The threats to international market access are not just price related. They have been introduced into a system where previously we could compete with the best but are now being threatened by aggressive ideologically inspired terrorist organisations that have no respect for anything other that brute force.
It has become a nightmare of not knowing whether we will still be in business next month, let alone next year.
But I am not yet ready to try something else even though at my age, it is probably well passed time that l should.
As we have done in the past, I believe the farmers and supportive industries of New Zealand are still capable of finding a way to make the new environment work in our favour.
Because this nation depends so much on the Agriculture industry and it’s “off shoots”, we must commit to designing new ways of making a living from what we have - which in turn, must be enough to satisfy the needs of all our people.
It will not be easy because it will mean for some that they may have to use the land they own in a significantly different way or introduce a different mix of livestock and crops more attractive to the demands of a changing world.
In some ways, we already know what we need to do immediately.
The climate events of last year have shown how vulnerable many parts of the country are to climate change whether it is man made or just as a result of planetary oscillation. For starters, we have no option but to reset our farming practices so that they are more in harmony with the natural environment.
This type of change will be particularly important in areas where we can no longer expect to keep doing the same things and yet expect a different result.
However, the opportunities I mentioned before are real and are there for the taking as long as the whole community is on board with the changes that need to be made.
We simply can’t afford to expect a prosperous future to be handed to us on a plate without adequate consultation with groups that may also be significantly affected by the changes. And major changes to infrastructure, although expensive, is a “must have”.
New fresh water storage reservoirs feeding reticulation of an irrigated network with reliable water will be key to the development that needs to happen in many places.
The Climate Change Gurus predict drought conditions we have not experienced before, particularly on the East Coasts of both Islands.
We can’t say we haven’t been warned.
Finally, there may need to be a change in attitude from Government as to how they can best support the farmers who currently are dealing with a crossbred wool clip that is costing them money rather than being a sizeable chunk of the “on farm” annual earnings.
While it may seem sacrilege to suggest a temporary system of compulsory crossbred wool acquisition, we can’t continue to treat this traditionally important commodity as if it doesn’t exist.
There are ways that the country as a whole could benefit from this type of acquisition.
We currently spend millions on imported synthetic home insulation products and carpets.
Given that wool is a biodegradable product and has a slow burning safety quality to add to its world wide reputation for warmth, surely we could make a case for compulsory crossbred wool acquisition that could tide us over until we have restructured the way we farm.
There is much work to do.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
7 comments:
Clive, I mut challenge your proposal to save crossbred wool by the Government compulsorily acquiring it. This is totally bizarre, and shows a lack of faith by you in the free market.
This is not a “traditionally important commodity”. It was, but the decline started with the sharp fall in the 1966/67 season, soon, actually, just after I started farming. It has been falling ever since, now representing less that 1% of our exports. The fact is that the world’s fiber market no longer wants it, its place being taken, whether we like it or not, by ever-improving and cheaper synthetics. This in spite of hard and imaginative work by farmers and others to keep up demand.
So the government buys the total crossbred wool clip. Then what do they do with it? And do they pay more than the market price for the wool. This is exactly the type of government approach – actually it goes further - than what we have just voted against.
Producers have been moving out of wool production for decades by changing land use (or selling to someone who will - dairy, forestry, lifestyle), or breeding away from wool to sheep meat by more fecund ewes, or beef, or breed out wool altogether. The result is that sheep numbers are now 40% of their peak, and are still falling and there’s no change of this trend in sight.
Wondered how long it would take.
You knowingly misrepresent what l am proposing Ewan.
But readers will not be fooled by your attempt to discredit everything l say or write. It has become your stock and trade.
Note l refer to this measure as a temporary one that can be justified alone on the use off the crossbred part of the clip which is currently next to worthless as a replacement for the synthetic home insulation and carpets we import. So l’m not talking about exporting any of the crossbred clip and l certainly referred to the wool clip as a traditionally important commodity - nothing about it still being in that category.
You will also note that l see this as a last resort given l generally do support a free market.
But sometimes, governments have to adopt policies that will support industries during a period of change such as we are are experiencing now but normally the necessary change occurs at a snowballs pace. Unfortunately, the Nation’s growers can’t wait that long especially given the significant expense associated with the maintenance of sheep that still grow crossbred wool as a bi-product for some time to come.
What do you say to them, many of whom are only keeping their head above water given that wool isn’t the only commodity with low export prices.
But my comments about the state of the wool industry was included almost as an afterthought.
Perhaps you might like to comment on the things l got wrong in the bulk of my piece which you will note was mostly what farmers must do in mitigation against the threat of Climate Change. - or perhaps you think it is a figment of our imagination.
I can’t comment on you saying “what farmers must do in mitigation against the threat of Climate Change”, which was “mostly” the bulk of your comment, because, apart from building reservoirs for irrigation, you didn’t actually say what they must do. Yes, irrigation is vital to enhancing production, but it has its limitation, the main one being the opportunity to build the storage dams which, we leant in Hawke’s Bay, is not a runner if the public are against it. I can say that with feeling. What other advice have you got for farmers in these challenging times. I think though, Clive, that you need to be a bit circumspect, given that the New Zealand farmers is regarded as the most adaptive, innovative and self-reliant as any in the world. He doesn’t want to be beholden to government.
How about “resetting the way we do things so that we are operating more in tune with the natural environment”
That covers a multitude - if not all - of current practices including ones l am committed to here on the East Coast.
I am not making nor ever have made suggestions that are opposed to current farmer attitudes or what they are are doing on their own patch
I have always respected their integrity and abilities which are both second to none.
However, as an opinion writer, l use my experience of living at the coalface when making observations about what needs to happen in the future - but they are only my opinions. You and others do it all the time so why do you find my entry into the conversation such a negative input.
l am making no claims that my ideas are the right ones for the times or should be adopted by anyone - simply offering them as a basis for a discussion we must have that include alternative options promoted by better minds than mine.
We live in changing times where we either adapt or go under. I prefer the former.
Oh, and on the Ruataniwha Dam proposal.
It didn’t happen because the public didn’t want it - your own research as a member of the HB Regional Council at the time showed that it was badly promoted including a poisonous option allowing a small amount of dairying to be included.
In my opinion and that of many others reviewing the end result, it was the incompetency of those with responsibility to present a proposal negating public concerns that allowed the Environmental activists to challenge all of the weak links in the proposal, including a suggested swap of conservation land that became a bridge too far. In hindsight, neither of those ingredients were crucial to getting it over the line but included - undoubtedly proved to be its archillies heal.
There is no question in my mind that HB and NZ as a whole will regret that proposal isn’t now contributing massively to the national economy.
However, if it were me, l would be accepting the opportunity that now exists with a New Government sympathetic to making these much needed infrastructure changes happen and presenting a revised proposal. That is what we will be doing up here in Tairawhiti where our economy would also benefit from a similar proposal and knowing some of the main players as l do, l rate our chances as better than 50/50.
I’d sooner give up on this; arguing with you is like punching air. However, I think it is fair to say that I have a better grasp on the issue of the Ruataniwha Dam than you, given that I was on the council at the time and, with others, lost my seat over it. 3 years later my wife, after 15 outstanding years as Hastings deputy mayor stood for the regional council pro-dam and was decidedly defeated.
The three main reasons why the project failed was;
1. Cost
2. An economist predicted that 9,000 hectares of land would become irrigated dairying, which the opponents latched on to as a fact. It was nonsense. The cost of the water would have made dairying uneconomic and there would have been less dairying, if any. (Just like dairying has exited the Heretaunga Plains, and that was where the water was free.)
3. There was a deal with DOC. About (from memory) 10 hectares of the Ruahine Forest Park was to be flooded, but the Council acquired about 100 hectares to be added to the park in compensation. The opponents took it to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that DOC land was sacrosanct and could not be flooded. That fixed it!
In other words, you and Cynthia were the two most high profile political casualties of a deceitful distortion of the Dam proposal by those who knew the false narrative they were presenting to the public and that it was the only way they could beat you at the ballot box.
Their successful attempt at manipulating the vote by telling lies about the consequences of the dam being built will live as one of the blackest days in New Zealand political history. Even the projected cost was to a large extent a matter of opinion depending on whether you opposed the project or supported it. That is normal with any public project of that size. However the other two reasons you give for its failure are in line with my own recollections
Although l disagree with you on many things Ewan, l believe we are in lock step providing our seperate versions of what actually happened
with this one.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.