Machinery & Products

Tech might take time

Agritech Unleashed – a one-day event held recently at Mystery Creek, near Hamilton – focused on technology as an ‘enabler’…

John Deere acquires GUSS Automation

John Deere has announced the full acquisition of GUSS Automation, LLC, a globally recognised leader in supervised high-value crop autonomy,…

Fencing excellence celebrated

The Fencing Contractors Association of New Zealand (FCANZ) celebrated the best of the best at the 2025 Fencing Industry Awards,…

» Latest Print Issues Online

The Hound

A step too far

OPINION: For years, the ironically named Dr Mike Joy has used his position at Victoria University to wage an activist-style…

Save us from SAFE

OPINION: A mate of yours truly has had an absolute gutsful of the activist group SAFE.

» Connect with Rural News

» eNewsletter

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter