nuffield

If you asked any of the five scholars from this year they will all say the same I’m sure, our preparation was the key to our success not only in our pre CSC travel together but also at the CSC in Des Moines.  We must thank the board for three key pieces of personal training they allowed us to undertake.  Juliet Maclean, Hamish Gow and Corene Walker all spoke to us at length and we gained a lot from them.

Juliet Maclean, past chairperson of Nuffield New Zealand and Nuffield Scholar was able to not only impart a lot of her knowledge from her own experience but strategies we could use when dealing with other people in situations that always arise in groups.  Juliet also spoke with our partners about their expectations and what the 12 – 18 months was probably going to be like and walked us through some of those.

Hamish Gow’s insights into what is in store for us in the year ahead have been invaluable and reassuring. The explanation and classification of the stages of our journey being initially a divergent phase as we explore the world of many agricultural businesses, practices and views on the world.  The concept that you can’t solve the issue on day one until you have fully understood and defined the actual problem. The idea and encouragement to keep our topics broad and the skills imparted around reflective thinking really set us apart in keeping an open-minded approach. Often the Kiwi scholars were leading those reflective practices with small groups after various discussions or field trips.  “What did you see, what did you hear, what didn’t you see, what weren’t you told?” These skills were touched upon in the CSC but nowhere to the extent that we had from Hamish. New Zealand really cemented those skills prior to the CSC which allowed us to get a lot more out of it than some other countries.  This fact we know from the feedback throughout the CSC. As an example we visited a beef farm during the CSC, it was the middle of winter, snow on the ground, muddy and very cold.  It wasn’t the best advertisement for feedlotting cattle but it was where we went on the day.  A large number of scholars were less than impressed and could see no benefit in the visit.  However, the New Zealand contingent saw the potential in simple management decisions such as EID’s for weighing and feeding, regular marketing channels both in and out.  Some take homes, cattle can obviously survive outdoors in -25 deg C and its not wrong, just different. Hamish’s advice was always in the back of our minds, “what is the one take home from every visit you go on?”

Corene Walker spent a day with us detailing the science of getting along with people. The first phase being you must know yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses and how you deal with these things.  The second phase involves knowing and dealing with other people’s personality traits and the strategies to use these to everyone’s advantage. These soft and yet subtle skills certainly came to the fore at the CSC when faced with 80 strangers. It gave us the confidence not only in self-regulating our own feelings but also recognising the signs within the others in the group.

We also had a range of trade and government briefings prior to departure from New Zealand which helped us greatly. Even in such a short space of time, it is incredible how often people are interested in what goes on within New Zealand and how it is managed politically. Briefings from KPMG, Wakatu Farming, NZTE, MFAT, MPI, Wine NZ, Fonterra, Kiwifruit NZ, Hort NZ, FAR and Beef and Lamb NZ all helped to paint a picture of where New Zealand sits in the world.

The outcome of these meetings was that we left New Zealand as a very tight unit and we were set up well for what we encountered and what we will encounter throughout the year.

As a group, we must acknowledge and thank the Nuffield Board and also the tireless work of Anne Hindson and Lisa Rogers. Our pre-work and our travelling to date have exceeded our expectations and I know we are all very much looking forward to what happens next.

My interest in biosecurity started with the harsh lessons of the PSA incursion into kiwifruit in New Zealand. My small orchard was only 500m away from ground zero and like all growers, I got a crash course in the importance of basic biosecurity and hygiene practices.  

I started my Nuffield travels around the world hoping to look at examples of on farm biosecurity practices. It was disappointing to see a total lack of preparedness worldwide, and the only farmers engaging in biosecurity had done so after an incursion had already established.  

The worst example of this was, after visiting farms in Qatar which is known to have foot and mouth, we could fly directly to France and head straight from the airport onto a dairy farm with no questions asked. Its little wonder that worldwide we are seeing an increase in exotic pest incursions taking their toll on agricultural production.  

