Farming in danger, but carbon sequestration gives hope
In my previous column I argued that “if humanity is to keep the impacts of climate change to within manageable levels it is absolutely vital that we proactively drive improvements in our management of natural systems”.
Since then, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its sixth assessment report, which provides the most up-to-date scientific data on global temperature rises, fossil fuel emissions and the effect of the climate crisis.
The report finds it likely that warming will reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2035 and that the viability of humanity living within planetary boundaries rests on the actions we take in the next seven years.
Gloomy predictions aside, there was one particular finding that really struck a chord in light of my previous column. Over the next 27 years until 2050, the report finds that “there is substantial mitigation and adaptation potential from options in agriculture, forestry and other land use”, with “conservation, improved management, and restoration of forests and other ecosystems offer[ing] the largest share of economic mitigation potential”.
This is good news, because on its current path, by 2050 the food system is projected to have a larger share of total emissions than land transport, buildings, industry or electricity production. However, the greenhouse gas mitigation potential from the sector could reduce this footprint by 90% if adaptation measures are implemented at scale.
As such, I find that, ahem, “disconnects” such as the one last week between Agbiz CEO Theo Boshoff and the National Business Initiative (NBI) over the diet-based pronouncements in the NBI’s recently released “Net-Zero Transition” report highly unfortunate to say the least. Boshoff took issue with the statement in the NBI’s report, and proposed a behavioural shift to a low red meat diet, which could deliver a 4% emissions reduction but could cost up to four times more than the average diet for low-income South Africans.
This disconnect centres on a finding from the NBI that even with agricultural best practice, emissions can be reduced by only about 40% by 2050 with current diets, as opposed to 70% with low red-meat diets.
The upshot is Boshoff now deems net-zero “infeasible for the agricultural sector”, which is regrettable and a teachable moment for the NBI. In his responses to Farmer’s Weekly on the issue, he correctly stated how most of the land in SA is unsuited for any food production other than livestock, but what he did not note is that most red-meat production occurs in regions that can also support cultivated crops.
According to AgriSA, cultivated soils in SA have lost 45%-65% of their soil carbon stocks over the past 100 years owing to unsustainable farming practices, which implies significant carbon sequestration potential from the adoption of conservation and regenerative agricultural practices.
The unsustainable farming practices that led to the degradation of SA soil carbon stocks are still being implemented on at least 75% of SA farmland, which poses a major threat not only to the climate but to the sustainability of agriculture and to national food security.
Inclusion of livestock in arable rotations as part of a move towards regenerative agriculture delivers many benefits to the soil in terms of soil health, increased water retention and biological diversity, and fertilises the soil with nutrients from the dung.
Contrary to what Boshoff and the NBI believe, a recent study by Eastern Cape-based sustainable agriculture consultancy Trace & Save found seven farms out of 45 pasturebased dairy farms had achieved a net-zero outcome from their farms by employing a range of sustainable farming practices.
There can be no doubt that SA diets must change in the future, if for no other reason than our health. But framing problems in such a way that it creates opposition and not opportunity gets us all nowhere.