Catch up: Agriculture and environment. Economy and nitrogen tax.

 I have neglected this blog for a while. Time to catch up.

 The theme is still important. The actual progress probably negative.

Agriculture stands for 3% of the economy (GNPs) of the world but governs at least 20 % of the global biosphere (the land component). Which role is the most important?

Competitiveness on the market is favoured by specialization and adaptability (could we say shortsightedness). The ecological function is favoured by diversity and longterm consiseration, Exactly the opposite.

The market economy promotes shortsightedness. This should be a strong warning signal for the global agriculture. 

We in Sweden have as almost the only country a nitrogen tax, about 0.2 US$ per kg N. This is not very much, but sufficient to help in formulating agronomically and ecologically sound nitrogen recommendations. Of course it is a burden for agriculture in a global competitive situation, so now it will be abolished. We have an example of “the prisoners´ dilemma”. An action which should be advantageous in general does not take place if those who start are punished.

The increasing demands of humanity leads to increasing nitrogen flows. Problems: eutrophication both of waters and natural lands, the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide and this gas also eroding the stratospheric ozone layer. And there is a resource issue: energy.

 Agriculture is a major player in this field. And we need to increase production. What we could do is to increase nitrogen efficiency. Or maybe we should put it the other way: to  fight inefficiency.

 What we could do now is to forcefully promote agronomic methods for guiding the nitrogen use. Precision farming in all aspects, from GPS guidance to annual adaptation. There is still a gain for the farmer, although not very exciting.

Looking a little bit wider, in my part of the world we should care more about the longterm development of soils. Rotations, organic matter. And it is not only a maintenance cost, there are gains in both yields and management, within a few years. Win Win situations.  But our research and advisory systems are inefficient in putting forward these aspects.

Market forces today do not consider environment.

Agricultural development, globally.

An article in Science 19 June 2009 (Vitousek et al) presents three examples of maize producing systems with the following characteristics (nitrogen kg/hectare):

Western Kenya: addition  7, removal grain+straw 23+36, balance –52.

Northern China: addition 588, removal grain+straw 361+0, balance +227.

USA Midwest: addition 155, removal grain+straw 145+0, balance +10.

 

Kenya will not improve without nutrient additions, it may be called fertilizers or something else. Without this the system will be ever more impoverished. The authors, ecolocical scientists, recommend programs and support for fertilizer use. Dogmatic organic programs cannot handle largescale nutrient depletion.

Northern China has so far given priority to production, which has resulted in a wasteful and environmentally inefficient system.

USA has been more wasteful before 1995, but programs and information have improved the situation. But it should be recognized that the system described here includes soybeans every other year. Since soybean is nitrogenfixing this very much improves the situation.

 

The authors conclude that sometimes fertilizer use needs encouragement (Kenya), sometimes it needs moderation and control.

(The market does not manage this. The peasant in Kenya has no market, in China production has priority).

 

Conclusion: “..most national agricultural agencies lack the means to assess the impact of changing farm practices at appropriate scales and the incentives to promote the adoption of nutrient conserving practices and processes. Without these tools, it will be difficult to develop and sustain modern agricultural systems without incurring continuing human and environmental costs.”

 

One could wish that politicians and policymakers could be influenced by these viewpoints. Market alone is not enough. Or, rather, presently the market has no chance to include issues of environment and sustainability. But it could be arranged.

Dogmatic organic philosophy is not enough.

What is important?

Let me begin by quoting a quote in Advances in Agronomy 2009, vol 101, where Johnny Johnston quotes these lines by Holmberg:

“..When an agricultural resource base is eroded behind a certain point, the civilization it has supported collapses. . There is no such thing as a post-agricultural society. “.

Agriculture is the foundation.That is one side of it. The other is the importance of agriculture for GNP,  3-5% in most developed countries. Negligible. 

And it is neglected. In most economical works agriculture is mentioned and criticised for the agricultural support distorting trade. This is a very complicated issue which should merit better analysis.

 My background for these thoughts: two recent books (Swedish, see Swedish blog version for details).

“Commodity markets” gives background for the following picture for agricultural commodities. Only a small fraction, 10% or so, is actually traded. The prices are determined, at least in principle, by the production area where the costs that particular season are most advantageous. It could be Australia on one occasion, Argentina another. The market does not take responsibility for the production as a whole. This is an important difference compared to for instance ores, where international trade is normal.

