| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bruce Simpson Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 6060
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Will farming kill NZ's tech industries? (11 Feb 2008) |
|
|
This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2008/0211.shtml
Is our reliance on dairy farming going to cost us big-time in the medium to long-term?
Just how do we rationalise our destruction of carbon-sinking forestry with methane-belching dairy farms while we sit on the cusp of climate disaster?
And where do we turn when natural disaster strikes and our dairy receipts dry up?
Are we putting too many eggs in one basket with our reliance on primary industry to carry the country?
What about our smart young people with good ideas who find they can't get any interest or funding because all those with money are too busy pouring it into property or farming? Where will our hi-tech investment capital come from?
How come Alex may end up working in a milking shed while the idea he promoted gets commercialised by others half a world away -- perhaps simply because they had access to the necessary VC?
Is it time to broaden our horizons and wean Kiwis off their infatuation with property and into the potentially far more lucrative world of angel and venture capital financing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bharmer
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 Posts: 153
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
In your article you say "Trevor Mallard is reportedly responsible for pulling the rather devastating "Chapter 13" from a report that already slammed NZ as being "not quite as green as we think"."
can you point to any reliable source that reported this? I heard him on Nat. Radio this morning defending the omission of the chapter, but I also heard a definite claim that there was no external or ministerial pressure to have the chapter removed. He would be very silly to say this if there was evidence to the contrary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce Simpson Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 6060
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bharmer wrote: | In your article you say "Trevor Mallard is reportedly responsible for pulling the rather devastating "Chapter 13" from a report that already slammed NZ as being "not quite as green as we think"."
can you point to any reliable source that reported this? I heard him on Nat. Radio this morning defending the omission of the chapter, but I also heard a definite claim that there was no external or ministerial pressure to have the chapter removed. He would be very silly to say this if there was evidence to the contrary. |
I may have mis-heard that -- perhaps he was simply defending the removal of the chapter concerned (I was multi-tasking at the time and, not being a woman, MT isn't one of my strong-points).
I've amended things in the interim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techy
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 422
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
We'll all be screwed. Meanwhile the asian countries do all the manufacturing.
Southland is filthy and running out of water.
The increase in dairy farm conversions is incredible, I saw a map comparing 1998 with 2006 and its just a mass of cow *beep* now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce Simpson Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 6060
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bharmer wrote: | | In your article you say "Trevor Mallard is reportedly responsible for pulling the rather devastating "Chapter 13" from a report that already slammed NZ as being "not quite as green as we think"." |
Here is the latest from the NZ Herald on Mallard's involvement. He may not have initiated the dropping of the chapter involved but he obviously thinks it was a good idea to pull it. Odd that, considering he's Minister for the environment and the inclusion would obviously reflect badly on his department and himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
k1500
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 947 Location: Wellington
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | Odd that, considering he's Minister for the environment and the inclusion would obviously reflect badly on his department and himself. |
How would of it's inclusion reflected badly upon him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce Simpson Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 6060
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| k1500 wrote: | | How would of it's inclusion reflected badly upon him? |
Isn't the Ministry for the environment supposed to be protecting us from the kind of adverse effects that farming is allegedly producing and which were detailed in Chapter 13?
As Minister for that department, isn't he ultimately responsible for ensuring that our environment is protected?
Ah.. I forgot. There is no accountability in politics  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
k1500
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 947 Location: Wellington
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | Isn't the Ministry for the environment supposed to be protecting us from the kind of adverse effects that farming is allegedly producing and which were detailed in Chapter 13? |
They're supposed to be managing the enviroment within NZ - which I do see differently from protecting. At the end of the day the ministry's main role is outlining legislation and how our rules should be set up to protect the enviroment. The report which was produced outlines what issues New Zealand faces, and the vast majority of these issues are things which will need work from both an industry stand point and the government.
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | As Minister for that department, isn't he ultimately responsible for ensuring that our environment is protected?
|
Well technically speaking you are right, of course the reality here is that he (they) need to do so in a way which sits well with industry, local government, the general public and other stakeholders. The idea that we can have one person who is totally responsible for the enviroment (which is a pretty big and fluffy thing) is a little unrealistic - I've always seen MfE's role as being regulators and policy makers around these topics - and to me the report which was put out was a "state of the nation" in regards to the enviroment.
The government can talk all it wants about the enviroment, but the actual action required to implement change must come from industry, members of the public and local government.
So I don't see the last chapter as damaging to Mr Mallard (considering how long he's been in the job) - more as damaging to NZ as a whole (which is why it should have been included in the final report). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hans
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 57
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not just forests that are being converted to diary farms; land used for growing crops is also being converted. Assuming that the global milk price hike is temporary, we are in serious danger of having ramped up our milk production to a global market that's dropped again, and having to import our fruit and vegies. That would mean no financial benefit to the extra milk, and increased imports because we can't produce the other food that we need.
I seem to recall hearing the "we need to diversify beyond agriculture" message since I was born. I also remember hearing "we need to build a knowledge based economy" for over a decade. Telling me about it isn't going to change anything.
I think that a big problem with investors in NZ is that very few of them understand the tech industry; well, you can, but you're likely to fail. You can't invest in an industry that you don't understand. That's a capability that needs to be built up. Even inside the tech industry, venture capitalists try to stick within industries that they understand, and tend to do badly when investing outside their area.
So how exactly could we increase the number of competent VCs in the tech industry? I'm not sure exactly. Maybe we should collect a group of those involved in existing successful high-tech ventures and have the government provide some sort of incentive scheme (e.g., they will co-invest in startups). Maybe we should be encouraging angel investors more, at least for now. I get the feeling that a lot of kiwis are more the "invent in your garage" type, and VCs don't fund those (nor do Angel investors really). We don't seem to have much for people like that.
Hans |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 2355 Location: Dunedin
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A lot of our technology/knowledge research and spending is in the primary industries. There are actually some potentially very good things being developed for diverse purposes in biotech, A2 Milk and Botryzen come to mind. Also a few in the health field, for example Bliss. But they often seem to struggle to make progress through lack of capital, they don't seem to be viewed very favourably by investors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hans
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 57
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter wrote: | | A lot of our technology/knowledge research and spending is in the primary industries. There are actually some potentially very good things being developed for diverse purposes in biotech, A2 Milk and Botryzen come to mind. Also a few in the health field, for example Bliss. But they often seem to struggle to make progress through lack of capital, they don't seem to be viewed very favourably by investors. |
One problem is the agricultural industry itself. In November Jim Anderton asked them to commit to investing in R&D with the government. 50% wanted government incentives for farming instead and the remaining were split between R&D and entrepreneurship (whatever that means). That suggests that less than half of the agricultural industry doesn't appreciate the benefits of, or need for, R&D. You can read the story here. This time the government is pushing for more R&D, and the (agricultural) industry is rather unreceptive.
Hans |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|