The current law regarding firearms isn’t working. I’m aware of many firearm owners who don’t have a current arms licence for a variety of reasons. Discussing this with a Police friend, he made the comment that they were breaking the law, which is correct – they are. My response to that was to ask what the Police are going to do about it and the answer was “not much we can”.

We do need credible, workable and respected firearms laws in New Zealand and that must involve change. The current system isn’t working.

The minister responsible, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee, has grasped the nettle and is proceeding to reform the legislation. She’s paying a heavy price for that.

The current Act goes back to1983. That’s over 40 years ago. Life has changed and the introduction of 3D printers capable of manufacturing firearms would be one example.

Minister McKee has four phases with her reform process.

The first was to go after criminals and their guns and that’s been completed. Kiwis are safer now as a result of that process.

Phase Two was to reform the law involving the excessive and pointless bureaucracy over clubs and ranges. It had no impact on public safety.

Phase Three is the Registry review, which is underway. I’m pleased the Ministry of Justice is conducting the review and not the Police.

I’m cynical of the Registry for several reasons. For a start, the Police told me they needed a Register to be able to monitor those firearms stolen from legitimate owners. The reality is that of the 6500 firearms seized over the past three years, only 123 were legally imported or manufactured in NZ. A Register is a complete waste of time on that front alone.

The second is to ask if we need such an expensive and elaborate process when, as I’ve stated, a large number of firearm owners don’t even trust the current licensing system.

Finally, friends who do have a licence don’t want to be part of the Register. They just don’t trust the security of the Police system.

Phase Four is to rewrite the Arms Act and the minister is hoping for a draft by the end of the year. At this point she hasn’t received any advice on the Arms Act rewrite despite all the hysteria over the reforms.

Gun licensing will be going from Police, but no final details have been decided.

I support that. While I have considerable respect for the Police, gun licensing isn’t their stock in trade and as the awarding of a licence to a terrorist showed, they weren’t infallible.

In addition, their current system is farcical. It takes a one-page questionnaire to renew a driver’s licence and four to renew a liquor licence. Why then do you need 39 pages to renew a gun licence? It is a huge disincentive and just another reason why people don’t get licences.

For all those reasons I totally support Minister McKee’s reform process. If it gets cabinet approval we’ll have for the first time in decades a process that firearm owners will support as being workable and credible.

Her aim is to “develop good firearms legislation that will last for decades and keep the public safe”. 

What has disappointed me most is the inaccurate portrayal of the McKee position combined with the personal attacks she has suffered. 

For a start the only thing the opposition politicians, the Police Association and sections of the media have concentrated on is semi-automatics. Semi-automatics that our criminal elements are importing with impunity, a fact known to both the minister of police and the Police Association.

The classification of allowable firearms is recommended by the minister of police under section 74A of the Arms Act. In addition, any change of classification needs cabinet approval, not that of individual ministers as claimed by the hysterical. When in government, Labour used that section with impunity.

I’ve also been disgusted by the personal attacks on Minister McKee and am reminded of the old adage which suggests that if you can’t win an argument by using fact and reason, your only remaining option is to get personal.

The accusation that Minister McKee is an arms industry lobbyist is farcical. Yes, she was spokesperson for the Coalition of Licensed Firearm Owners over the previous government’s rushed and botched legislation. No one has added that the minister has spent a lifetime teaching firearms safety, is a NZ shooting champion and a communicator of the year in 2019. She knows what she is talking about, which is refreshing in a politician.

The anti-McKee cacophony coming from Labour’s Ginny Andersen and the Police Association’s Chris Cahill is just that, meaningless noise from Police lobbyists who should know better.

They would be better working with the coalition government to get workable, credible and respected firearms legislation instead of merely sitting in the wings throwing bricks.

New Zealand farmers have done the tough part.

Our pasture-based farming system is acknowledged as efficient, having the world’s lowest carbon footprint. Our animal welfare systems are considered world class and we no longer engage in deforestation.

These are some patriotic, baseless claims. This is what global politicians, food processors and retailers say.

But what they acknowledge and what they can quantify are two different factors.

As we say, farmers have done the tough part; they now need to show that data to those who need to know.

Having crossed the first hurdle, our customers want continuous improvement.

The quest for data to prove that sustainability is being acted on is coming from multiple directions: politicians, financiers and companies who have publicly announced carbon-zero targets, non-government organisations who want faster action in climate change, and consumers.

Rules and regulations require regular reporting on meeting sustainability targets but companies are also being judged by pressure groups and their consumers on progress or lack of it.

