DAMIEN O'CONNOR
In August the Government announced a significant partnership under our Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures (SFF Futures) fund that is focussed on regenerative farming practices (or ‘regen’) in the New Zealand context.
We’ve partnered with Ngāi Tahu in Canterbury, where they have two adjacent dairy farms at Eyre Forest. One will run regenerative systems and the other will run conventional.
For the next seven years, inputs and outputs will be scientifically monitored, with financial, environmental and social impacts being compared.
We will also be announcing in September another significant ‘regen’ research programme, which will also be working at the farm level. It will bring our total ‘regen’ research investment to $54.74 million, covering 11 projects across the country. In doing this work, we aim to validate what there is in ‘regen’ that will work for us.
When I say ‘work for us’, I mean a balance between lifting production, lessening environmental impacts, lowering inputs, enhancing animal welfare, and improving life on the land for those working it.
All of this, most farmers would say, is just good farming. And that’s what we’d like our customers to be thinking too. Which comes to the nub of it. How can ‘regen’ add export value by meeting consumer demand? As part of this effort, SFF Futures helped fund Beef+Lamb and Bragato Research Institute to conduct an international market scan and consumer survey on the topic.
The aim was to understand the current state and future market potential of regenerative agriculture in New Zealand’s sheep, beef and wine sectors. They commissioned Alpha Food Labs to look at three of New Zealand’s international markets –the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. This report asserted that there’s significant potential for New Zealand in this space, particularly for the red meat sector.
This was principally because our production systems already align with concepts of regenerative agriculture, due to their pastoral nature.
The report also showed there is a lack of a clear definition of ‘regen’ and said that we should work to validate a definition for the New Zealand context.
The lack of definition is the point where critics and advocates meet. Some have an almost religious fervour when they make claims about the benefits of ‘regen’.
On the other hand there are critics who argue that if you say regenerative is ‘good’, it implies that what’s not regenerative is degenerative -which I think is a bit precious.
I believe we simply need to be open minded and methodical in our approach to evaluating it. The term has gained traction in the consumer markets of the West and appears to be, at least in part, a reflex against the dominant food production systems in the Northern Hemisphere.
In the USA, ‘regen’ products are reported to be commanding high premiums and the market for them is growing quickly. Global giant Nestlé has pledged to source 20 percent of ingredients by 2025, and 50 percent by 2030.
These two pieces of information should catch our attention and cause us to ask if we can capture export value through ‘regen’. Indeed, many in our sector are asking if we can move into this space. Our investment in these projects is the Government’s effort to progress the discussion in a cohesive way. I don’t have a pre-determined view on this.
What I do believe though, is that with consumers in our global markets becoming increasingly interested in where their food comes from, the ‘regen’ question gives us a rare opportunity to gather an evidence base and tell New Zealand’s food production story.
That is regardless of whether it’s ‘regen’ or not. I want to acknowledge the people and organisations who are working constructively in this space. This is a significant piece of work for New Zealand.
