Restoring nature could depend on how countries help farmers

Famous for its lamb, New Zealand's agriculture industry was once so well-subsidised that slaughterhouse workers were said to earn more than airline pilots, recalled William Rolleston, a farmer in South Canterbury and leading advocate for the sector.

A few decades ago, huge subsidies meant vast swathes of the country's marginal land was cleared for grazing, fertiliser was overused, and the sheep population boomed to the point where surplus meat had to be destroyed.

Across New Zealand, the subsidy programmes took a toll on nature, polluting rivers and eroding soils, according to a study by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Then, in 1984, there was "total upheaval", Rolleston said.

In a radical shift, the subsidies were removed or phased out. Farming became more efficient while harmful practices decreased: fertiliser use declined by 50 per cent and many farmers' hillsides were reforested, according to the CBD's report.

While agriculture remains a major source of the country's planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, New Zealand is still held up by biodiversity campaigners as a "poster child" for reforming subsidies that harm nature and the environment.

The issue is expected to feature at the UN's COP15 biodiversity summit — which begins in Montreal, Canada, next week — where countries will try to agree to a framework to protect biodiversity.

The latest draft agreement includes a target to reform at least US$500 billion of harmful subsidies annually across sectors, including agriculture.

Around the world, government subsidies that harm nature amount to at least US$1.8 trillion each year — equivalent to 2 per cent of global gross domestic product — according to a study published in February by the Business for Nature advocacy group.

It said, agriculture subsidies — at US$520 billion annually — are the largest drivers of ecosystem destruction, along with those for fossil fuels — at US$640 billion — which have a more indirect impact on biodiversity, mainly through climate change.

Concerns are growing over the world's ability to control climate change and halt temperature rise, with a recent World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report showing that nature had absorbed 54 per cent of human-related carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade.

Agricultural subsidies for things like meat production and fertilisers are also considered a threat to long-term food security. A decrease in fertile soil means 95 per cent of land worldwide could become degraded by 2050, according to the Global Environment Facility, a multilateral fund.

Decisionmakers are "counting on" subsidy reforms to close the majority of the financing gap for biodiversity protection — estimated at US$700 billion each year — said Brian O'Donnell, director of the conservation non-profit Campaign for Nature.

"That is, in my mind, a very risky proposition," O'Donnell said, adding that it would require global political shifts for these funds to be accessed and repurposed.

"It means that governments have to truly commit to this rapidly."

The issue has been gaining momentum, including support from the Group of Seven wealthy nations, reforms to the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy subsidies programme, and a World Trade Organisation deal to prohibit harmful fishery subsidies.

However, O'Donnell said there had been several subsidy agreements in the past but overall progress was "minimal at best".

The first thing nations must do is assess and understand the full extent of their subsidies and their impacts on nature, said Martina Fleckenstein, head of food policy at WWF International.

"We know where we want to go. The challenge is how does it look at the national level?" she said.

Analysts say a major reason reform can be so difficult is that many powerful interests are beneficiaries of subsidies.

Agricultural subsidies tend to disproportionately favour large farms at the expense of small farmers, according to research by the World Resources Institute think tank.

Farmers needed to be reassured that they could sustain their incomes and support their families while implementing practices which protected nature, she added.

In New Zealand, Rolleston said farmers in the 1980s were in favour of the subsidy reforms, but still needed support to adapt their practices.

As countries prepare to discuss harmful subsidies at COP15, Rolleston said high food prices globally could make it easier for farmers to change their practices without losing out.

"The best time to do these reforms is always yesterday, and the second best time is when prices are high enough to be able to manage that transition," he said.

The writer is from the Reuters news agency

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories