“That identity has delivered real commercial value. It has justified price premiums in overseas markets and insulated domestic farming from scrutiny to a degree, but we need to adapt to ensure that reputation is justified.”
When Jon set out on the Nuffield journey, he asked the question: Could a market mechanism for nature-based solutions, specifically commercial wetlands and nutrient offsetting, be developed at the catchment scale in
New Zealand?
During the course of his scholarship, visits to the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Brazil, Chesapeake Bay in the United States, and Canada led to a firmer and more important conclusion.
“New Zealand does not lack the technology, science or willingness of farmers to improve its freshwater supply. What is lacking are the institutional conditions needed,” he says.
Three international examples support this conclusion.
First, the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the United States has demonstrated that intensive agricultural production and improved water quality can coexist, but only when specific institutional conditions are in place.
These were around an independent science and extension institution acting as an “honest broker”, mandatory nutrient management plans with independent compliance checking, public cost-sharing that makes compliance economically viable, sector-neutral regulation with no permanent exemptions, and a unifying governance framework that transcends political boundaries.
“In Chesapeake, no-one gets a free lunch. They brought everyone together, built trust and made rapid progress, which is translating into cleaner water.”
In Brazil, he found that blunt, legible, sector-neutral rules applied consistently, can maintain farming communities in good environmental standing without destroying the industry.
