Our primary sector strategy is particularly bad, as we witness each time our commodity prices slide lower in real terms. GMOs will lock us in to the commodity track. It represents an appalling strategy.
With a poor sellers' position in the marketplace, a focus on ever-higher production of commodities is nothing more than short-term industrial thinking - Gandhi's nine-day wonder - ultimately unsustainable.
We produce more, we cut our costs, the buyers clap their hands in glee and then use their power to discount the price. We may get a year of so of margin increase before the price drives down to something slim for a big producer, or something negative for a small grower.
The big producer then buys the land of the small grower and gets bigger still.
The big growers remain enamoured with bulk production of dross, because the fact is that they can still win under that model. These industrial thinkers are also the strongest advocates for big-ticket production-orientated investments such as the Ruataniwha dam.
Think of it as a land deal.
We should have shifted our strategic focus decades ago from gross production to price position - the creation and retention of value, not volume.
That focus requires a different way of looking at ownership (it matters who owns and where they live), how we can redesign our landscapes and soils for economic opportunity (there is more to see out there than 1000 acres of ryegrass), a quality focus with the multiplication and retention of value.
And with that focus, we get a better environment and a better society. In fact, they are critical to that value creation.
GMOs lock us into the opposite. It is economic madness. Short or non-existent value chains of commodity owned by the few, more and more absentee, with a poorer ethic toward community and place, using less and less cheaper and cheaper labour.
That is a clear recipe for decline.
Why there are still advocates for more failed commoditisation and reduction in what quality position we have, is fascinating.
Production was our colonial legacy - produce more to feed Britain.
When Britain joined the European Union in 1973, we no longer had a relatively fair price for our produce.
Rather than daring to think we might need a change in strategic focus, we decided not to change, to stay within our old paradigm of cheap production.
Decades after we needed a change in direction, the dominant teaching of Massey and Lincoln was still the agronomic techniques of maximising production.
Far less important was integrated land use systems, diversity, price position, risk, or the dominant environmental, social and economic trends.
We were taught to stay on what Willard Cochrane called the "technology treadmill," running faster and faster, going inexorably backwards.
When margins squeeze, we demand the next technology, and the next, each creating a new problem and a new margin squeeze.
We weren't taught about Cochrane's thinking. We weren't taught to get off the treadmill.
We were taught the very opposite; to hold as a sacred creed the ideals of 1970s US Department of Agriculture chief Earl Butz's - the advocate of the anti-farmer, agri-business corporations.
He argued famously that farmers should "get big or get out" and to "plant fencerow to fencerow." Those "inevitable" sentiments were accorded the status of gospel.
They were not inevitable, but they taught us to make them so.
Because this is the legacy of that thinking: the big get bigger and tend more to be absentee, so both the profits and the expenditure is exported out of province.
Processing is centralised (somewhere else) and so we lose more money flows.
Less people are employed on lower conditions.
The small towns wither through lack of funds and opportunities, and the hamlets die.
Look to the US for the evidence of this, 40 years after Butz.
The countryside becomes a factory, more homogeneous, and our environment is treated as a toilet for those who claim they have a 'right' to 'choose' to use it so.
GMO advocates claims of 'choice' are empty. That is the argument for the choice to pollute and degrade others' opportunities, or the choice of the technologist to work within the thought confines of their petrie dish and white coat.
The choice to act without wider consideration does not give them the right to do so. That is pure anti-social arrogance.
We do not need to follow this future.
The alternative strategy can create a Tuscany with layers of value creating yet more layers of value (a virtuous circle) rather than a vicious circle heading for Mordor, for the benefit of fewer and fewer.
- Chris Perley has a background in strategy, policy, research and operational management in provincial economies and land use.
- Views expressed here are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
