Allan Barber points out the sort of damage the 'dinosaur' views of some in the rural sector could do if they won the argument to abandon our climate commitments. It would be a spectacular trade own-goal

I am disappointed if not surprised by calls from Farmers Weekly readers and Groundswell to withdraw New Zealand’s commitment to the Paris Accord, as it would reduce the need to meet onerous climate change targets. But while it might produce a momentary sense of relief, the longer term effects would be both difficult to estimate and potentially very damaging.

The state of the world in a geopolitical and more narrowly a trade sense is very uncertain at the moment. Sudden changes from the status quo are likely to produce unforeseen outcomes and we will never be able to please every trading partner, so logic tells me it would be wise to take a deep breath and keep our heads below the parapet.

For example, despite Winston Peters’ assurances, we don’t know if the USA is about to slap tariffs on imports from New Zealand, whether or not these are justified in the overall context of Trump’s desire to protect American production. Even if we are not caught up in the first wave of tariffs on agricultural products signalled for early April, we know the American sheep farming lobby is pushing hard for protection against imports of sheepmeat.

If New Zealand pulled out of Paris, I can’t imagine that this will gain us special treatment from the US. Despite their close relationship, they didn’t give Australia an exemption from tariffs on iron and steel.

With the spectre of tariffs by the US and a likely continued weak Chinese economy, maintaining as many options as possible in other markets is essential. 

On the positive side we now have free trade negotiations underway with India, while we continue to enjoy unparallelled access to China. The Paris Accord commitment may not currently be a component of the China FTA, but both India and China are members of the Paris Accord and there’s no indication they intend to withdraw. 

The recently concluded FTAs with the EU and UK contain a review process which requires both parties to commit to reaching the overall goal of the Paris Climate Accord not to exceed 1.5degC by 2050. This entails a commitment not to indulge in any acts or omissions which hinder the achievement of this goal. But it does not seek to prescribe any detailed targets which are solely New Zealand’s business, while the Accord also specifically recognises the importance of food production to the global population.

Since we concluded our FTA with the UK there have been repeated attempts by UK farming groups, and most recently the UK Minister of Agriculture, himself to question New Zealand’s animal welfare and environmental standards.  UK farming groups would leap at the chance to wind back our access if we pulled out of Paris.    

As a predominantly agricultural economy, it is critically important for New Zealand to be able to continue to produce foodstuffs economically while meeting scientifically justifiable environmental targets.

We have long liked to think of ourselves as leaders with a reputation for adopting new technology like genetics, animal health, computer-based grazing controls, and robotics. It would be unfortunate if New Zealand were to gain another reputation as an environmental dinosaur, refusing to commit to meeting goals agreed by the world’s leading scientists.

This should not imply a willingness to accept blindly every single standard recommended by the Climate Change Commissioner and implemented by politicians eager to appease vocal minorities.

Rather than pulling out of Paris, the focus should be on getting New Zealand’s domestic methane targets right, as they are demonstrably too high.

The call for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Accord, however, suggests our farmers are not willing to meet environmental standards, whether they are scientifically justifiable or not. This plays into the hands of those groups that are convinced farming is bad for the environment, as well as placing Ministers and trade negotiators in an untenable position.

The public don’t understand our precise international commitments, but pulling out of Paris is something they would understand. It may not play well with swing NZ voters which could lead to the election of a Labour, Greens and Maori Party coalition and reversal of the current government’s policy settings.    

The positive number of sheep and beef farmers adopting the NZ farm assurance programme and, increasingly, the NZFAP+ standard, plus the dairy farmers complying with Fonterra’s quality measures, indicate a willingness to do what makes sense, both for the environment and their own farm business.

Surely most farmers are keen to do their level best to meet logical environmental goals instead of burying their heads in the sand. As an example, a friend tells me he is determined to measure the water quality from several streams on the way into and off his farm and is working with Auckland Council and his farm consultant to find out how best to do this.

I like to think this is more typical of today’s proactive farmer than the 69% who voted to withdraw from the Paris Accord in the Farmers Weekly poll.

Current schedule and saleyard prices are available in the right-hand menu of the Rural section of this website.