18 minute read
Opinion
New trees law barks like a dog
Alternative View
Alan Emerson
I’VE been working through the Forestry (Registration of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill. It’s a dog.
Minister Shane Jones tells me the legislation will provide better information on log supply and build investor confidence in the forestry sector.
I disagree.
That it’s become law under urgency before the election is an indictment.
Jones waxes lyrical about the legislation building confidence in the forestry industry.
I know the foresters in the southern North Island I’d do business with and those I wouldn’t. I don’t need a bureaucratic empire to help me.
What the legislation will achieve is to increase costs for anyone harvesting forests, farmers included. Any benefit will be minimal.
The legislation is full of sound and fury while not meaning much except increased bureaucracy.
The original legislation was a real nightmare but was changed at the select committee. The forestry industry owes much to Federated Farmers and others.
Finally, it is rushed legislation and for no reason. In my
From the Ridge Steve Wyn-Harris
6AM: WAKE up and turn on the radio. Hoping another MP or cabinet minister is involved in a scandal and announcing they are resigning. Seems like there’s been dozens since my own drama and everyone has forgotten about my time in the glare of the spotlight. Pity, none today.
No news items from my press release. Again. Media has it in for my new party, Advance NZ. Why don’t they pick up on my push for ‘freedom and sovereignty for New Zealanders’? Am I the only one that can see that the Chinese Communist Party is running the show here?
This bloody pandemic takes all the oxygen out of the room. 7am: Television news has Cindy grinning inanely and Judy looking decidedly unnerving. Make a decision. experience rushed legislation is inevitably bad legislation.
What the law does is to mandate a regulator, the Forestry Authority. It establishes a register of log traders and forestry advisers. That tells me anyone offering an opinion on forestry matters will need to be registered.
You’d have to ask why? If I discuss a forest with a mate does that mean I’m an adviser?
It also has a degree of protectionism and market distortion, which takes us back to the good old days of Muldoonism.
Why Labour supported New Zealand First on this one is beyond me, especially as that party is putting the boot into Labour.
My first question would be to ask why the legislation is needed.
Why do we need a Wellingtoncentric bureaucracy inserted into an industry that is working well without it. That’s certainly the case locally.
Jones huffing and puffing about cowboys in the industry is just that. Give me the proof.
If that is true in Northland, and I suspect that is what Jones is talking about, then sort it out locally. Don’t put a millstone 7.30am: Ring Billy Te Kahika and introduce myself. He reckons he’s never heard of Advance NZ. I suggest we meet. Do some Googling about his party because I don’t know much about the New Zealand Public Party either. He’s been getting decent crowds and it’s only been going for a couple of months. Seems he was too late to get his party registered for the election, so he tried to merge with Vision NZ and then the Outdoors Party, but they didn’t want a bar of it.
Who are all these people forming crackpot parties? 8.30am: Pass Simon Bridges awkwardly in the Koru Lounge. He gives me a wink which troubles me. He seems to have perked up lately. 10.30am: Open a classroom at Botany Downs School. I feel comfortable with kids. They don’t ask tricky questions. Staff haven’t heard about Advance NZ. I try to sign some up. Tell them it’s only two bucks but no joy. I buy a school raffle ticket. 12.30pm: Meet with Billy. He’s pretty confident and loud. I suggest we find a quiet spot to chat and offer to shout him lunch. I try to tell him about Advance NZ but he’s not listening. Rabbiting on around the neck of the entire country. Don’t nationalise a local problem.
My second question is to ask why the rush?
The Bill was introduced on May 14 with submissions required just a week later on the May 21. The select committee reported back just three weeks later on June 15 It was passed into law on July 23.
You call that democracy at work?
Talking to the industry I’m told the consultation process was a sham.
The industry was told the legislation was being rushed through because of cowboys but no proof of cowboys was provided.
The industry sources I spoke to said they had absolutely no objection to putting the industry on a more professional footing but why the rush and lack of meaningful consultation?
Again, if it was believed the industry wasn’t performing adequately NZ First should provide proof of that. Dictating standards from Wellington to any industry is unlikely to get buy-in and therefore will have extremely limited success.
Another industry source suggested it was simply votebuying in attempting to control the trade of timber. Fortunately, the more draconian parts of that legislation were taken out at the select committee.
Was there any proof that local mills were missing out on timber? Again talking to the industry locally there isn’t a problem.
The Trojan Horse in the legislation is that it could force growers to sell logs at
THEORY-DRIVEN: Steve Wyn-Harris’ satirical take on former National MP Jami-Lee Ross joining his Advance New Zealand party with the conspiracy theory-driven New Zealand Public Party.
about covid-19 being a 5G-related bioweapon that was released by a shadowy cabal of global elites in order to impose control over the world population. I attempt to sound convinced. Suggest that once a vaccine is available, everything would be good. Turns out he’s an anti-vaxxer, so we had half an hour on that. Then he
COSTLY: The new forests law promoted by Shane Jones will cost wood producers, including farmers, more without providing any more than minimal benefit.
depressed prices to sawmills.
Amazingly, no cost-benefit analysis has been done.
What surprises me is the Government has released two extremely positive strategies for agriculture and for wool. It has acknowledged it will be the primary sector that pulls the country out of the malaise caused by covid.
Why then would you put a costly barrier into a branch of the primary sector in the form of forestry. No need for that barrier has been provided and no-one can tell how much it will cost wood producers.
Why insert a bureaucracy into an industry that is working well without it? I can think of lots of occupations and industries that could do with licensing way ahead of forestry. was on about the United Nations and their plan of a secret plot to reduce and dominate the world’s population. Luckily the pan-fried snapper comes so we leave the UN business behind.
I finally got around to suggesting we merge our two parties. He seems keen and wants to know why. I tell him my party is already in the process, but I haven’t got the 500 members required. He wants to know how many more I need, and I tell him about 400. He reckons he can help with that and then tells me he wants to be leader of my own party! We negotiate over coffee and agree to be co-leaders. Works for the Greens. He doesn’t seem to know about the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into me, so I don’t mention it.
We write a press release about our merger and I email it off.
Billy goes off to an anti-fluoride rally. 3.30pm: Radio station rings and wants an interview on the merger. Very exciting. I jog to the studio. 4.30pm: Interview not going so well. Bloody host keeps focusing on Billy’s view that covid-19 is a hoax. I reply that he said no such thing and he reads out some of Billy’s Facebook posts.
Reading the legislation the rules around that bureaucracy are loose, leaving room for abuse.
What might be good for Jones’ electoral chances in Northland is a disaster for the rest of the country and shows the arrogance of NZ First.
Again, I’m surprised Labour supported the legislation. It will cost them electorally.
And what will they get out of it? Bad legislation and supporting a political party that would not reciprocate that support and is unlikely to survive past the election.
Your View
Alan Emerson is a semi-retired Wairarapa farmer and businessman: dath.emerson@gmail.com
A day in the life of Jami-Lee Ross
It seems crazy.
The host keeps asking me if I believe the virus is a bioweapon being used to undermine our democracy like my new coalition partners believe.
I finally get the conversation to why we need to tear up the free trade agreement with China. He wants to know where the $30 billion of two-way trade will then come from and I suggest other nations which seems to satisfy him.
Then I find out Billy is no fan of 5G or 1080 as well, but fortunately the host doesn’t seem to know about the fluoridation thing. At least I got on the radio. 6.00pm: Buy a pizza and try and join the guy up to Advance NZ. He hasn’t heard of it and I offer to pay the two bucks. He still won’t and I consider not buying his pizza but I’m hungry.
Stop at two of my billboards and wash off the devil horns and moustaches. 10.00pm: Finish writing our new policy on Constitutional Reform and go to bed.
WHAT IS IT: Regenerative agriculture has no specific rules but is a value system with the use of compost a favoured technique.
Is regenerative ag the real deal?
The Braided Trail
Keith Woodford
REGENERATIVE agriculture is in vogue as a concept but what does it really mean?
I often get asked my opinion about regenerative agriculture.
My standard rejoinder is to ask what the questioner means by regenerative agriculture. That typically gets a response that it is somewhat of a mystery to them but it is a term they keep hearing and supposedly it is the way we need to act to save the planet.
My next rejoinder is that I, too, am struggling to know what it means.
Then, some two weeks ago, I was asked to join a focus group for a research project looking into what regenerative agriculture means specifically in the New Zealand context. The project has considerable backing, including from the Government-funded Our Land and Water National Science Challenge.
I was unable to participate because of another commitment but it did make me think it is time for me to do my own research and find out what the term actually stands for.
Some ferreting around led me to a paper by Dr Charles Merfield, widely known as Merf, who is well known in organic agriculture and sustainable farming circles in NZ and beyond. I thought if anyone knows what it means then it will be Merf.
I quickly found Merf has also found it challenging to get a clear definition of regenerative agriculture. Aha, I said, so it is not only me who is struggling.
Merf quoted from a paper published by Terra Genesis International (TGA), which is promoting the concept.
The TGA paper says at the outset regenerative agriculture cannot be defined.
Apparently, that is because regenerative agriculture is an evolving concept and it is expected to continue to evolve.
Both from Merf’s paper and the TGA paper I quickly learned that in contrast to organic agriculture, which has prescribed rules, regenerative agriculture has no specific rules. That is why it can mean different things to different people. However, one point of agreement seems to be regenerative agriculture goes beyond sustainable agriculture in setting a higher bar.
I then went to Wikipedia to see what it had to say. One has to be cautious with Wikipedia on matters that are still evolving but at least it would provide a perspective.
Wikipedia said regenerative agriculture is a conservation and rehabilitation approach to food and farming systems. It focuses on topsoil regeneration, increasing biodiversity, improving the water cycle, enhancing biodiversity, enhancing ecosystem services, increasing resilience to climate change and strengthening the health and vitality of farm soil.
Some further ferreting around led me to the conclusion regenerative agriculture is really a value system, coming largely from the United States then spreading out. It is built on a belief we are depleting our soils and need to do a lot better.
Then it was back to Merf’s paper to see what he had to say about the underlying science.
To my initial surprise Merf said there is minimal peer-reviewed literature on the topic. His own search using the combined terms regenerative and agriculture found only two such papers in science journals, whereas a search using the terms resilient and agriculture produced many thousands.
Instead, almost all the literature on regenerative farming is in what is called the grey literature of reports that are not peer reviewed and articles in popular, non-scientific magazines. Nevertheless, there are some principles generally agreed to.
The four most commonly agreed principles according to Merf are that regenerative agriculture is about:
Minimising or eliminating tillage through no-till;
Many mainstream scientists are highly frustrated by the regenerative agriculture movement. Indeed, they find it insulting.
Avoiding bare soil and keeping the soil covered at all times with living plants or residues;
Increasing plant biodiversity in both pasture and crops and;
Integrating livestock and cropping in mixed or rotational farming.
Another key insight is that many of the promoters of regenerative agriculture do not themselves have a background in science. That makes it particularly challenging to link the value systems to explicit practices that align with the beliefs.
By now I was aware at least some of the principles of this regenerative agriculture movement have been around for a long time, including back in the 1960s at Lincoln University when I was a student.
For example, Professor Walker never allowed us to forget the fundamental importance of clover in the nitrogen cycle on our pastoral lands. Similarly, all the cropping rotations that we were taught by Jim White, Bruce Ryde and others had an animal phase in them.
Back in those distant times we had neither the tillage machinery nor the weedicides, in particular glyphosate, that would make no-till systems feasible. However, those systems are now very much part of mainstream agriculture. Glyphosate is acceptable to most followers of regenerative agriculture as the lesser evil relative to alternatives.
As for plant diversity, that was always a key part of NZ’s pastoral systems until about 20 years ago when it became evident that on dairy farms the combination of ryegrass and nitrogen fertiliser was the way to maximise profits. There is a modest movement back towards more plant diversity using species such as plantain though it is not all straight sailing.
Searching a little further I found use of compost is another favoured technique for regenerative farming, including importing compost from outside the farm. There is no doubt compost contains valuable nutrients and can help increase organic matter in soils. The challenge is that, at regional and national scale, importing compost is not really feasible. Where would it come from?
This leads us back to one of the fundamental aspects of nutrient cycling that underpins sustainable farming systems. Unless human excrement is returned to farms then there will always be a need for non-organic fertilisers.
Clover and other legume species can fix nitrogen from the air with the help of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Other plants can then obtain necessary nitrogen from the nitrogen released by these crops into the soil though growth is typically less than achieved with fertiliser nitrogen. As for phosphorus, sulphur, potassium and micro nutrients, they have to come from somewhere else and that means fertiliser.
Digging deeper again I find many mainstream scientists are highly frustrated by the regenerative agriculture movement.
They find it exasperating to have to deal with people who have political sway but have no understanding of fundamental scientific principles. Indeed, they find it insulting. And so, the scene is set for tribal shouting matches.
So, where do we go from here?
