Lets discuss what we do agree about
We have arguably come out of one of the most divisive periods in New Zealand agriculture. With a change of government, there is now an opportunity to reset and move our sector forward. I’m concerned we put this opportunity at risk through continued disagreement among ourselves. If we want our sector to thrive, we can’t afford to be divided — instead, let’s focus on all the things we do agree on. Because we do agree on a lot.
Most of us probably acknowledge that change in the way we farm is inevitable. We certainly aren’t farming how our parents and grandparents did, and the expectation is that our children won’t do it quite the same as we did. We surely all agree that for our farming businesses to survive and thrive through change and to continue to be sustainable, we must be profitable.
We can accept that the most enduring and successful change is farmer-led, through innovation and a willingness to adapt and try new things.
And those of us who are actively farming all agree that the past six years of change dictated through highly prescriptive regulation has been challenging to say the least. Fundamental changes are needed to many of the rules that have been introduced.
But we can probably also all agree that a change in government at some point in the future is inevitable.
These issues are not going away and we want to avoid the pendulum swinging back to what we’ve experienced over the past six years.
Now is the opportunity for us to implement real farmer-led change and find enduring solutions that address the issues that are specific to our farms and catchments in ways that give real benefits and outcomes.
Most of us agree that the climate is changing — we certainly don’t agree on the degree of influence agriculture has over that change, but we can probably acknowledge it will impact our farm businesses in some way.
We know that our country has made international climate commitments. Of course, we have mixed feelings about this — but we can all agree further research is needed, especially on the impacts of methane versus longlived gases.
We also mostly agree that the current methane targets are too high. We might not agree on which scientist is right, but we know that ongoing work is needed.
And I’m certain most of us agree that pricing agricultural emissions when there are no readily available technologies available to farmers will not lead to the right outcomes for our sector or the New Zealand economy as a whole.
We all acknowledge that genetic gains, particularly in sheep, have revolutionised our sector in the past 30 years, and that ongoing investment and improvement will benefit our sector further. We might not agree on the specific traits, but we never have. It’s a choice for every farmer to make based on their own individual farming circumstances. Some farmers do want to select for low methane-producing sheep as part of a balanced breeding programme with other important production traits, while others don’t and that’s OK. Let’s instead focus on ensuring we have world-leading genetics databases across both sheep and beef and provide farmers with the tools they need so they can choose how they want to increase their productivity and profitability.
Most of us would also agree that a catchment-led approach will lead to better water quality and biodiversity outcomes, rather than centralised regulation.
We all know that a framework of regulation that enables farmers to manage change in this way is preferable to an overly prescriptive framework.
We are an export nation and we probably all agree that we need to be focused on the demands of our global markets. We can disagree as to the level of importance of that issue, but most of us would agree that we need to control the narrative, be the ones telling our story and ensure we’re producing beef and lamb that meet the expectations of customers and consumers.
What we need right now is a strong and cohesive sector. We need to show the New Zealand public, the incoming government, and future governments that our sector is united and we’re up for the challenge.
We need to rise to that challenge, adapt and lead change where it’s needed — so that we never face a period as restrictive as the one we are emerging from.
So, as we head into the summer and some time off, let’s accept we might need to agree to disagree on a few things, but focus on the significant number of things we do agree on.