7.5 Explanation
At level four of the analysis, interpretation of the other levels, we find that the extent of the adjustments required, and the effects of the excessive adaptation needed, have significant implications for the future of farming in the mid Rangitikei.
Tradition and modern practices: it can be argued that there is a mismatch in the minds of mid Rangitikei farm families between the liberalisation of the economy that took place in the 1980s, and farming as they traditionally practised it. For instance; we were told that very few farms operate at full production. If they did, that is, if they became more efficient, would that ‘cure’ the current malaise? It might help financially in the short term, but it is doubtful if it would cure all or many problems in the long term; and some financial efficiencies could have devastating effects on the environment. Several people suggested that most farmers are operating to maximum efficiency in human terms ie what they can cope with - as people. That is, they are working even longer hours, with less help, and "nobody whose heart’s not in it has survived".
There are farms where people suggest a number of efficiency measures could be put in place - but there is little energy or incentive for this. And whose right and responsibility, and whose business is it, to suggest, advise, ‘order’ these moves? Farms belong to the farmer, a partnership, a trust or a company, who together determine what constitutes an adequate ‘profit’, given all other circumstances and complexities of levels of debt servicing, land and stock values and personal situations. That is one of the key advantages of being ‘an independent’ farmer.
What are the costs - economic, environmental, social, human costs, in demanding more efficiency? And costs to whom - the family, the community, the country? Who has the right, the responsibility to demand more effort? What is important, and why, depends on the issues being addressed, the questions being asked, and by whom. The key question is: who benefits - who has benefitted from the changes in recent years? Who are the winners; who are the losers?
If the farm families we interviewed were to order their lives ‘rationally’ most would put their farms on the market tomorrow. Only one family we interviewed was making a return in excess of 10%, and that included substantial capital sales of land. If rationality is to be a criterion most people would leave; but love of the land means a willingness to put up with less in returns than for a simply commercial venture, and this is surely to the country’s advantage.
There is an increasing need for dual incomes. A number of families have come to depend, not just on farm income, but on wages of a non-farming spouse and other income as a necessary part of the farm family income. Yet the continued existence of many jobs is somewhat shaky - especially for women working in banks [ one bank in Taihape formerly had a staff of 19. There are now 5 staff members, and no managers] , or a local business.
No one doubts the advantages to be gained by streamlining processes, or the benefits arising from the increasing introduction of technology, nor the wisdom of attending a course at REAP to learn about OSH or RMA regulations but again; who has the will, or energy?
Some kind of catalyst is needed to realise the value of information and knowledge – how to be efficient without detrimental effects on the environment, and what to diversify into. Farmers need to get familiar with the concept of working smarted, not harder, and recognise opportunities to diversify. Their rural isolation means lack of access to new ideas that others take for granted.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
