I have a growing sense of apprehension that water quality may be the next defining ‘battle ground’ between farmers and regional councils.
The Government has laid out its broad principles for improving water quality so that our rivers, streams and lakes are ‘swimmable and fishable’. Now, agencies representing government, regional councils and sector interest groups are working through how to ‘make it happen’.
Increasingly, talk around the decision making table is about setting water quality standards which farmers will have to meet, and how farmers will achieve these standards.
What is missing from the discussion is how to convince farmers to comply because they have bought into the issue?
Surely we have learnt from the clashes that have occurred over issues such as the aborted carbon tax, and the still being debated inclusion of on-farm greenhouse gases into the emissions trading scheme.
Rather than focus at this time on rules and how they will be policed, now is the time to win over the hearts and minds of the rural community to what may be required.
There are numerous examples of Governments of various persuasions showing skill in taking the community with them before bringing in potentially unpopular measures – one can think of tougher drink driving rules, smoking in public places and even cell phone use in cars.
While improving water quality may be a ‘no brainer’ in terms of winning urban support, that will not be the case with farmers when they are faced with the realities of making yet more changes to the way they farm.
If we want to avoid yet another clash with farmers, we need to set the ‘how’ button on pause, and fast forward the ‘why’ debate.
Hilton
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Lifting food production would show real world leadership
The prediction by the United Nation’s food agency that food production will have to increase by 70 percent over the next 40 years to feed the world’s growing population should send shivers down the spine of central and regional government decision makers, and environmentalists.
The UN is saying that simply to produce enough food to prevent future starvation, governments will have to invest in, and farmers will have to produce, more food on existing land, as well as bring more non productive land into production.
It will involve greater habitat change, the adoption of rather than resistance to forward thinking science, practices and technologies, and ever greater farming intensification.
All at a time when throughout the developed world more and more constraints are being placed on production in the name of conservation, climate change and environmentalism.
At present the world is agonising over making changes to slow down the threat of climate change, yet walking alongside it within the same timeframe is the just as frightening danger of world starvation.
When the world gathers in Copenhagen in December in an attempt to edge closer to reaching global agreement and co-operation in combating climate change, will the world rise to the challenge of reconciling putting limits on agricultural production while addressing hunger and starvation.
It is an area where New Zealand could really show world leadership in a way that will make a difference, rather than practice tokenism by being the first off the blocks in reducing on-farm greenhouse gas emissions
Hilton
The UN is saying that simply to produce enough food to prevent future starvation, governments will have to invest in, and farmers will have to produce, more food on existing land, as well as bring more non productive land into production.
It will involve greater habitat change, the adoption of rather than resistance to forward thinking science, practices and technologies, and ever greater farming intensification.
All at a time when throughout the developed world more and more constraints are being placed on production in the name of conservation, climate change and environmentalism.
At present the world is agonising over making changes to slow down the threat of climate change, yet walking alongside it within the same timeframe is the just as frightening danger of world starvation.
When the world gathers in Copenhagen in December in an attempt to edge closer to reaching global agreement and co-operation in combating climate change, will the world rise to the challenge of reconciling putting limits on agricultural production while addressing hunger and starvation.
It is an area where New Zealand could really show world leadership in a way that will make a difference, rather than practice tokenism by being the first off the blocks in reducing on-farm greenhouse gas emissions
Hilton
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Give us your food …
One of the great benefits of going overseas on business is that it lets you see the issues we face from the perspective of others.
Recently, as a guest of the International Plant Nutrition Institute I presented a paper to a conference in Brazil, and during gaps in the programme and in the evenings I fell into discussion with other participants as to what were our respective ‘hot’ agricultural issues.
While greenhouse gas emissions were a common area of concern, what surprised others was our decision to include on-farm emissions in our Emissions Trading Scheme.
Yes, they agreed each country should play its part and accept the logic of including agriculture’s processing and manufacturing emissions – but they were surprised that alone among counties we were forging ahead with on-farm restrictions.
They pointed out that it might ultimately reduce food production, that 15 percent of the world’s population already has inadequate access to food supplies and that, if the world’s projected population in 20 years time is to be fed, food production will have to increase by 40 percent.
They ran the line that the world needed our food – and the more we could produce the better - more desperately than it needed what will in reality be a miniscule cut in global emissions.
I found it hard to fault their logic, but it’s not an argument that will have legs in New Zealand as we move towards setting our emission goals.
Perhaps it’s because we are a lucky country that will never have to worry about producing adequate food supplies to feed our people. Perhaps you have to look hunger in the face to help you order priorities.
Hilton
Recently, as a guest of the International Plant Nutrition Institute I presented a paper to a conference in Brazil, and during gaps in the programme and in the evenings I fell into discussion with other participants as to what were our respective ‘hot’ agricultural issues.
While greenhouse gas emissions were a common area of concern, what surprised others was our decision to include on-farm emissions in our Emissions Trading Scheme.
Yes, they agreed each country should play its part and accept the logic of including agriculture’s processing and manufacturing emissions – but they were surprised that alone among counties we were forging ahead with on-farm restrictions.
They pointed out that it might ultimately reduce food production, that 15 percent of the world’s population already has inadequate access to food supplies and that, if the world’s projected population in 20 years time is to be fed, food production will have to increase by 40 percent.
They ran the line that the world needed our food – and the more we could produce the better - more desperately than it needed what will in reality be a miniscule cut in global emissions.
I found it hard to fault their logic, but it’s not an argument that will have legs in New Zealand as we move towards setting our emission goals.
Perhaps it’s because we are a lucky country that will never have to worry about producing adequate food supplies to feed our people. Perhaps you have to look hunger in the face to help you order priorities.
Hilton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