The answer has to be that an ongoing move to higher levels of sustainability has to be supported. We do still have farming practices, particularly in the dairy industry, that are non-sustainable. However, the other side also needs to learn some science and understand something of what is already being achieved and the nature of the constraints.
Ironically, though I would not consider myself part of the regenerative agriculture movement, I do have an involvement with a transformational pasturebased dairy system through incorporation of composting moo-tels. Dairy systems with composting moo-tels fit very nicely in regenerative philosophy.
It is an example of how we can bring sustainability, cow welfare, human welfare and economics together in a scientific framework. The first step is to get everyone to understand what we are talking about and to dispel uninformed perspectives on both sides that are getting in the way.
Your View
Covid affects casualty stock removal
The Voice
Craig Wiggins
RECENTLY I was asked to attend a meeting with Ashburton Mayor Neil Brown and Wallace Group South Island representatives on the dire straits the casualty stock removal industry finds itself in post covid-19.
It was a real eye-opener on the fact we are about to lose an industry that deals with the removal of many a post-mortem animal, especially in the calving and lambing seasons.
This industry is important to the future of the primary sector because it provides a vital service to many farmers who, because of supply contracts and environmental plans, cannot bury dead animals on-farm.
We now have a perfect storm for the Wallace Group because the major markets for the leather and tallow products made from the processing of casualty stock collapsed after covid-19 and many other countries that produce these products have flooded the market
Wallace Group North Island plants and business have been bought by a group of freezing works to secure the future of the rendering plants necessary to convert the waste they have from processing to a much-reduced volume, which can be made into blood and bone or tallow used to produce stock food pellets and other products.
In the South Island the company is still trading as Wallace Group and is basically the last man standing in an industry that has had many players in its history.
It is still making available its pick-up service at what will now become a huge cost to farmers. Only half of Canterbury farmers are using the service, resulting in about 18,000 tonnes of dead animals being picked up. The rest are either being buried or composted.
The new charges will be $85/ cow and $12/calf. Again, because of the collapse of the markets, there is no point processing these animals so they will be taken to an animal dump in North Canterbury.
It’s also the loss of some 120- plus workers used to skin out the deceased animals and some 60- odd contractors who pick up from the farm gate.
The underlying issue here is the farmers being notified of these new charges say they will cease to use the service.
I have it from Wallace Group the new charges are just the cost of pick-up and delivery to North Canterbury. If more farmers use the service and the pick-up costs become lower or the offshore market picks up the charges being implemented will be reduced.
This failing industry raises some huge environmental and social licence issues for farmers.
Be it lamb, calf or cow, the fallout of burying these animals on-farm and the chance of leaching into the soil plus the effect on supplier contracts will create a negative result for both farmers and processors because many contracts state on-farm burial is not acceptable, driven by overseas market requirements.
Recently, here in Canterbury, we had a helicopter hovering over cattle on crop breaks after rain. It was not the regional council so it possibly was an environmental group. Imagine the goldmine of photos they could publish of on-farm burial holes and the subsequent fallout farming would face if most farmers stop using
the removal service and simply put their dead stock in a hole. That includes all dead stock and the pressure on bobby calf prices raises another issue.
It has been raised in Parliament at a select committee and with Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor. The result has been minimal with the term industry problem being used. It is an industry problem, perception of how we farm is what sells our products.
Wallace Group will not provide this service any longer if it runs the risk of losing money
ENDANGERED: The casualty stock pick-up service in the South Island is in danger of disappearing.
or farmers decide it costs too much. Covid-19 has accelerated this issue that has perhaps been festering away under the surface for some time.
I hope by raising this issue industry groups will come together to prioritise the importance of deceased stock removal on our social and environmental licence before those who regulate and or scrutinise farming impose their opinions on farmers. The burning and burial of stock on-farm in today’s world to coin a phrase will become ashes in our mouth.
Welcome to GlobalHQ’s new Real Estate Partnership Manager Clint Dunstan
I come from a diverse professional background that has seen me work in everything from professional rugby to fundraising.
This varied background has given me a wealth of experience in building effective, long-term commercial relationships. Some of my achievements include working as a contract Performance Analyst for the New Zealand rugby sevens teams and leading a $5.5 million fundraising campaign for Wildbase Recovery.
I have a passion for the Real Estate sector, most recently working with one of New Zealand’s marquee commercial property developers. Born and bred in Manawatu, I am also passionate about rural and regional New Zealand.