 Another issue is the problem of diffuse environmental effects, for instance nitrate leaching, which predominate in agriculture. How combine environmental measures with competitiveness for such cases? 

The other is a comprehensive textbook with the title “Market and politics” (translated) and does not even touch these issues.

 And still – agriculture is the base for our civilization and controls a large part of our biosphere.

A project combining production and environment.

“Odling i Balans” (www.odlingibalans.com ) aims at seeking solutions for improvement of agriculture as concerns environment and sustainability. 17 pilot farms are the core of the project, each of them working on this goal.

Some glimpses from a 2 day meeting:

A new seeding and weeding technique. Precise sowing, later during Spring followed by precise mechanical weeding with the same machine. The weeding knives are guided by photosensors, avoid the crop rows and weed in between. An impressing machine, Cameleon.

 Biogas and recycling. Nothing new in principle but important practical improvements. Norup “Small scale high tech” small company is developing technology for farm level use. In this scale most of the nutrients can be recycled locally. There are plans to separate the sludge into a liquid and a solid phase. The solid material can be transported some distance and be used as fertilizer in a larger area, thus distributing the nutrients and diminishing local surpluses. 

System for energy balance studies are ready for use. In practice the energy output of plant production farms is 9 times the input. But still some people, also those who should know better, preach that modern crop production consumes energy.

There is progress in most fields, weed control, farm waste treatment, energy efficiency, nutrient efficiency. The technical-biological development can deliver the combination of production and environment our society needs. But there is a big challenge: to adjust the economical-political environment so it can be realized.

Competitiveness – an important theme in today´s issue of Jordbruksaktuellt.

And that has been a subject in this blog for several days, maybe too much, looking back. Then it struck me the other day:

This is not only a local problem.

It affects the way mankind interacts with the biosphere – exploit or care and maintain.

The exploiter is most competitive and wins.

 

There are several examples in the journal, from diesel tax to animal welfare.

Shall we give up? No, absolutely not. There are many levels to work on.

 

1. The farmer has measures to consider which increases both competitiveness and environmental function (management of soil organic matter, improved nitrogen management, precision farming, ecodriving). There are many examples in this blog (tag Focus Foresight).
2. Help raise the issue to the global and principal level. If Swedish agriculture cannot be managed by taxes and rules in the long run, neither will it work in other countries. Which is not at all good for the biosphere. We get a development nobody wants.
3. Push innovative thinking at all levels: agronomy, economy, social sciences.

 

Agronomy: more combined work on environment, economy and production.  There are more positive combination effects than expected. Quantify them and use them.

Economy: Taxes are efficient tools – if they comprise the whole market. But for a global mrket – work out better alternatives.

Social sciences: economy and technology is not sufficient.

Problems for the Swedish model – symptom of global system malfunction

It is sad to see the problems for the ”Swedish model” with a stronger environmental profile: taxes on diesel, nitrogen and plant protection chemicals, stronger animal welfare regulations etc. In cooperation with the farmers this has led to “the best agriculture in the world”. Some documentation, mostly in Swedish: www.greengard.se/landjämförelse.htm .

 

It has also led to higher costs, and the main task for the agriculture is to be competitive, according to the political and economical reality we live in.

 

 

This points to a general problem. Demands on environment or sustainability which increase costs will eventually strangle the agriculture in a competitive economy, if not compensated somehow or other. And then there is no progress, except maybe for cheaper largescale production in some areas.

This is not only about farmers – it is about the possibility for mankind to live on the biosphere without damaging it. This is a very big question about management of our global systems.

 

Tomorrow there will be more about positive opportunities.

 

Our climate, a book by Klas Eklund (in Swedish)

It is an interesting and useful book, full of summarizing information. And with a very clear message: we have to do something about climate gases.

One example is discussed: a tax of SEK 500 per ton of carbon dioxide. That should reduce Swedish emissions by about 6 million tons. One litre oil gives 3 kg carbon dioxide, which means SEK 1.50 per litre. Possible to live with

 

An organic soil may loose 1000 kg carbon per year and hectare. Ooops – that should mean 3700 kg carbon dioxide and almost SEK 2000 per hektar annually if this tax should be paid.

 

Even if we do not consider organic soils Swedish agriculture could make a positive contibution of about 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by saving organic matter in the soils. On many farms measures to this end is profitable in a few years because of higher yields and easier tillage. And saving 100 kg carbon in the soil should be worth about SEK 200. A bonus, if that really should be needed to do something profitable.