Even with world class biosecurity protecting our border, we cannot stop everything. Once we accept that, then it becomes critical what happens inside the border and how we as individuals protect our own border – the farm gate. 

After 20 weeks and as many countries it was great to finally meet a farmer that got Biosecurity. He was a banana farmer from Queensland facing the threat of TR4 – a devastating banana disease. One of his comments that really struck me was biosecurity wasn’t about the things you do – the procedures the footbaths. Biosecurity is about culture. It’s about creating a culture that encourages everyone to accept responsibility for their own biosecurity.  

 The challenge is where will the drive to change this culture come from. Farmers in Britain have forgotten the lessons of foot and mouth and in the kiwifruit industry after only 7 years we are already losing the lessons we learnt. The only way to overcome this is to create a culture where biosecurity is just a part of everyday life – it becomes business as usual. 

 It’s pleasing to see the launch in New Zealand of Biosecurity 2025’s campaign Ko Tatou – this is us which is about trying to start a national culture of biosecurity awareness. The key is how do we build on this and how do we create this culture within the primary industries. 

Right now, farmers throughout New Zealand are confronted by a need to implement change to improve multiple environmental outcomes while still returning a profit. 

Supporting them on this journey industry groups, regional councils and central government have developed the Good Farming Practice Action Plan for Water Quality, which acknowledges a range of Industry Agreed Good Management Practices. This has been useful in providing clarity and collaborative industry support for farmers around agreed standards. But I’ve found myself asking the question, “what happens when good practice is not good enough’? By that I mean, what happens when farmers who in good faith have invested in changes to improve the environment to be considered operating at Good Farming Practice, still exceed community agreed limits? My Nuffield research seeks to explore this issue, considering farm and land use optimisation at both farm and catchment scale. 

Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) are often hailed as a primary means to help farmers improve environmental outcomes – and I agree, they have a huge role to play in this space. A tool which farmers can take ownership of to drive tailored and farm specific actions targeting specific management objectives. 

However, I really think that we need to utilize FEPs better, and I fear that as they are linked to compliance with an increasingly dominant pass/fail focus around Good Management Practice, FEPs are losing more of the aspiration of a living document and becoming more a tick box for minimum standards. 

In the early stages of my individual travels I have been pulling apart different examples of Farm Environmental Planning in Canada, Australia and the UK, leaving me with several key insights – a few of which I’ve highlighted below: 

• We need to be encouraging farmer innovation with FEPs and provide real market linked incentives for their success.  
• FEPs should reflect a holistic farm assessment which considers environmental, financial, social, and cultural priorities.  

• Environmental considerations should have a broad focus, more effectively incorporating aspects around native biodiversity, climate, and greenhouse gas emissions.  
• We need to be able to more effectively recognise cultural aspects and functions to our landscapes such as mahinga kai. 
• We should better inform FEPs with non-regulatory decision support tools considering the role and function of ecosystem services and land use optimisation at farm and catchment scale. 

To help set farmers up to succeed in the long term, we need to enable effective Farm Environment Planning – linked to market and informed by non-regulatory decision support tools and farm systems modelling.

The impact on our primary production systems of our transition to a low carbon economy 

Leader 

Economic projections for our low emissions economy miss a fundamental physical challenge in our transition. Biophysical analysis and our primary food systems can address this. Here’s how.  

Background 

The transition from energy dense fossil fuels to far less dense renewable alternatives is the story of our time. We need a huge transition to low emission energy systems.  

Urgency is growing so fast it’s now being hailed a war-scale mobilization of change.  

New Zealand’s transition is outlined in our proposed Zero Carbon Act. An outstanding and enormous step forward, this document puts us on the front foot internationally. 

But see it in context. Its underlying modelling is rooted solely in economics.  

The problem  

Economics does not reflect the physical impact of our transition, especially on energy.  

Taxes, tariffs, interest rates, discounts, exchange rates, bonuses, deficits, etc etc. Strip them away to look purely and simply at the energy aspects of transition.  