There are benefits to farmers from meeting these requirements.

That accumulation of information will give farmers greater insight into multiple aspects of their business, but there will also be another significant benefit.

Food companies and retailers today talk about having a partnership with farmers and their processors rather than basic commercial relationship.

They certainly want quality and functionality, but as they meet reporting requirements demanded by governments, boards and consumers they will need buy-in from throughout the supply chain.

They also need confidence and trust that the data being provided is accurate and in a form that is comparable and relevant.

The world is moving fast. We have a ticket to play in the major leagues and we cannot let this slip through our fingers, exposing us to lower-paying, uncertain, price-driven customers.

But we need a process that doesn’t require the filing of duplicated data.

OSPRI, dairy and meat companies, StatsNZ, regional councils and the Ministry for Primary Industries all require data, much of which overlaps.

It must be a priority for those parties to get together and find a way that farmers can collate that relevant data in a way that is useful for all parties.

As we report this week, global agricultural trade is slowing as countries become more nationalistic and protectionist.

There has also been a deluge of rules and regulations imposed by governments such as the European Union, often under the guise of environmental protection but which some say will be at the expense of food security.

One proposal that has earned the wrath of exporters such as NZ is the EU’s deforestation policy, a blanket requirement for producers of products such as beef to prove it did result in deforestation.

Record agricultural subsidies of nearly NZ$1.4 trillion were paid by 54 wealthy and emerging countries each year between 2020 and 2022, but the trend is to start linking payment with environment outcomes.

These two factors are likely to result in lower domestic food production in places like the EU, but the demand for food is not going to slow.

NZ is ideally placed to full that void, but it will require some changes in the way we supply. We will need to quantify just how efficient and sustainable we are at producing food. 

In this series, the team each offer a big-picture strategy for food & fibre. 

Two very different people asked me the same question recently: What should I do with my life now? 

One was nearing retirement after a successful career. The other a mum considering her newfound freedom after the toddler years. 

Both conversations bogged down quickly. This was complex stuff, after all – a matter of trawling through life experiences to weigh up the countless options open to them. So we tried another approach. 

Forget about “what” the right choice is. Let’s consider “how” you’ll choose instead.   

That reframe was electric. In minutes they had the outline of a plan. For the retiree, that included professional coaching, a national road-trip to reconnect with admired friends and a deliberate step out of the comfort-zone – in this case immersion in Te Ao Māori. 

When Einstein said “we can’t solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them”, I’m pretty sure this was what he was talking about. Stepping back to come at the problem differently. To consider how, not what. 

Maybe I’m just on the lookout for examples of  how, not what – but I keep seeing them everywhere. 

In Atomic Habits, author James Clear offers some confronting advice. Ignore goal-setting and focus on building better everyday habits and systems. Having had SMART goals drilled into me since childhood, I nearly choked on my Weetbix when I read that. But on reflection, the argument holds up. 

Daily systems – like going to the gym, eating right, reading more etcetera – are what actually move us forward, not the New Year’s resolution. Any farmer will tell you the same – get the inputs right and the outputs will fix themselves. Save your pennies, and the pounds will save themselves. Work on the business, not in it. 

I saw”how, not what” in the Sinai desert on my Nuffield global experience. Living in some of the toughest conditions on earth, the people of the Neot Samadar rural community were running a thriving business stretching across hospitality, tourism, renewable energy, horticulture, education and branded health products. 

When I asked to see their business plan, they said they didn’t have one. Their culture – the “how” – is the engine of their business success. 

Individuals are encouraged to explore new diversifications, with their ideas reviewed through a long consensus decision-making process with the whole 400-plus person community. Leadership roles change regularly to give emerging members opportunities to grow. Time together as a group is prioritised above anything that happens on farm. In this system, their business success happened almost by accident. 

Back here in the New Zealand food and fibre sector, we have a new goal. It’s a good one too. To double the value of our exports in the next 10 years.  

The leadership system tasked with achieving that goal is now 34 years old. The dust had barely settled on the rubble of the Berlin Wall when the Commodity Levies Act was signed.

Back in 1990, we went through a system-change – part of a series of deeply painful reforms, but in this case, worth it. That change set up the sector bodies that enabled three decades of production gains and growth. The success we enjoy today is a direct result of that decision to change the system.  

But more production won’t get us to a doubling of export value. No chance. Instead, we’ll need to do new things. Like building a shared data exchange so producers only have to input data once. Or a verifiable national food story that makes NZ food and fibre products genuinely stand out to global consumers. Or a workforce system that improves the retention rate of new staff – at least up to the national average. Or a sector-wide pathway to find and invest in great talent and future leaders. Or a land-use change pathway to help producers diversify and stay viable as markets and our climate changes. 

I’m not convinced that our current leadership structure, despite being staffed by some phenomenal Kiwis, can overcome its inbuilt silos and develop these kinds of sector-wide future systems. 

So I’m in support of KPMG and AGMARDT’s proposal for The Common Ground, a collaboration platform where our 150-plus industry-good organisations can pool resources and people around our mega challenges and opportunities. 

A disclaimer here: I’m deeply biased. I provided comms support on this project. But I took the job because I believe this kind of work – to build better systems – is what will ultimately enable a doubling of export value in the constrained, complicated world we find ourselves in.

To quote Clear, “We don’t rise to our goals. We fall to our systems.” If we’re not prepared to have a serious conversation about system-change in this sector, then our grand goal is meaningless. 

As we mark 125 years since the establishment of New Zealand’s most influential rural advocacy organisation, it’s timely to reflect on the journey that has shaped Federated Farmers into the organisation it is today. 

The founding era: the birth of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union

The story begins in Kaitaia on 18 September 1899 with the formation of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union (NZFU) by Thomas Portland Smith, an early pioneer of the dairy industry who had settled on raw land in the Far North. 

By the late 19th century, our budding agricultural sector was facing increasing headwinds, with market fluctuations, land management issues, and the emerging challenge of navigating complex government policies. 

Smith, a forward-thinking farmer and rural advocate, quickly recognised the need for a single unified voice to strengthen farmers’ position to create leverage when engaging with the government. 

The NZFU provided a platform for farmers to come together, discuss common issues, and negotiate collectively for better pricing and fair land management rules. 

Founding members understood that a strong, organised group could better negotiate with suppliers, government officials, and other stakeholders. 

The union quickly gained traction, particularly in the North Island, offering services and becoming a powerful advocate for farming families. 

The organisation’s first national conference was held in 1902.

A South Island collective: the Sheep Owners’ Federation

Only a decade later, in 1910, similar manoeuvring was happening in Canterbury with the formation of the New Zealand Sheepowners Federation by Henry Acland, of Mt Peel Station.

During this era, Canterbury, with its expansive pastoral lands, was a major hub for sheep farming – the cornerstone of the New Zealand economy at the time. 

Like Smith, Acland recognised the need for a unified voice to promote the interests of sheep owners and address issues like fluctuating wool prices, disease outbreaks, and the need for improved farming practices and infrastructure.

Early members banded together to share knowledge and leverage their collective influence to negotiate better terms for wool and mutton, and to secure more favourable conditions for their operations.

Acland served as president of the Sheepowners Federation until his death in 1942. 

Merger and birth of Federated Farmers: 1945

In the aftermath of World War 2, a significant milestone was reached as the New Zealand Farmers Union and the Sheepowners Federation merged into one organisation: Federated Farmers. 

Although controversial at the time, the merger was driven by a desire, and need, to form a more united and influential agricultural body that could effectively address the needs of all farmers, not just one sector. 

Federated Farmers’ formation marked the beginning of a new era for farming advocacy in New Zealand. The organisation emerged as a stronger, more cohesive body with a broader mandate to represent all farmers.

In the decades after the merger, Federated Farmers continued to grow and adapt to the changing agricultural landscape, with developing technologies, shifting market dynamics, and evolving government policies. 

A proud legacy: celebrating 125 years of farmer advocacy

The journey of Federated Farmers, beginning with the vision of both Thomas Portland Smith and Henry Acland, is a testament to the enduring importance of organised farmer advocacy in New Zealand. 

The merger of the two organisations led to the formation of a powerful and inclusive cross-sector body that remains committed to advancing the interests of farmers, supporting rural communities, and contributing to the growth of our agricultural sector to this day. 

We’re incredibly proud of our 125-year legacy of advocating for farmers – and we’re looking forward to the next 125 years too.

Federated Farmers, New Zealand’s leading independent rural advocacy organisation, has established a news and insights partnership with AgriHQ, the country’s leading rural publisher, to give the farmers of New Zealand a more informed, united and stronger voice. Federated Farmers news and commentary appears each week in its own section of the Farmers Weekly print edition and online.

Earlier this month Farmers Weekly reported on the China-EU trade tensions and how they could create further opportunities for New Zealand dairy.

Written by Nigel Stirling, the article started by telling us that “an anti-dumping probe by the Chinese government could sideline European dairy producers and create new opportunities for New Zealand in the world’s biggest dairy import market”.

That’s good news for New Zealand as increasingly we’re living in a volatile world with a volatile trading environment.

China is the world’s biggest importer of dairy products and our largest trading partner. We need to keep them on side for the good of the country. Without China our economy would be, charitably speaking, toast.

It was, therefore, with some concern that I viewed recent statements by our prime minister concerning the new direction of our foreign policy.

I’ve been a proud supporter of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and believe it has served us well.

We’re now told by the prime minister that “New Zealand is undertaking a foreign policy reset”. That was followed by his statement that “the days of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy are over”.

I don’t remember any discussion of that change in foreign policy direction either during the election campaign or since. It is a major issue. It needs to be publicly debated and not dictated from on high.

It seems what that reset means is cuddling up to the United States. The two current international flashpoints, Ukraine and Gaza, have the US’s footprint all over them and NZ shouldn’t be involved.

Sadly we are. We’re training Ukrainian troops in the United Kingdom. That was, in my view, a mistake by the previous government. The Ukrainian crisis will be solved by talking and not by getting involved in the military operation.

Currently Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening war if the US and UK supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. Do we want to be involved?

Stupidly, in my view, we’re also tied up in the Middle East and, again, on the side of the US and UK. We’re involved in a force that is undertaking airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthis claim, right or wrong, that they are targeting ships assisting Israel.

What that means is that in the two major conflicts currently affecting the world we are on the side of the US and I can’t understand why.

The argument revolving around traditional allies doesn’t wash. Yes, we fought with the US in World War II and in Vietnam. We went to Vietnam because we were promised a free trade agreement with the US, which never eventuated. 

With Ukraine it seems to me that all the US and to a lesser extent NATO are doing is upping the stakes, to the tune of US$380 billion ($613bn) since January 22. The US contribution to that was US$58.5bn.

They are huge sums and have they achieved anything? I’d suggest not, except navigating us ever closer to a nuclear conflagration.

Then in the believe-it-or-not category, the US has ordered India and China to stop supplying munitions to Russia. I fail to see the difference with the US supplying arms to Ukraine and China supplying them to Russia.

Indian companies have been hit with the US reprisals and remember it is part of BRICS, the coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

If we really do want an FTA with India, backing the US isn’t smart.

Then, idiotically, we’re considering joining AUKUS pillar 2, the nuclear agreement between Australia, the UK and US aimed at China. The Chinese advised against the move.

Again, stupidly in my opinion, we’re joining a US-led space initiative that “aims to deter threats in space from hostile countries”. For hostile countries read China. Defence Minister Judith Collins then told me that we “will retain operational sovereignty”. Spare me.  

Then Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said that “NZ is keen to be part of the broad US-led rules-based international order”.

How? I’ve discussed Ukraine, and the Gaza conflict has been described by the United Nations as “American-sponsored genocide” to the tune of US$158bn.

That promises the same potential of a nuclear war as the Ukraine conflict.

Mr Luxon also told me he was “deliberately deepening our relationship with Five Eyes”. For the reasons I’ve outlined, why would you?

I don’t believe the US is serious about creating a rules-based world order. Look at how it’s broken the rules-based World Trade Organisation.

Another complication with the government’s move is the pending US presidential election. The Trump-Vance team has promised to raise tariffs on all imports. That won’t be good for New Zealand.

In addition, heaven only knows what that team will achieve for world order and world peace.

NZ is a trading nation that has successfully relied on an independent foreign policy. We should continue to do so.

Cristina Alvarado, commercial manager, data and insight at NZX.

New Zealand’s dairy industry started the 2024-25 season on a positive note, with July marking a production recovery after a slower June, though output remains on the lower side of the seasonal milk curve. 

Milk production for the month reached 27.4 million kilograms of milksolids, up 9.2% year on year (YoY) – the highest July on record, surpassing the five-year rolling average by 6.2%. In tonnage terms, production totalled 310,000 tonnes, an 8.4% YoY increase, reflecting a strong early-season performance despite the initial June dip. 

Peak production, typically occurring between September and November, is still ahead. 

According to our revised NZX milk production predictor, YoY increases of 3.7%, 1.8%, and 0.8% are expected for August, September, and October, respectively. However, weather patterns could affect pasture growth, leading to potential volatility in production levels.

Globally, dairy markets displayed mixed trends. United States milk production in July fell by -0.4% YoY, while Argentina and Uruguay saw sharper declines of -4.8% and -9.2%, respectively. Conversely, Australia reported a 1.6% YoY increase in July production, while Europe saw 1.3% growth in June.

Upcoming US and European production reports may reveal further constraints. In the US, ongoing avian flu cases, now confirmed to be spread to California dairy cattle, and a shortage of heifers are expected to weigh on production in the coming months. 

Similarly, European milk production, while recently positive, faces growing challenges, including adverse weather and disease outbreaks such as bluetongue and lungworm, which may affect output.

On the trade front, New Zealand dairy exports showed robust growth in July. Export volumes increased by 10.2% YoY, with values rising by 10.7%. Total export volumes reached 282,715 tonnes, driven by strong gains in skim milk powder (SMP), cheese, infant formula, and casein. SMP rebounded sharply, up 57% YoY, thanks to strong demand from China and other Asian markets. However, anhydrous milk fat (AMF) and butter exports saw declines in volume.

August’s Global Dairy Trade (GDT) auctions reflected this varied landscape. GDT Event 361 on August 6 saw a modest 0.5% rise in the index, driven by gains in whole milk powder (WMP) and AMF, while SMP prices continued to decline. 

The market bounced back strongly later during the next August auctions, with index growth in pulse and the GDT average index surging 5.5% at Event 362 on August 20 – marking the largest increase since March 2021. September’s first auction, Event 363, saw a slight -0.4% dip, with WMP prices easing by -2.5%, while SMP showed strength, rising 4.5% reaching US$2,753 per tonne, its fourth-highest average price in the past 12 months.

As the industry navigates these developments, stakeholders are encouraged to stay informed through events like the upcoming SGX-NZX Global Dairy Seminar, scheduled for October 7-9. This annual event offers a key platform for sharing insights and strategies in response to the evolving global dairy landscape. 

For more information or to register, click here.

New Zealand company Ruminant BioTech, formed in 2021, is on track to launch its methane-reducing slow-release bolus in Australia next October. 

It successfully raised equity capital of $12.2 million last year in addition to government funding of $7.8m under the Climate Emergency Response Fund for investment in research and development. More recently, it has received $4m from AgriZeroNZ and an AU$3.5m ($3.8m) grant from the Australian government’s Methane Reduction in Livestock fund.

This last grant is particularly appropriate because the faster regulatory approval process in Australia permits the earlier introduction of the product there than in this country. Tom Breen, CEO of Ruminant BioTech, says there are many different regulatory frameworks around the world that require complying with, so the slower process in New Zealand must be respected. Under the present approval scenario here, he expects to release the bolus here in another three years, but says the earlier release in Australia will provide the opportunity to scale up and iron out any teething problems.

The company’s success in obtaining the capital needed to get started is based on the positive results from the thousands of small-scale trials performed before commercial production begins. Breen is quietly confident that the 12 months of further testing before the October 2025 launch in Australia will address any outstanding issues. 

To date Ruminant BioTech has produced thousands of boluses to prove the technology’s reliability, consistency and duration. It achieves at least 75% reduction in methane emissions on pasture over 100 days.

Now it is time to complete the commercial plant and work towards the product launch, which will address an initially narrow target of weaner beef cattle before moving on to older cattle, including dairy cows. 

This will be particularly important in New Zealand, given the fact there are nearly 5 million dairy cows compared with about 3.5 million beef cattle. Breen is unable to give any idea of the cost of the bolus, but believes it will be a low-cost, high-performance solution.

DairyNZ principal scientist Jane Kay welcomes the progress being made in developing methane mitigation technology and looks forward to seeing published data from Ruminant BioTech with details of the product’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions and herd performance over time. For technologies to work well in the NZ dairy system, they need to be effective in growing and lactating cows throughout the season, while maintaining or improving feed intake, animal health, and performance (for example, production and reproduction) in NZ farming conditions. 

She makes the point that “experience with research in this area indicates that cow physiology (growing heifers vs dry vs lactating cows), pasture seasonality and supplementary feed intake, product dose, and duration of the response all have an impact on the GHG mitigation potential”.

“These factors need to be considered and evaluated in conjunction with cost and adoptability of the product to determine their potential to mitigate emissions within the NZ dairy sector.”

Beef + Lamb NZ’s GM for excellence Dan Brier is really pleased to see Ruminant BioTech’s progress with an ingenious solution to a previously intractable problem – mitigating methane emissions in a pasture-based farming system. He is keen to see the product available to New Zealand farmers as soon as possible, but recognises the need to ensure a robust approval process is followed without compromising food safety. He is also eagerly anticipating when the product is available for use in sheep, although the company’s immediate focus is to ensure the bolus does a thorough job in cattle.

The active ingredient in the product is a synthetically produced, naturally occurring compound called tribromomethane, closely related to bromoform – which is the active ingredient in asparagopsis seaweed.

Research has found bromoform, although potentially carcinogenic, if administered in low doses is not bioavailable in meat, therefore there is minimal risk of residue transfer in livestock or humans. This would possibly be more of a factor in dairy cows and milk than beef cattle.

Ruminant BioTech is not the only company intending to introduce this technology using TBM. Perth-based Rumin8 already has provisional approval from New Zealand’s Animal Compounds and Veterinary Medicines to conduct commercial trials here. The main difference between the two companies’ technologies appears to be in the delivery method: in the case of Ruminant BioTech delivery is via a slow-release bolus that sits in the cow’s stomach (ideal for pasture-raised animals), while Rumin8’s solution is administered through solid feed and water formulations. 

Also, Sydney startup Number 8 Bio has just raised AU$7m to progress product development and build a new facility to produce a range of methane reducing feed additives based on the same ingredients. This company is not as far advanced as the others in its development, although trials are being conducted in collaboration with the Queensland Animal Science Precinct and the University of New England. It is confident of being able to cut methane emissions by 90% and improve rumen productivity.

Until very recently, methane emissions reduction in a pastoral farming environment was thought to be unachievable, Bovaer being the only obvious option and more suited to feedlots and indoor feeding. But there now appear to be several options potentially available for cattle in the relatively near future and at an affordable cost, all using a similar technology. 

If even one of them turns out to be applicable to sheep, the holy grail of solving farming’s methane emissions problem may no longer be just a pipedream but a reality.

In Focus Podcast | Methane busting in the Netherlands

Reporter Neal Wallace checks in from Amsterdam and tells Bryan about his visits to Wageningen University and to a Dutch dairy farm. He says the methane research going on there is promising and NZ farmers should be aware that emissions efficiencies are improving in the EU and other key food producing countries.

By David Norton, an emeritus professor at the University of Canterbury and strategic science adviser to Pure Advantage.

Catchment groups have been incredibly successful in Aotearoa at implementing landscape-scale environmental management on private land by coordinating integrated action across multiple landowners. 

Projects undertaken have been diverse and include enhancing freshwater systems, introducing new farm production systems, native biodiversity conservation, plant and animal pest management, and exploring new income opportunities. Catchment groups also play a key role in rural extension by bringing experts in to talk to farmers and others in the area.

Recloaking Papatūānuku is an ambitious national-scale initiative to restore 2 million hectares of native forest and wetlands within the next 15-30 years, and will require collaboration with and leadership of catchment groups.

The aim of Recloaking Papatūānuku is to increase landscape resilience against increasingly severe storm events, help conserve our unique native biodiversity and permanently sequester atmospheric CO2. The initiative will directly tackle the effects of climate change and address the biodiversity crisis here in Aotearoa. 

Recloaking Papatūānuku will primarily take place across private land that is used for farming, horticulture, plantation forests and as lifestyle blocks. This land has a range of ownerships including individual Māori and pākeha, Māori land trusts and other entities, and companies, but is usually not owned by the government. While public land will be involved, Recloaking Papatūānuku will by necessity be implemented largely on private land.

For Recloaking Papatūānuku to be successful, it needs to be driven from the bottom up, a “forest-roots” initiative, led by the people on the ground, with support from local, regional and central government. 

Catchment groups will play an essential role, because these groups know the current land uses and are aware of which  parts of catchments critically require restoration to reduce flood water flows and sediment loss. 

Catchment groups are also best placed to undertake and coordinate the mahi that is required to implement restoration such as facilitating the ongoing management of restoration sites and the threats these sites face, from, for example, feral animals, weeds and fire. 

Recloaking Papatūānuku is not a “one-size-fits-all approach” – rather the initiative as a programme would always be adapted to the local context, which again catchment groups are best placed to do. 

Also, local people are the ones most directly impacted by extreme weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle, so they have a direct incentive to do this work. The improved landscape resilience and biodiversity that will result from implementing Recloaking Papatūānuku will directly benefit local farmers, iwi, and communities – and catchment groups are fundamental for making sure that these outcomes are achieved. 

 There is a need for higher-level support of implementation from government agencies, tertiary institutions,Crown Research Institutes, and others. Support will be required for catchment mapping and prioritisation of sites for management, work programme development, ecological advice on planting sites and species choice, threat management, auditing of management inputs and biodiversity outcomes, and so on. Help will come from multiple sources and will need to be coordinated. 

Provision of full-time coordinators for catchment groups will  be essential both to ensure that appropriate support is fed through to catchment  groups and to ensure that work programmes are efficiently managed. 

Relying on voluntary catchment coordinators, who are often farmers, is unrealistic for a programme of this scale. The recently formed Aotearoa New Zealand Catchment Community presents a real opportunity to coordinate the high-level support required for catchment groups across the motu.

Recloaking Paptūanuku is “he kakano e kore e tatari kia ruia – a seed that can’t wait to be sown”, an apt phrase that came to us in a hui with Waihoroi Shortland, Te Tai Tokerau, Ngāti Hine. 

But those seeds need to be planted by the local people, not by the government, and catchment groups are in a unique position to do this. Recloaking Papatūānuku represents a key opportunity to both secure the long-term viability of catchment groups, while at the same time allowing them to make a massive contribution through weaving ecological resilience back into our landscapes that benefits all of us here in Aotearoa.

By Kate Scott, Nuffield scholar, Scott of Bannockburn Vineyard is an environmental consultant. She writes in her personal capacity. 

In this series, the team each offer a big-picture strategy for food & fibre. 

Last week’s Eating the Elephant column by David Eade was about the “how” of our sector’s strategy to double exports. I want to talk about the “who”. 

If you’re like me, all this talk of sector strategy feels like déjà vu. The fact that we’ve tried a few times to have this conversation is a sign of two things. One, that it’s a burning issue and two, we have to address the reasons previous conversations and attempts have gone nowhere.  

If we want to grow exports in a way that also takes care of our land and our people, a clear strategy has to be the first step. But a strategy without a team behind it is just words on a page. 

To build that team, let’s focus on four things – herding the politicians, building future leaders, collaboration by design and the consumer.

Firstly, herding the politicians, or “multipartisanship” for the policy wonks out there. This might sound like the least likely place to start given the past few years, but hear me out. 

Having all political parties across the spectrum agree on a regulation and investment framework to double exports would be a game-changer. No more sudden rule changes after elections, and imagine the progress we could make with guaranteed priorities and investments alongside government.  

To gently nudge the politicians through this gate, though, we first need to lock in the fundamentals of what the sector wants to achieve. What priorities can everyone, across all of our industries, agree on? Sure, there will be plenty of matters where we don’t agree (and shouldn’t). But by focusing on the shared goals (such as water quality, emissions and biodiversity), we can make agriculture one of those “bigger than politics” issues. 

The second pillar we need for a strong team is a step-change in how we invest in future leaders. Technology is going to help to double exports – no doubt about it – but it will be people who drive that change. People who intuitively understand technology and millennial and Generation Z value sets. Tomorrow’s leaders. 

A Path to Realising Leadership Potential in Aotearoa NZ’s Food and Fibre Sector, by Rural Leaders and the Food and Fibre Centre of Vocational Excellence (FFCoVE), sets out a principles-centred approach for leadership in the sector, allowing us to foster high-performing teams capable of successfully doubling exports. 

I love this wisdom from Ta Tipene O’Regan (Ngai Tahu) on the difference between “future takers” and “future makers”. Future takers, he says, “accept the future for what it is, feeling powerless to change what will be, and allowing today’s realities to obscure tomorrow’s potential”. 

Future makers, on the other hand, “shape the future by reading the signs, determined to create future spaces for people to excel, undaunted by today’s problems, and ready to lead change”. We need future makers now. 

The third bit is a tired record these days, but that doesn’t make it wrong. A focus on genuinely collaborating with each other, building on existing foundations. It’s pretty straightforward – we’re not going to succeed unless we work together. 

It’s about realising that collaboration around an ambitious future is the only way to tackle this beast of a strategy. And yes, we might bump into a few challenges along the way, but with the right high-performing teams, the right leadership ecosystem and clear areas of agreement (and disagreement), we’ll manage.  

Finally, let’s not forget who we’re doing this for – the consumer, our global oyster. Sure, doubling our exports sounds great, but even then, we won’t be feeding the whole world. Instead, we need to focus on a strategy that provides value to both our global consumers and New Zealanders at home with affordable, healthy food. Domestic food security must be a clear part of any future strategy.

Staying stuck in our ways won’t cut it. We need to anticipate what our global consumers want before they even know it themselves. We’ve got the potential to offer the best of the best. The world really is our oyster – it’s just up to us to deliver.

In the end, realising our ambition to double exports will be a team effort. If we can nail multipartisanship, nurture strong leadership, foster greater collaboration, and stay laser-focused on our consumers, we’ve got a real shot at making this strategy work. And who knows, maybe we’ll even enjoy the ride along the way.

Disclaimer – the thoughts and opinions shared here are my own and don’t represent anyone else, including any organisations or groups I’m connected with. They’re based on my personal perspectives and experiences.

Kate Scott has over 20 years’ experience working across the Food & Fibre Sector, as an Environmental Consultant, business owner, Nuffield Scholar, and proud supporter of the food and fibre sector. Kate enjoys a free-range lifestyle with her family on their Bannockburn Vineyard.

Ideas That Grow Podcast | Developing leaders in the food and fibre sector

I’m certainly over all the experts and politicians telling me what a great product wool is. I’m also over reading about our representatives going to international trade shows and conferences, rapturously selling the advantages of using New Zealand wool. 

Wool is a magnificent product, we all know that, but my approach would be to develop a strategy to promote wool that goes back to basics.

We should be thinking outside the square and not continuing with the failed policies of the past.

We all know that wool ticks all the boxes regarding the environment and sustainability but that hasn’t been enough to encourage the purchasing of wool products and that needs to change.

For example, while researching this article I came upon a report from 2022 telling me that the United Nations Environmental Agency had agreed to develop a plan aimed at ending plastic pollution. The competition for wool is plastic in its many forms. 

I read that “Heads of state, ministers for the environment and other representatives from UN member states endorsed the resolution to proceed with the plan.”

Our Ministry for the Environment (MfE) said in June this year that we were “working with other countries on an international treaty on plastic pollution”.

It went on to outline the problem that “every year 19-23 million tonnes of plastic waste leaks into aquatic systems alone, harming marine life and ecosystems”.

The cynic in me would suggest that if that pollution came from the agricultural sector it would be front page news but because it comes from the oil industry that’s fine.

The prime minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Professor Juliet Gerrard, has been concerned about the amount of pollution that plastics have created and published her views on our options to reduce the problem.

They include wanting a National Plastics Plan, rethinking plastics in the government agenda and the need to mitigate environmental and health impacts of plastics.

According to the UN, microplastics have “infiltrated our oceans, soil and even the air we breathe”, and “humans constantly inhale and ingest microplastics”.

Microplastics “are linked to serious health issues such as endocrine disruption, weight gain, insulin resistance, decreased reproductive health and cancer”.

In addition, 8 million tonnes of plastic flow into the oceans annually with a correspondingly toxic effect on fish. These include severely affecting marine life and microplastics residing in tissue waiting to be consumed by a third party. Plastic is also a problem with our soil as the product in landfills can “take up to 1000 years to disintegrate”.

In the United States, 32 million tonnes of plastic goes into the landfills annually and will remain there for 1000 years.

Microplastics can also have a major effect on our flora and fauna and can be present in tap water.

Imagine for a minute if that amount of pollution had been generated by farming pursuits? There would be riots in the streets.

There has been much hue and cry about nitrates in waterways but the reality is microplastics are much worse. People wring their hands about glyphosate but it is more environmentally friendly than plastic.

We need to front-foot the issue by strongly arguing for the environmental friendliness of wool versus the environmental degradation caused by plastics. 

We tax fuel, why not tax plastics? Synthetic carpets would be a good start. We limit nitrogen application, why don’t we limit plastic use?

We were going to tax food production. Why not tax plastic pollution?

We tax alcohol and tobacco because of the harmful effects on health. Why not tax plastics for the same reason?

The only reason I knew about the proposed UN policy on plastics was from personal research and not from mainstream publications. I only figured we were a signatory by going through the MfE website.

Again, it was private research that showed me how environmentally destructive plastic was, how it was a major risk to our land, oceans and human health. Those stories need to be shouted from the rooftops.

As an aside, we shouldn’t pursue the issue on our own but should present it as a campaign from the wool-producing countries. Like what used to happen before New Zealand decided to go alone.

In the current debate rankings I’d give the oil companies 10 and the conservation and farming lobbies zero.

How I came onto the story was from a Greenpeace missive asking me to sign a petition opposing plastics. It called on the NZ government “to support a strong Global Plastics Treaty at the UN”. At the time of writing it had over 73,000 signatures, which should tell us that there is strong support for a move away from plastics.

That also tells me that we need to tell the story of wool a lot better than we are currently doing.

Maybe even a visit to Greenpeace to tell them what’s missing in their debate.