 

A cow emits about 100 kg methane per year, meaning 2000 carbon dioxide equivalents. That should mean an extra tax of SEK 1000 per cow and year.

 

OK – we need to do something for the climate. The milk and meat will have to cost more. Oh ..we cannot raise the price because taxfree milk can be imported. Well, what to do now?

 

In fact Swedish agriculture is in this situation, just now not because of carbon dioxide and methane but other measures. And this is a problem not only for Swedish agriculture but in a wider scale for the whole function of the interaction mankind – natural resources. This affects no less than the base for our civilization.

The issue should be raised to this level. It is much more important than we usually think.

Exchange diesel tax for nitrogen tax – it only gets worse.

Daily papers as well as agricultural press is full of arguments. The agriculture is hit by fuel taxes. At least “centerpartiet” seems to advocate scrapping the nitrogen tax as compensation. But – according to farmers organizations the fuel tax means SEK 1 billion for agriculture while the nitrogen tax is about 300 millions.

And there is another calculation to perform. Nitrogen is also an actor in the climate drama. If the tax i abolished the fertilizer use will increase and so the dinitrogen oxide emissions. Let us talk about GreenHouse Gas equivalents, GHG.

 

Consider cereal production. Removing the N tax means that the economic rate is increased by about 10 kg N per hectare. The yield increases by about 100 kg, According to guidelines from the climate panel IPCC we get increased emissions of dinitrogen oxide by about 90 GHG in the whole chain, provided nitrogen fertilizer from the best factories is used. For an average fertilizer it would be 130. To compensate the 90 we need to save 30 l diesel, almost half the present use. Not easy.

Exchanging nitrogen tax for diesel tax means an increase in climate gas emissions.

 

If nitrogen is that sensitive maybe we should change to organic production without fertilizers? For crop production that is no solution. The considerably lower yields and the N input from legumes means that organic production is not better concerning climate. A concrete figure from the 3^rd rotation of the agricultural systems experiments in south Sweden:  per kg cereal the GHG emission is 0.27 for conventional production (according to the Swedish model with N tax etc) and 0.37 for organic.

 

If the N tax is removed the N leaching will increase by 2000-5000 tons. It is the N “at the top” which counts.

There must be better ways to compensate the Swedish agriculture.

A book about Climate Change – and one about economy.

 

Andreas Malm, translated: We are convinced that if nothing is done now it will be too late.

A book full of engagement and facts. The Climate – what happens and what can we do? We have a climate change before our eyes. Not only a mild winter but shrinking ice fields and advancing mountain vegetation. And there are so many feedbacks, most of them amplifying the process. “We must stop using fossil carbon”.  I find nothing wrong with essential facts and conclusions, except maybe a sentence at the end of the book: “ .. to solve the problems it is necessary to demand changes in the society, in the basic capitalistic system. “  Well – we have alternatives: fascism, nazism, communism and fundamentalism.Let us save the planet anyhow.

 

And this leads to the next book: Marknadsmyter (Myths about the market) (Daniel Ankarloo). In this blog I have expressed doubts over the ability of today’s market to guide a proper development of ecologically based production like agriculture. But there was nothing about such problems in this book. Only arguments against the present economical system.

Agricultural systems and economic sustainability.

 

A  project on comparison and development of sustainable and environmentally well functioning agricultural systems has been running since 1987 and continues. The first 18 years is now being reported in agronomic journals. Agronomically the project is successful. The characteristics of different systems have been clarified, there are data to use as a base for agronomic and environmental advice. However, it is relevant to ask to what extent such advice can be used in the world of today. A viable agricultural system must also be economically sustainable.

 

In the project mentioned several systems are compared, conventional and organic forms of both crop production systems and livestock systems. Organic production has its own special economic environment with both extra area compensation and a special niche market with higher product prices. The “conventional” systems operate on the normal market (based on world market prices) in the Swedish economic and legal environment. This differs from other countries, for instance UK. There are more costs and restrictions in Sweden and also a better environmental function. Can this situation be economically sustainable? What is needed to make it so?

 

Agriculture is part of the biosphere and affects the biosphere. The global biosphere is under stress (climate change, nitrogen overload, threats on biodiversity, to mention some issues). Agriculture is called upon to take its share in working with these problems. And there is a lot it could do. But the society has given it another main task: produce as economically efficient (cheap) as possible. Be competitive!