As a key part of my Nuffield study I did this for the data behind the Carbon Zero Act. I used a method from biophysical economics known as Energy Return On Energy Investment.  

This method makes a ratio of the amount of energy our society uses (in coal, petrol, diesel, PV, wind etc) relative to the amount we invest in obtaining that energy (mining, refining, building wind turbines, and shipping fossil fuels etc). Simply put: a ratio of outputs to inputs on an energy scale.  

Today, this ratio for our national energy mix is 20:1. Under our ambitious transition scenario for 2050, this ratio is 9:1.  A drop of over 50%. 

The impact on our economy and especially our primary food systems is unknown, completely unanticipated and probably substantial. Think of it like an alcoholic transitioning from vodka and whiskey to beer and wine. Surely there must be withdrawal symptoms. Where will they bite hardest?  

We cannot afford to pursue a transition path on economic merits for several years to have it crash into physical constraints. Reversing back and changing tack would be a massive failure. A loss of resources, loss of trust, loss of direction, loss of time.  

The solution 

We need a ‘Transition Institute’ within the Independent Climate Body. It does these energy analyses and tackles other biophysical issues. We pioneer integration of its outcomes in our primary food chain, because these people have an immensely practical and innovative grasp of this very physical approach to system optimization. Besides the fact that they drive export revenue. Just the nuts and bolts of transition. No silicon valley. No virtual reality. No exotic financial instrumentation. 

Linking our physical knowledge and our economic knowledge, we map out a transition that fits both our financial aspirations and our biophysical boundaries. We’ll lead the world by a good margin in achieving this.  

Solis Norton  

solisnorton1@gmail.com 

My journey started with a quest to explore what a move to focus more on nutrition would mean for our Primary Industries. 

If we diversified and invested into ingredients, extractable compounds and functional claims from our existing production could we increase value for export and develop new market opportunities? 

In Canada I had an epiphany.  There I met companies who were commodity producers of legumes and grains, within three years they have transitioned to different varieties to become ingredient companies and are now growing specialised crops for customers. These companies are now investing in their own breeding programmes and product formulation businesses, because their produce is no longer grown for visual consumer preferences, it’s grown for its nutrition or extractable value as ingredients. 

This was a catalyst for me to think about how NZ could develop secondary income streams that focus on nutrition, micro-nutrients and dietary minimums, and develop a BACK STORY to our food, the environment, our waste, a more diverse, integrated food system.  

Premium food should ultimately boost health, our mental health and our wellbeing…… as Industry we need to take a greater lead in developing this strategy around our food. 

 I believe it’s becoming too risky and expensive for us all to solely focus on end consumer.  

Food fashion is far more unpredictable than nutrition, so why do we focus on trying to understand food fashion over nutrition. 

If we chose to work with strategic customers already in market, customers who develop products such as formulated foods, nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals. 

If we co-design solutions and products for their existing customer base, we would be opening a new business model and opportunity for growth and export from our existing base. 

By working with companies in market, we can utilise their science capability, their consumer research and knowledge, their technology, their Govts funding and their investment $$.  We can double up.  Our new customer in this space is a customer who already has customers. 

We do not have to do everything in NZ anymore or own all the IP.   It’s making us too slow and too unresponsive to market opportunities.  

We have science and tech capability, but we need strategies that offer both value creation and solutions to environmental and health problems.  

More engagement internationally would position us competitively with other countries who have a head start in Industries and market offerings we are just developing.  With strong leadership we accelerate adoption of resilient agriculture models and build a more expansive Industry vision. 

The opportunity that NZ’s Primary Industry has is an opportunity to create a new pathway. 

A story around nutrition, transparency and the environment. 

You can read Andy’s full speech on LinkedIn here > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/food-fashion-far-more-unpredictable-than-nutrition-so-andy-elliot/

Manitoba hemp field

Saskatoon food centre