KEY POINTS:
National agriculture spokesman David Carter and his fellow primary produce committee members must be wishing they had inserted a terminator gene into a recent report slamming the Environmental Risk Management Authority as too rigid in its application of the law governing the release of new species into New
Zealand's biosphere.
Since they published their criticisms in May, Erma has again come under fire as just the opposite, namely over its decision to allow a 10-year trial of genetically modified brassicas. GE Free New Zealand alleges the approval process was flawed and it has launched court action.
The committee's report complained that imports of plant germplasm, plant genetic material normally in seed form, had virtually stopped since the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act came into being almost a decade ago.
It said Erma's "over-cautious" approach was adversely affecting our agricultural and forestry industries' ability to innovate, alleging that under the present regime, even the kiwifruit would not have made it into the country.
The committee reported that businesses were finding Erma difficult to work with and costs involved with making applications for release of new plant species were prohibitive.
It noted that Erma charges $30,000 (plus GST) for an application for the full release of a non-genetically modified organism, three times some importers' annual budgets.
The report suggested overly rigid application of the law was having an adverse impact on plant breeding, genetic research and agricultural production. It said breeders needed access to a wide variety of germplasm for breeding programmes to find potential parents with desirable traits for incorporation into new potentially valuable varieties.
"Our agricultural and forestry systems are based on imported germplasm, and the market is always seeking more productive or innovative and high-value niche varieties of plants," the report said.
It also suggested the kiwifruit might not have been able to be imported under the new regime.
"We also heard that kiwifruit has become a problem in native bush in the Bay of Plenty, and it is debatable whether, if kiwifruit were a new species, it could be imported under the current regime because of those characteristics that have allowed the plant to become a problem."
While it agreed with Erma's precautionary approach to protect New Zealand's population and biodiversity, it noted that some members of the scientific community were frustrated that applications were declined where adverse effects were "possible" rather than just "likely".
Although the report points out its complaints don't relate to the release of genetically modified organisms, its release came mere months after the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry received a slap on the hand for cutting corners over the clearance of sweetcorn seed contaminated with seed engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate herbicides in October and November 2006.
MEAT AND WOOL LEVIES
Things have been looking rosy for New Zealand cattle farmers, what with Burger King's decision to fill its Japanese Whoppers with nothing but New Zealand beef, not to mention being among the few beef industries in the world to be granted "negligible" risk status in the BSE stakes.
However a lower-than-budget beef kill last season means cattle farmers now face a rise in Meat and Wool New Zealand levies to the maximum allowable if they want to maintain the momentum behind the promotion of their products abroad.
As the meat and wool industry organisation begins six weeks of consultations to decide its 2007-2008 budget, the beef sector is being put between a rock and a hard place.
It's being told that maintaining the current levy of $3.60 per head will force Meat and Wool NZ to cut expenditure by $1.1 million across all areas of its business - which will mean cutting back on beef marketing, research and development, training, events and publications. Increasing levies would let those activities continue and help funding to boost our premium beef in North Asia. Boosting the beef levy to $4.40 a head - the maximum allowable under the Commodity Levies Act 1990 - would generate an extra $1.874 million of revenue at present production levels of 2.342 million, the body says.
Additional activities will place increased focus on "differentiating and positioning" New Zealand grass-fed beef in these markets.
LANDCORP SENTIMENTS
The Minister of Agriculture expressed mixed sentiments towards Landcorp, the country's largest corporate farmer, at its 20th anniversary conference in Wellington last week, but failed to mention some of its more illustrative shortcomings.
While expressing pride in the state-owned enterprise's financial performance, he warned that it needed to calculate its carbon footprint and take action on reducing greenhouse emissions.
Anderton also called on Landcorp to back research into reducing livestock methane emissions. But it was hardly an ultimatum, with the minister adding: "These decisions are up to you."
And that's no small matter given the fact that Landcorp's assets include more than a hundred farming units on 370,000ha of land and 1.5 million stock units.
Or "one of the world's most significant agricultural enterprises" as Anderton rightly put it, producing over 9000 tonnes of milk solids, 3000 tonnes of venison, close to 9000 tonnes of sheep meat, more than 10,000 tonnes of beef and 3000 tonnes of wool.
While pleased with Landcorp's delivery of $400 million in dividends to the public from tax-paid profits and the sale of some non-core assets, Anderton reminded the sometimes controversial SOE's top brass that the country's biggest farmer needed to respond as consumers and regulators in New Zealand's major markets increasingly demanded higher standards of sustainable production.
However no mention was made of the recent $20,000 fine Landcorp incurred after one of its Northland farms illegally discharged effluent onto land despite earlier warnings it clean up its act.
