kellogg

Bryan: Just touching on what you mentioned earlier about how historically, people like Federated Farmers, organisations like that, had a very, kind of a, grassroots focus. It’s quite evident at the moment around the emissions pricing process that a large number of those grassroots farmers think that the farming leadership has, if not deserted them, then certainly not represented them well. What’s your take on how they go about that? And what are the challenges that those farming leaders have in engaging with the government on things like this? 

Dame Jenny: Well look, I’d be the last one to criticise them because I know how hard it is. I have admired the agricultural leadership, that they have taken a more inclusive, let’s find solutions together approach. I have been involved in a number of significant working parties not only on emissions, but in a number of areas that I can think of which I’ve simply been a distant observer. But I’ve noticed that level of engagement.  

The problem is, in any leadership model, if you aren’t both working with, and then reflecting the people on the ground who actually live agriculture every day and have to implement the stuff, not only physically but also economically, then you have to test whether your leadership is in isolation as opposed to being able to carry people forward.  

I do think we have to support the leadership group because unless they are able to foot it with the officials and the government ministers and be supported at that level, then they’re clearly not serving their constituency anyway. But every organisation, and I don’t want to make a judgment on Federated Farmers because I simply am not close enough to it, but there have to be systems where it’s not only consultation.  

Often we say, well, we consulted, or we sent out a document and gave them a chance to comment. I think that for people to genuinely become supporters of a regime, they have to have a deep sense of ownership. They need to be able to see themselves in whatever is proposed as opposed to seeing something being imposed on them, which they don’t or can’t relate to.  

So the test of high quality engagement and consultation has got to be that measure of – can the people we’re representing see themselves in the proposed solutions or are we just saying, well, regardless of what you think, you’ve got to be there in five or ten years’ time. That’s not easy to do. I think in New Zealand’s circumstances, whether it’s agriculture or Maori – Pakeha relations, or any of the other demanding spaces, we’ve just got to put the time and work into it. 

Katie: For sure. I think it’s pretty obvious our food system is under stress. And whether it’s talking about a climate crisis, a human health crisis or health crisis, a biodiversity collapse, there’s all these different things that play in to each other. One of the key points I like to think about is that we don’t want to look at these things in isolation.  
 
If you look at the human health crisis we’ve got, and even the latest pandemic, these pieces have a real interconnectedness and it’s quite a different way to think about it.  
 
I think the more that we think about the connection between the crisis of our planet and the crisis of our human health at the moment, it might help us to think differently around how we handle these things in the future. 

Bryan: That sort of thinking ticks a few boxes at once, as you say. It can do more for people’s health – and a focus on soil can also do more in terms of freshwater quality and in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity. All sorts of things do come together as one.  
 
A lot of people, when you talk about, say, regenerative agriculture or related fields, a farmer might say, well, I’ve yet to see the value-add for me. So if I’m going to reduce production to adopt these things, I need to make that up somewhere else. 
 
So how does a sustainability manager at Rabobank approach these things?