26
Opinion
FARMERS WEEKLY – farmersweekly.co.nz – April 4, 2022
Why are we playing silly games? Alternative View
Alan Emerson
WHEN it comes to marketing New Zealand, its products and tourism we seem a little confused. For example, carbon neutral is a phrase that has me perplexed, especially when I see carbon neutral helicopter flights available. All that means is that the polluter either pays for carbon or plants trees so they can continue to pollute. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I’d rather stop the pollution at source. It also means the classification would inevitably increase your costs. Is there research showing consumers are prepared to pay a premium for carbon neutral products? According to Beef + Lamb research, NZ farming is carbon neutral now so why are we playing silly games? Then we have regenerative agriculture, or RA, according to its disciples. If people want to play with RA that’s fine, but don’t expect me to take you seriously. We’ve already wasted buckets of taxpayer and levy payer money on it, with absolutely no discernable advantage. That’s despite Australian research suggesting that if you want to go bankrupt, try RA. The B+LNZ argument that because it’s so established on social media we need to go with it is spurious and reeks of laziness on the part of B+LNZ. There are three other reasons to reject RA. As MPI have said, RA is not a verb but a series of nouns meaning it can be what you want it to be. In a word, meaningless. It is about pasture, which is one dimensional, and I’m yet to see any reputable scientific commentary supporting it. I’d also argue we’re regenerative now. RA, as we know, started as the result of years of excessive grazing with no fertiliser. I’m sure we’ll be bombarded
PLAY TO STRENGTHS: Alan Emerson believes NZ needs to refine what it’s already doing well.
with other fads in the coming years. Our current 100% Pure slogan is wrong and open to ridicule. Nothing is 100% pure. Looking on the positive side, we have our own story to tell if we had the energy and unity to do it. Instead of carbon neutral, we can legitimately say we’re the most carbon efficient producers in the world. The EU suggestion that we must be as good as they are if we want to trade with them is irrelevant. We are. If the HWEN on-farm recommendations are accepted we will then be able to claim carbon neutrality without any sleight of hand accounting. Our animal welfare is exceptional by world standards, with our animals being grass-fed. Getting back to the EU, seeing cows factory-farmed in cubicles with their tails tied up is offensive to Kiwis. We’re doing well, backed by strong animal welfare legislation. It is the same with our employment laws. We don’t exploit and we’re certainly not
involved with child labour or slavery at any level. It is also possible to come into farming with little and eventually purchase your own farm. There aren’t a lot of countries where that is possible.
I would have no doubt we could produce an internationally acceptable and environmentally robust standard in short order that is both practical, achievable and accepted locally and internationally.
Environmentally we have a proud record as well, but I believe there is more to do. The catchment groups I’m aware of are doing great work cleaning up waterways. We also need to be realistic,
especially as regards nitrogen fertiliser. If we banned it as the little darlings at Greenpeace, along with some of the deskbound city-centric eco-warriors at MfE and EPA would like, it will cost and significantly so. Figures published by Professor Jacqueline Rowarth show that the removal of synthetic nitrogen from the rural toolkit would cost the country $19.8 billion. In addition, removing synthetic nitrogen would encourage less environmentally-friendly practices like spreading chicken litter on pasture. We also have two international firsts for our fertiliser industry with Fertmark and Spreadmark, which I’d like to see become compulsory. For the uninitiated, when farmers use Fertmark and Spreadmark they know exactly what they’re putting on their pasture and precisely where it is applied. Our ACVM legislation is also robust. We don’t use hormones or harmful growth promoters. My point is that we don’t have to change a lot. We must refine what
LETTERS A fairer system has to be found I SIGHED a small sigh of hope that the Government now appears to understand the effect that the blanket planting of pine trees for the ETS is having on jobs, communities, food production and, not least, New Zealand’s bottom line in foreign earnings, while not even making a dent in the reduction of carbon emissions. But it now appears that sheep and beef farming communities may lose out in yet another way
we’re doing. We’re already moving down that road with Te Taiao, Our Land and Water, but I would like to see a simple, refined NZ brand incorporating our strengths. My preference would be for a uniquely NZ quality standard. Kounga, meaning quality, would be an option, but there are others. I don’t trust bureaucrats and officials to put together a workable standard capable of being accepted internationally, so I’d have a science-based team chaired by a farmer, a leader and trade expert like Malcolm Bailey. I would have no doubt we could produce an internationally acceptable and environmentally robust standard in short order that is both practical, achievable and accepted locally and internationally. It is just a matter of deciding that’s what we want to do and then doing it. It isn’t brain surgery, but good common sense.
Your View Alan Emerson is a semi-retired Wairarapa farmer and businessman: dath.emerson@gmail.com
More letters P24 under the possible pricing of methane emissions under He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN). Option 1 seems to be what most people want, but it clearly needs a lot of work to make it fair and palatable to hill country farmers. I would be happy to pay a fair share of the cost of emissions, as I do not want continuing climate change. I have been an early adopter of practices to reduce emissions and am aware that under the proposal my contribution is
not being recognised. So when I see that the likely cost under the HWEN’s proposed models will mean, in the long run, that I will be paying more than a fair and equitable share compared to other agriculture sectors, I feel very cross. That cost will probably mean that sheep and beef farming on hill country will likely go the way of the dinosaurs, while forests, native and/or exotic pine will take over good productive land anyway. We will end in the same
disastrous scenario as afforestation under the ETS brings us. And that’s a place NZ as a whole does not want to be. When, oh HWEN, will policy writers, commissioners and industry partnerships in offices listen to those farmers on the ground? A fairer system has to be found that leaves all sectors viable for the long-term interests of all of us in agriculture and in NZ. Judy Bogaard Wairoa
Letters to the Editor Letters must be no more than 450 words and submitted on the condition The New Zealand Farmers Weekly has the right to, and license third parties to, reproduce in electronic form and communicate these letters. Letters may also be edited for space and legal reasons. Names, addresses and phone numbers must be included. Letters with pen names will generally not be considered for publication.
