Dr Jacqueline Rowarth: Agribusiness expert on Nestle pulling out of a global methane accord

Global dairy giant Nestle has withdrawn from the Dairy Methane Action Alliance, prompting speculation.

This follows other companies backing out of climate initiatives, with the Net Zero Banking Alliance confirming it was set to shut down earlier in the week.

Agribusiness expert Dr Jacqueline Rowarth says it's likely the Alliance didn't move fast enough for Nestle, and they're taking their support elsewhere.

"The Alliance has not worked as well as they thought - and remember, Nestle's done some really good work around the world with regenerative agriculture, with cropping... so they're putting their money where they're actually getting action."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now Nesley has pulled out of a global alliance for
cutting methane emissions from dairy farming. The Dairy Methane Action
Alliance was launched less than two years ago, and now
Nesley has quit. And this has come just days after
the Net Zero Banking Alliance basically voted to end itself.
Agribusiness expert doctor Jacqueline Roworth is with us on this hijackeline. Hello, Hello,

(00:20):
why do you think nesl has done this?

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Not moving fast enough for them? The alliance has not
worked as well as they thought. And remember Neslei's doing
some really good work around the world regenerative agriculture, with
cropping and with us with New Zealand. Lots of rewards
for farmers who are able to cut their methane. So
they're putting their money where they're actually getting action. And
that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
To me where.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
Well New Zealand and around the world in America and
a bit in Britain through the EU certainly trying to
cut with cropping, which is not our forte Well, how
is the domestic supply is our good cropping stuff? So
with the the export the stuff that they buy, that
money is going through from various of the dairy companies

(01:06):
to directly to the farmers to encourage them to do
ever better. And the farmers are doing ever better, so
it makes sense to me to do a good investment.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
The optics of this are not great, are they though,
Because it looks like this they just doesn't want to
be held to account on methane emissions and their supply chains,
which is what this alliance does.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
But they are reporting, but not through that alliance. And
I think there's been problems with the alliance with other
companies not doing what they said they would do, so
the alliance itself has not been working successfully.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
So the cost ties with the bunch of leg ads.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, I think that's what I would hate to call
them legards, but they yes, possibly because they haven't been
reporting well and it took them a while to get together.
So the reports well about.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
The X Party, and just as a case and point
about the optics, the X Party is looked at this,
put out a press release and said this adds weight
to the argument that we should pull out of the
people or at least tweak the Paris Climate Agreement because
all of these initiative, all of these alliances are starting
to fall apart.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
Well, two of them are, but the global.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Research there are at least poor Jacqueline, Oh.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Okay, yes, Globally it is really difficult to do because
everything is contextual. But in New Zealand we are doing
good work. We are working with some of the big customers.
Remember we sell to their slay and that's why they're
doing all this encouragement and able to report that they
are reducing me then, but for us, being part of
the Paris Agreement allows us with the trade agreement and

(02:32):
it allows us social license. Can you imagine what it
would be like if the farming community actually pulled out
of Paris? And remember Paris Agreement does say do everything
you can without reducing food production, and we are approaching
that point. We've done an awful lot of the things
we can do and most countries haven't. So we have

(02:52):
the well, we have the high ground at the moment,
and we have trade deals.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Do you think that assurance is go which is the
thing that a lot of people cling to in the
Paris Agreement, do you think that that is going to
be honored by part signatories to the agreement who we
trade with.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yeah, most countries are still trying to reduce methane and
they haven't done the reducing that it hasn't impact on
the food production. But yes, it may be that everything
changes in the future when people realize that food production
is the major goal for the world, given the increasing
population and the increasing.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
In practice, how does it work in practice?

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Right?

Speaker 1 (03:30):
So we get to the point where because we have
talked in the past, Jacklin, I mean here what Economa
has talked about culling like fifteen percent of our herd
in order to get the numbers down. So how do
we in practice? How what happens? Do we go as
the New Zealand government does The New Zealand government go, look,
we have reduced to the point as far as we can,
and the next step is to start shooting cows and

(03:51):
the rest of the world goes, oh, it's cool, don't
shoot them, you carry on emitting.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
Well, I've just been at the SAO Food and Aquacultural
Organization meeting in Rome aboutable livestock production, and there is
a recognition that we have to keep going with with
meat and milk because that's the most sufficient way of
people getting their nutrition they need. So for New Zealand,
the fifteen percent was really trying to get improved deficiencies,

(04:16):
and we are doing that and they data from the
milk companies.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
That's not what I'm asking you. What I'm asking you,
how is it going to work? If New Zealand stands
up and goes, hey, guys, we've done everything we can
short of actually shooting our animals. So are you cool?
If we keep all the animals and we're emitting a
little bit more than we wanted to? Is the reason
we're going to be like that's fine? Or are they
going to be out there?

Speaker 2 (04:38):
I think that then big customers, the Nessleighs, Dunns, McDonald's
will say we want your milk because it's lower emissions
per quila or product that we want than any other components.
So yes, I do think that what will happen? And
of course I'm trying to gaze in my gazing in
my crystal ball, but they want our milk because it's
low emissions.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
Yeah, good, hey, Jackel, and thank you as all appreciate
your time. That's doctor Jaqueline Rowe with agribusiness expert and
darien Z director. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive
listen live to news Talk zed B from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio