Will it be a brave new world or more of the same?
The latter, doing everything as we do it now, is probably not a good option. It will mean we earn less in real terms for our products and will face increased expenses and production limits caused by things like environment regulations and climate change for we will still face pressure from within our society on many issues affecting farming.
So, we look for new ways of making more from what we’ve got while satisfying public opinion both here and abroad and contending with the fickle whims of politicians imposing protectionist policies harking back to another age.
That means we need a picture of what that brave new world will look like.
I haven’t got a clue how it will end up.
And I reckon no one else does either.
Plenty of people are willing to us how they want it to be. But many of them take extreme positions or are motivated by a single issue.
The possibilities are numerous. Some could work in harmony. Some are exclusive of others.
I quite often think of such things but what got me writing was an opinion piece on AgriHQ Pulse by New Zealand Merino Company chief executive John Brakenridge.
The gist of it was that New Zealanders much make more from less to capture more than $37 billion of the $250b worth of goods we produce.
He argues it is time for his generation to take responsibility and make tough environmental decisions, to lead the world and thus take advantage of demand for new categories of food in areas like the health and wellness market.
We must be an environmental, social and financial example to the rest of the world. In other words we must have a reputation for doing the right thing, he says.
Not everyone will agree with Brakenridge.
He gives a formula for how he sees the world of tomorrow but he leaves out one vital ingredient.
That’s leadership.
We don’t need leaders who will impose a blueprint for the future on us but leaders who will kick some bums and bang some heads where necessary and facilitate debate. After all, isn’t that what we pay politicians for?
And, besides, it’s election year so it’s a good time to press politicians on where their support lies and extract some promises of action because ultimately they will be the ones making the final decisions, albeit shaped by public opinion.
I reckon the debate isn’t a debate yet.
What’s being said consists mostly of people with set positions stating their preferences and there’s precious little interaction between them.
Having a nation of people with entrenched positions sniping at each other while the rest of us duck for cover in our bewilderment won’t sort things out.
We have a soup of opinions sloshing round in a washing machine with no one to push the stop button and untangle the threads.
For instance, if we decided we will continue to trade on our reputation as clean, green NZ can we also use genetic technologies and if so do we have open slather or pick some technologies while continuing to ban others.
Brakenridge isn’t the only one with an answer. Many people support the idea of using genetic technologies as the solution to achieving exactly what he wants: producing more from less while protecting the environment.
He says “There has never been a greater opportunity for NZ to show we are not only the best country in the world but also the best country for the world.”
It’s an admirable end to aim for.
What we need some clarity about is how we get there.
Even getting consensus on the process is likely to be fraught. It’s unlikely to be decided on the facts, the science and economics.
There are emotional issues involved and they can’t be ignored.
Ultimately, it might be decided that what’s best for the country is whatever option gains most backing or whichever one most people decide they can live with.
Oh, and while everyone’s in the mood for open-minded consideration of all the options, it might be time to look at the tourism issue.
The tourism industry has also taken some swipes at agriculture, viewing it as a threat.
However, tourism itself could be seen as a threat to tourism.
It’s putting huge pressure on our infrastructure and on nature.
Much of the cost is borne mostly by ratepayers – the group least able to pay – rather than the tourism industry.
Perhaps it’s time to get the tourism industry to invest in its own future by helping to pay for the infrastructure and for the upkeep of national parks and so on.
Read John Brankenridge's column for AgriHQ Pulse here.
