Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Landcorp advice isn’t welcome

Avatar photo
I started to wonder about the functionality of the Landcorp board and senior management over the sale of Jericho Station. Simply put, it was a shambles and, I suggest, incredibly naive.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

I was also unimpressed with the rebranding to Pamu. 

I googled Pamu and found just two matches, 

Protected Area Management Unit and Parents Against Mandatory Uniforms.

I realise Pamu means I farm in Maori but that achieves little in the international marketplace, which is inevitably why Fonterra is Latin based.

It is also important to remember rebranding from Telecom to Spark cost the company at least $20 million.

I can understand why Telecom wanted a new start. I’m at a total loss to figure why Landcorp did.

Then we read that Landcorp established an advisory group of environmental experts.

We were told the group comprised six of the country’s leading primary sector experts across a range of fields.

The six included Alison Dewes, Mike Joy and Guy Salmon. The others are unknown to me.

Joy and Dewes will be well known to farmers. Cruising the internet I could find no primary sector qualifications or experience for Salmon.

He did stand for Parliament for both the Progressive Greens and National and was involved in the early stages of the Resource Management Act but that doesn’t make him a leading primary sector expert.

Giving Joy credibility doesn’t do much for me either.

My view of the media release is that the statements from Landcorp chief executive Steven Carden are hyperbole. Claiming the group demonstrates a new model for the primary sector is ridiculous.

It might demonstrate a temporary new direction for the excesses of Landcorp, nothing more.

I was then somewhat flabbergasted to read an opinion piece by Carden.

His statements were sweeping.

“The problem is that we have now reached the economic, social and environmental limits of how we currently farm and we need a new strategy for creating wealth from our farms and from the land we have been entrusted with.”

Is he qualified to make that statement?

‘But the negative environmental impact of working to meet that need, (feeding the world) is undeniable – from greenhouse gases to waterway pollution, agriculture, in the midst of trying to feed the world, has also played a part in poisoning it.”

Reality tells us Landcorp became profitable through inputs and dairy.

It hasn’t paid a dividend to its owner, the Government either. No farmer would survive like that.

Carden talks about economic, social and environmental limits but based on what? The Ministry for the Environment has them in its briefing to incoming ministers but has been unable to come up with a definition.

I found the use of the emotive word, poisoning offensive. What is Carden’s statement about poisoning the environment based on? 

His statement “from greenhouse gases and waterway pollution” implies a great list but those are the only two.

Forgotten are the Auckland sewerage issue, sewerage generally, cars and plastics.

What irritated me was Carden using or misusing his position to denigrate New Zealand agriculture and suggesting a change in focus, which I don’t accept. I’m certainly unaware of any hard scientific evidence.

We are more efficient now in inputs and water per unit of protein than in the past. We are the envy of other countries.

He positions Landcorp as the nation’s biggest farmer. Bigger doesn’t mean better.

Being pious about palm kernel didn’t do much for me either. 

No farmers use palm kernel if they can use grass but putting it in perspective palm kernel is a waste product half the cost of alternatives and cows don’t need time for rumen adjustment.

The de-intensification argument doesn’t hold water either.

According to DairyNZ we farm at an average of 2.8 cows/ha with an average cow weight of 450kg.

Britain is aiming for three cows/ha at 550kg.

Carden crows proudly about fencing waterways, riparian planting and de-intensifying at Landcorp. That’s no different from what many farmers are doing.

Further, talking plant products as the new production focus is simplistic because they are high users of inputs and create sediment and greenhouse gases when cultivation is required, as it inevitably is.

Is he talking genetic engineering as is being used in synthetic proteins? 

My basic premise is that Landcorp isn’t qualified to make the sweeping statements it has.

It isn’t paying a dividend and it announced in November 2016 it was off-loading 10 farms.

Further, Treasury has said it is sceptical of Landcorp’s wish to diversify into different products and parts of the supply chain.

Previous Minister Nathan Guy said there is no clear public good coming from Crown ownership and little financial return to taxpayers.

Then Prime Minister Bill English described Landcorp as a poor investment.

My view is Landcorp has absolutely no business giving advice to anyone.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading