ATTENTION: Site undergoing work + new digital membership system. For members-only content, reset access or visit Soil & Health NZ. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Jon Carapiet outlines why the push for automatic acceptance of unproven technologies that have the potential to irreversibly contaminate our food and environment (aka GE) is the wrong direction.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.
Governmental plans to liberalise regulation of genetic engineering in Aotearoa New Zealand has implications for consumers and our export markets.
The push for GE is part of the international industry lobbying for more technology in agriculture. GE, AI, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology are converging. Advocates for the ‘end of farming’ are even calling for cellular lab-based food to entirely replace agriculture, purportedly to save the planet.
Public concern around genetic engineering is expressed politically and in people’s preferences which have defined today’s consumer landscape.
Politicians and lobbyists who say that strict regulation of GE is preventing innovation have forgotten the role of the consumer. They repeat old hopes for GE ryegrass, even after Newsroom published a history of failed trials on its website last year, and ignore previous field trials including 4000 GM sheep which were terminated in 2003 when the company PPL went bankrupt, and AgResearch’s GE cows reported by the NZ Herald in 2010 to be suffering cruel deformities.
The central question is: To what extent will the coalition government favour the commercial interests of the biotechnology industry over those of the environment and the public good?
National Party policy is to move regulation to a new agency under The Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) with automatic acceptance of GE products once approved by two OECD countries, and a much easier path to commercial release.
But what’s most important for regulation in the public interest is missing.
There is no mention of the importance of the Precautionary Principle for environmental protection. No requirement for commercial insurance or liability on users of GE that cause harm. No ethical framework to prevent cruelty to animals or guide the future. No mention of Māori or Waitangi Treaty principles. And there is no mention of how the new regime will protect organic growers (or even industrialised growers) from GE contamination.
These missing pieces must be priorities for legislation.
Organic agriculture provides authentic sustainability and real climate action that people are looking for. Research by Kantar Consulting shows New Zealand has what the world wants. “Consumers want more control and to reconnect with nature,” said researcher Dan Robertson-Jones.
The market demand for GE-free is growing.
Growth for non-GMO food is projected to reach US$144,322 million in 2031. Consumers in China and India are driving up demand for non-GMO food products.
Consumers want gene edited foods to be regulated and labelled, with 75 percent of US consumers and 80 percent of UK consumers supporting traceability for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). Exporters and the coalition government must take heed.
Consumer trust is vital. Leading brands have committed to avoid GE ingredients in response. IFOAM standards exclude use of GE and build trust in the sector through certification of organics. Mandatory labelling of GE food in supermarkets has allowed consumers to influence the market. Both major supermarkets have a GE-free policy for house-brands, including Countdown’s Own, Macro (Woolworths), and Pams (Foodstuffs).
Fonterra has a non-GMO policy but is open to GE and investing in lab-grown meat.
The science debate.
The EU Commission proposes deregulation of NGTs, against the wishes of consumers. This is opposed by EU Ministers of the Environment who strongly support the Precautionary Principle and traceability.
Independent scientists with expertise in issues of GE safety and the environment have warned against deregulation.
Expert advice from scientists who are independent of the biotechnology industry is important. The commercial pressures in business and academia for Intellectual Property (IP) bring potential conflicts of interest in the debate.
There is a strong global lobby for cellular agriculture, synthetic biology, and GE.
In the conversation about GE we should expect more public relations hype, promises for the future, and criticism of the Precautionary Principle for ‘stopping progress’. The scientific rationale for precaution will be smeared as fearmongering. It’s already happening.
WePlanet, which campaigns for nuclear power, GE and cellular agriculture, organised an open letter signed by 34 Nobel prize winners and others.
It says the EU must “reject the darkness of anti-science fearmongering and look instead towards the light of prosperity and progress” by deregulating New Genomic Techniques.
The industry pipeline for GE shows why it is of the utmost importance for regulation to protect people and the environment.
Friends of the Earth (FOE) warn of the impending risks of commercial release of GE microbes as biotechnology companies develop GE bacteria, viruses, and fungi for use in agriculture.
Environmental groups are sounding the alarm for bees and pollinators after the US EPA approved the first sprayable pesticides using ‘RNA interference’ in the field.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says research is needed into the alleged benefits for sustainability and safety of lab-grown food which remain speculative.
We must value existing natural diversity and regenerative organic systems as real action on climate change and against biodiversity loss. The biotechnology industry should not define the future of food.
(Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Alan Lieftin – GE free march Auckland 2003)
Jon Carapiet is a consumer advocate, researcher, writer, and photographer who has followed the GE debate for over two decades. He regularly comments in the media about Brand New Zealand, the advantages of non-GMO and organic production, and for regulation of new technology in the public interest. Prior to the 2023 election, he published a series of blogs on GE and the future of food, available at www.TheDailyBlog.co.nz. He is a Trustee for Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) www.psgr.org.nz, and the national spokesman for community group GE-Free NZ www.gefree.org.nz.
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2024-03-01 12:59:222024-03-01 12:59:22The battle for the future of food
As we chase modern life, do we forget the powerful and potent benefits of nature? Simply going to the beach can have profound effects. Zara Adcock explains how the surf, sand, and sun affects our spiritual, mental, and physical health.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.
The sun overhead not only encourages a sunny disposition but is necessary for Vitamin D production, which is vital to bone and muscle health. As over 90% of our vitamin D production comes from UVB rays, I personally consider it important to get some sunshine directly on my skin before covering up or applying a natural sunscreen to prevent burning.
The smell, the sights, the sounds, the sun overhead and the sand beneath our feet, all activate our parasympathetic nervous system, the ‘rest and digest’ arm of our autonomic nervous system, responsible for lowering cortisol, regulating hormones, lowering inflammation, and increasing metabolism, cognitive clarity, immune function, mood, sleep…
And that is before we even enter the water.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, doctors recommended a holiday by the sea, with specific instructions on how long and how frequently to go swimming, as both treatment and cure for various ailments including tuberculosis, consumption, scurvy, jaundice, and chest disease.
Modern research has backed up what these doctors already knew from observation: the ocean is an incredible curative.
When you put your face underwater, you are not only immersing your face in minerals that aid in skin repair and elasticity, you are also activating the human dive reflex, which slows the heart rate and constricts certain blood vessels, redistributing blood from the limbs to the brain, heart and other central organs, in turn activating the vagal nerve, and (once again) the all-important parasympathetic nervous system.
By leaving your technology behind, you have the opportunity to ‘detox’ and enter a state of effortless, mindful attention. I think now of my last beach visit. My gaze drifted from the gentle waves, to the light revealing patterns on a rock outcropping, and then to a lone seagull gliding through the twisting currents of air that would’ve otherwise been invisible to my eye. During my observation, my mind was completely present and my worries were irrelevant. By the time I left the beach, the tension was gone from my body, and I slept well that night.
Nature is amazing, we have only to be present with her to be reminded she’s got us, so long as we also remember and honour the fact that we have her.
Zara Adcock is a freelance writer, editor, poet and children’s author based in Northland (see zara-adcock.com). She is also co-founder of We Love Organics, a range of holistic organic personal care products handcrafted in NZ (weloveorganics.co.nz).
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2024-01-18 13:04:252024-01-18 13:04:25The benefits of Vitamin Sea
Pro-GE lobbyists are saying we need to have a ‘mature’ conversation about genetic engineering. Originally they claimed it would solve world hunger, now they are claiming it will mitigate climate change. Philippa Jamieson logically and ‘maturely’ refutes their greenwashing.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.
It’s primarily vested interests who are pushing for deregulation or weaker laws around GE – the biotech and agrichemical industries who want to patent and sell GE technologies, and those who would get research and development funding. They are well resourced to lobby politicians, and to flood the media with press releases and opinion pieces that are often published verbatim and uncritically. But are they willing to listen? Can we have a conversation that looks at GE in a holistic way?
Technology has changed – should rules change too?
GE proponents claim that the technologies have improved and become more precise over the years, so the regulations also need to change. Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury says today’s techniques are no less risky than before and will explain this in-depth during our next webinar on 23 January. Regardless, technology isn’t the only thing regulations need to consider – there are also social, cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, and liability aspects. Indigenous and organic philosophies and practices are holistic, recognising the interconnectedness of everything. Science focuses on just one piece of the picture. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. For example, we could have nuclear power, or even nuclear bombs, but there are overwhelming reasons why this would not be beneficial.
GE conversations
In November, the Soil & Health NZ co-chair, Jenny Lux, hosted a webinar on genetic engineering featuring three panellists: Dr Jessica Hutchings (Papawhakaritorito Charitable Trust), myself – Philippa Jamieson (OrganicNZ writer on GE), and Charles Hyland (Soil & Health NZ national councillor and soil scientist).
Jessica set the scene in Aotearoa of mātauranga Māori and kaupapa Māori, and whakapapa, mauri and mana, which would be disturbed by genetic engineering. She also placed GE in the context of colonisation, biopiracy, and the current capitalist system that puts profit above people and the planet.
I talked about the GE-free movement over the past 25 years, including massive protests, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which gathered people’s views (2001), and the ban on GE organisms in the outdoor environment which was lifted in 2003. So far, no one has applied to release GMOs outdoors, apart from some problematic field trials – almost all of which have ceased.
Charles talked about GE ryegrass, which has been put forward by the pro-GE lobby and the National Party, as a way of reducing our methane emissions. However, this could potentially spread easily and would be impossible to recall, leading to risks not only for organic farmers but to farmers and the environment overall.
Watch this webinar online at soilandhealth.org.nz directly from the homepage, or under Our Work/Events.
Our next webinar, Demystifying GE techniques with Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, will be held on 23 January 2024, 7.30-8.30pm. See page 11 for more on our future webinars.
Gene editing – the new wunderkind
Scientists have discovered more about DNA over the years, and a notable breakthrough was the discovery of gene editing techniques over a decade ago. These techniques (such as CRISPR-Cas9) are much faster, cheaper, and easier than earlier GE techniques.
The biotech industry frequently promotes gene editing as the new, improved version of GE – precise and safe. However, numerous accidental or unintended changes occur, such as allergens or toxins being produced, antibiotic resistance increasing, and organisms interacting in yet unknown ways within ecosystems.
Are we really missing out?
Another argument continually rolled out by GE proponents is that our current laws mean we’re missing out on opportunities and are falling behind the rest of the world. There is some research that scientists are better able to pursue overseas, but there’s also lots that can be kept within the safer environment of the lab.
But rather than missing out, we’re profiting from a reputation of being clean, green, and GE-free. Imagine the benefits if all the funding going towards GE was instead channelled into organic and regenerative research? Consumers around the world want clean, safe, healthy organic food and other products, and are prepared to pay a premium for it.
Rather than missing out, we have the opportunity to lead in a safer, holistic, direction.
We don’t need GE.
What about farmers and climate change?
GE proponents claim that farmers and the climate will benefit from GE technologies, and should have the choice to do so. Yet they’re often vague about the crops or technologies. The species most often mentioned is GE ryegrass, with the potential to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals like cows and sheep, therefore reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Nice idea! But what are the other impacts and risks? On farm and native ecosystems, workers, animals, people who eat the products, the farmer’s bank balance? Who pays for any loss of organic certification, loss of income, and cleanup after GE ryegrass spread or contamination?
GE-free solutions
There are other ways we can lower methane emissions. Selective breeding offers some promise: AgResearch has successfully bred a lower methane emitting sheep – no GE needed.
But most significantly, organic and regenerative practices can help reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions by multi-species pastures and cover crops, less tillage, and by building healthy soils that sequester more carbon and have more methane-consuming microbes.
Rodale Institute (USA) has run comparative farming trials since 1981, and have found that ‘regenerative organic systems, which prioritise soil health and good farming practices, like cover cropping, crop rotations, and pasturing animals, use 45 percent less energy and release 40 percent fewer carbon emissions than conventional agriculture, with no statistical difference in yields’. (rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial)
Not only do regenerative organic systems emit fewer greenhouse gases, they also have multiple other benefits – healthy soil, cleaner waterways, greater biodiversity, and healthier people and animals. No need for GE!
Philippa Jamieson, previously OrganicNZ editor, has campaigned against, researched, and written about GE for over 20 years.
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2024-01-18 13:04:202024-01-18 13:04:20So let’s talk about GE
Are burping cows really to blame for global warming? Dee Pignéguy delves into the source and cycle of methane to reveal that it is not so simplistic – and there are other culprits that should concern us more.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2024-01-18 13:04:182024-01-18 13:04:18Dispersing the myths of methane
Insects are a vital component of a spray-free garden. But which ones? Duncan Smith describes what various insects do, why you need them, and how to get them.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2024-01-18 13:04:172024-01-18 13:04:17Insects in your garden: Beneficial or bad?
Recycling plant matter into plant food is half of the cycle of life. Kaitlyn Lamb describes how this can be done on any scale, in any place – even the most urban situation.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2023-10-26 11:56:532023-10-26 11:56:53How-to: urban composting with bokashi, worm farming, and more!
Over four decades, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of voluntary hours have been committed to establishing a solid foundation for organics in New Zealand. Brendan Hoare recounts the journey, the challenges, and the lessons learnt in the creation of the Organic Product and Production Act 2023.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.
Like all landmark events, there is a back story. Our tumultuous expedition to protect and promote organics in Aotearoa New Zealand through regulation is no different. Like all journeys, there are multiple trials, tribulations, twists, and turns that test intent, motivations, and determination. This article outlines the ten-year journey that led to the passing of the Organic Products and Production Act 2023 (Organic Act) and will conclude with key observations for present and future. The article follows on from ‘Getting our Organic Act Together’ (OrganicNZ March/April 2020).
The Organic Products and Production Bill became law on 5 April 2023. It is the most profound change to the organic sector in New Zealand to date and will shape our progress for decades to come.
Since the 1980s, the organic sector has sought from the government a policy to protect and grow organic. By 1999, we’d gone as far as to publish and describe in Organic NZ describing our preferred future that required: “…government regulation standards, for both domestic and export markets, and support policy that safeguarded organic e.g. spray drift legislation”.
The Organic Federation of New Zealand (OFNZ)1 formed in 1999 and morphed into Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) as a united force representing the organic sector with the core purpose to ‘grow and develop organic’. OANZ identified regulation and national standards were required to do this2.
OANZ’s formal creation in 2006 had government funding to assist it in its initial development. The funding ran out without its intent being fully achieved. Prior to 2012, OANZ had nearly collapsed. Rebuilding was a slow, incremental task which began with the launch of our 2012 Organic Market Report (Market Report), on 6 March 20133 in Parliament. This launch was not supported or attended by the National-lead government, but by opposition MPs; Green Party member Steffan Browning, and Labour’s Damien O’Connor. (O’Connor would, in 2018, be the Minister of Primary Industries and introduce the Organic Bill to parliament.)
By June 2013 OANZ had engaged communications expertise from Christine Dann and we raised awareness of the need for regulation by utilising the Market Report, front-page articles in NZ Herald highlighting the proliferation of ‘Dodgy Organic Labels’4 and the fact that, at that time, all the top 25 organic trading countries had regulation, except New Zealand, Australia, India, and several others did not.
OANZ decided to focus on and initiate discussions with government officials responsible for market regulations and consumer protection. We developed and published an ‘Introduction to Regulations’ paper for our members, and officially adopted the OANZ Regulation Working Group, which, for the first time, consisted of all the certification bodies. It also included the Organic Exporters Association of New Zealand. We also secured a meeting with Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) directors to explain the situation and opportunity. We were on a roll.
By September 2013 we had met with Food Minister Hon Nikki Kaye, MPI’s technical lead Glen Neal, and Director of Food Policy Karen Adair. Nikki Kaye’s advisor was MPI’s Fiona Duncan who had been close to the sector’s work since 2002. We had invited the Primary Industry Minister Nathan Guy, but he was not available. The meeting with Kaye was positive and progressive and as agreed, we spent the next six months defining the problem with MPI’s technical and policy teams. We liaised with a wide cross-section of the organic community who openly shared examples of organic fraud and risks to their business. By March 2014 we, with MPI, had identified that there was a problem that required regulatory protection. The regulatory framework as it was in 2014 offered no protection for organic producers and consumers and also jeopardised potential trade relationships with international markets that had regulated organic. MPI presented these findings to OANZ’s AGM in Auckland on 4 July 2014, affirming that a regulatory approach was to be sought.
Simultaneously OANZ had actively engaged and enrolled what it called its ‘5 + 2 strategy’. Horticulture New Zealand, New Zealand Winegrowers, Beef and Lamb, Dairy NZ, and the Federation of Māori Authority being the five and Countdown and Foodstuffs being the two, were provided clear logic and rationale for regulating organic. Progress with New Zealand’s primary industry, all political parties, and government was positive and by December 2014 OANZ had released a position paper on why to regulate organic in NZ. This was well received by everyone. All was on track. We had created great working relationships across the organic community, primary industry, major retail and government. We felt positive and were still on a roll.
By February 2015, as we were gearing into what promised to be a prosperous year, we came across several roadblocks. Firstly, critical MPI staff who had been instrumental in progressing the organic case had changed roles and our Ministerial champion Niki Kaye had been promoted to Minister of ACC. With new staff and Minster Nathan Guy now in charge we had to rebuild relationships, and felt comfortable in doing so. However, at the end of April 2015 MPI senior staff advised that any regulation would be under the Food Act 2014 and when we explained this would not work, because organic was not just about food, we were told categorically that organic was now “a low priority for MPI”. MPI provided us their very (in)famous ‘Development of Domestic Organic Regulation Programme scorecard which demonstrated their assessment only gave us 45 out of 365 – that is 12.3%!
While this seems incredulous, or even cynically humorous now, it was utterly devastating then.
In May we reflected on our work on regulation to date. As we communicated MPI’s decision to discontinue work on regulation to our wide community, we received full support,shared frustration and dismay.
This was a critical moment for the regulation of organics and OANZ. While we had rebuilt trust and demonstrated value in OANZ as a national organisation, and communicated the need to protect and grow organic through regulation, it was also true that this had largely been achieved through the vision, networks, drive, and tenacity of myself as Executive Chair, the communications and political skills of Christine Dann, and reliance on a few critical members from leading organic sectors; all voluntary. We were exhausted. It was not sustainable. We needed help and resources.
In August 2015 we held an OANZ national special meeting to explain the situation. Doug Voss, the Chair of the Certified Organic Kiwifruit Organisation became Chair of OANZ, a Board was elected, I moved to being the Executive Director, and Niki Morell took over Christine’s work to lead communications.
We wasted no time re- engaging past leaders of MPI as to what might be the reason for MPI’s ‘change in heart’ and utilised the sector’s networks to lobby political parties and other Ministries such as the Commerce Commission, Ministry of Business and Innovation, Standards New Zealand, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We transferred our energy towards directly engaging the Primary Production Select Committee (PPSC) where we found favour across all political parties. By the end of year, we had rekindled the ‘OANZ Regulation Working Group’ and changed its name to the ‘Standards Working Group and included MPI staff from their Official Organic Assurance Programme (OOAP)’ The name change was to appease the concerns that using the word regulation would upset trade negotiations by giving the perception that we did not have any regulation; which was true.
We utilised the frustration of the sector being told there ‘was no need to protect or grow organic’ to raise substantial sponsorship and presented our updated 2015 Market Report to Parliament on 7 April 2016. This time we had the leadership of the PPSC chair and National MP Ian McKelvie and support from Greens, Labour, and NZ First as well of course the whole organic community. It was a great success.
The OANZ 2016 Market Report5 again demonstrated substantial growth and the requirement to safeguard the domestic and international markets. We emphasised one simple message: serious export earnings were increasingly at risk because we did not have a domestic organic regulation. However, this time, immediately following the Market Report launch, we had arranged a public presentation with the Primary Production Select Committee (PPSC) where we reiterated OANZ’s simple, clear four-point plan to:
Regulate the use of the term organic
Develop a single national standard.
Adopt MPI’s OOAP Technical Rules as the National Standard.
The National Standard will cover export, domestic, and imported certified organic product.
The PPSC’s subsequent report noted that: “We support the work OANZ is doing and agree that a universal regulated standard should be developed and implemented as soon as possible.”6
The Minister’s official response to the PPSC was that he: “Welcomed an application from the sector to become a Primary Growth Partnership programme recipient in the future”, and that we would have to meet the criteria.
Within a month we had developed a simple plan and met with Minister for Primary industries Nathan Guy. By June, off the success of the Market Report, meetings with PPSC, and the Minister, we had created another position paper on the development of ‘Organic Regulation and Standards’ and delivered this to MPI. When, six weeks later, we had still not received areply from MPI, we knew where we had a problem.
As chance would have it, I met Scott Gallacher, the then Deputy Director General Regulation and Food Assurance at a Building Brand and Reputation Across Boarders conference in July 2016, we agreed to bring OANZ’s grievance to MPI’s senior management’s attention. In August, Scott hosted a meeting with Director Food and Regulatory Policy Karen Adair and Director Plants, Food and Environment Peter Thompson.
This meeting resulted in direct access to the Manager of Food Policy Colin Holden and senior policy staff. The outcome of the communications was that while MPI may have shared their support for our goals, their solution was to ‘consider’ bringing us under their Future of Food programme and utilising existing regulations that would connect with Ministry Business, Innovation & Employment, the Commerce Commission and the Fair Trading Act. They were struggling to find where and how we fitted. While we were being heard and told there was an understanding of how complex organic was, we still felt we were not being understood. We had to wait for MPI policy to come back to us.
This period also brought to a head internal issues withing OANZ’s members that had been brewing since the formation and appointment of a full board. This was largely centred around existing relationships between the certification agencies of BioGro, AsureQuality, and the Exporters group, who had a direct relationship with the MPI staff running the OOAP, and the position that OANZ was taking on behalf of the whole sector directly with senior MPI staff and the policy division. The tension was potentially divisive. The espoused threat was that anything new would disrupt existing trade relationships with markets through the OOAP and we had changed the name of our working group to appease this. However, through deeper engagement and correct persistence, OANZ’s found this position not to be of benefit or serve all its members and what is best for organics in Aotearoa New Zealand – hence its name.
We continued to build relationships with key industry sector partners, in particular, Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Winegrowers, which both represented large volumes of certified organic growers and export product. The Chair of Horticulture NZ at the time, and some of their board members, were organic licensees. It was great to have others singing our praises’ and voicing our concerns from another perspective. This gave our collective position gravitas.
We also stepped up the engagement. Simultaneous to our relationship building in the commercial sector and financial sector like ANZ, we organised for the PPSC to visit one of NZ’s leading organic regions – Hawkes Bay – and meet the whole OANZ Board. Our rationale was to demonstrate that organic is a total system from production to ingredients, inputs, products, services and yes, food, with a discerning consumer who participates in its definition and setting of standards. So, we wined and dined, visited organic viticulture, chicken, vegetable, and apple production systems at all scales, and demonstrated our world. MPs got to see first-hand what we had been talking about and got to talk directly to those most affected. This is always powerful.
The result of our networking (nationally and internationally), hosting, sharing, and lobbying was profound. We had mounting proof that the current MPI strategy was not working and was resulting in opportunity and advantage being lost. NZ’s failure to act was affecting growth in export markets.
This was an intense period of engagement that delivered results and by early 2017 we had returned to constructive dialogue with MPI – and organised a meeting with the recently appointed Minister for Food Safety David Bennet (who is a certified organic dairy farmer) and confirmed his commitment to establishing regulation. Special mention needs to go to Horticulture NZ’s Mike Chapman for hosting and arranging some of these meetings.
At the end of 2017 we had an election and a change in government. Damien O’Connor (who had been supportive since 2013) became the Minister of Agriculture, Biosecurity, Food Safety, Rural Communities, and later Trade. Being a-political and securing all political parties as to the benefit of organic had deep ramifications.
OANZ then met with Minister O’Connor who, on the advice of MPI’s policy team’s review, concluded that to protect and grow organic in New Zealand needed to have its own organic act.
Then on 20 June, our 2018 Market Report was launched in parliament for the third time. Ministers attended, as did MPs from all political parties, MPI and other ministry agencies, ambassadors, and a full array of organic practitioners. It was a great celebration; there was a sense of progress and success.
This period had been exhilarating, but exhausting on resources and relationships. The organic sector’s efforts were voluntary and draining on personal and inter-relationships on those that had led the work.
As OANZ reconciled this and went through its own internal changes our new law was being written by MPI staff. The first reading of the Organic Products Bill took place on 19 March 2020. On o 5 April 2023 it was passed into law. It took just over three years with three readings, and a select committee process, before it became law.
The process has seen multiple reviews, a name change, created extensive debate both within and between the organic sector, and with and within MPI and politicians. MPI’s consultation process has improved over time. During this process it has reiterated that the organic sector is complex, diverse, not homogeneous, but of a common culture outlined in our principles of health, ecology, fairness and care.7 We remain committed, passionate, and seek practical change. We are relentless and persistent in our pursuit.
Engage to change
As the sector works with MPI to develop the regulations that will give shape to the Organic Act, key lessons from the decade include:
Stay close and connected with the community that you represent. Engage in participative, open transparent processes by sharing openly and listening. Be honest and clear in all responses, say when you do not know, work together to find solutions.
Have clear, powerful effective communications and engage professionals to help do this.
Ask for help, people want organic to succeed.
Always be inclusive of all political parties when engaging change at a national level. Politicians and political parties come and go from being in Government.
Build relationships and maintain them at every opportunity.
Find and nurture relationships with empathetic officials across multiple Ministries. People get promoted in their careers.
Stay true to organic values.
Moving forward
As we move closer to implementing the Organic Act through the regulations8, there is a lot for us to consider. They include:
1. What training would be required to manage the Act, regulations, standards, and auditors? What would that cost? Who is going to pay and through what system? 2. The organic standard may be owned by Government, but, who will manage it? 3. What would the future of OANZ look like and how will it be funded? 4. How will education and training be managed throughout the supply chain and by whom? 5. How will existing and new certification agencies engage with the national standard? 6. Will there be a national mark (logo)? Who will own, maintain and manage it? 7. What role will MPI and other key government agencies have in the new model? 8. How will it fit in global best practice models? Could New Zealand lead? Who would lead? 9. How do we ensure the organic sector remains both rigorous and united? 10. What other opportunities and expertise is required?
With the passing of the Act and development of supporting regulations, it is critical that we remain united, focused, strategic and work together with officials to ensure our Organic Act achieves it purpose to: – increase consumer confidence in buying products labelled “organic” – increase certainty for businesses claiming products as organic – facilitate international trade in organic products.
References
Original members of OFNZ were Soil and Health Association, BioGro NZ, Bio-Dynamic Association of NZ and Organic Products Exporters Group. ↩︎
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, ‘Organics Working Group Report’. September 2001 ISBN 0-478-07647-9 ↩︎
Brendan Hoare is a managing director of Buy Pure New Zealand. His involvement in organics has included holding positions with Soil & Health NZ (president), BioGro (director), OANZ (founder, executive chair, and CEO) and IFOAM (world board member). He is serves on the Organic Farm NZ Council. His business is run from the OFNZ certified ‘Long Breath Farm’, on the edge of the Waitakere Ranges.
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2023-09-12 10:30:162023-09-12 10:30:16Behind the scenes of the Organic Act
At this critical point of organic development in Aotearoa, government support is going to be crucial for organic and sustainable practices to evolve. Jenny Lux asks our political parties what they intend to do about it.
The General Election will be held on 14 October 2023 and those of us who care deeply about Soil & Health NZ’s long-held ambition for an organic New Zealand are asking: which party is going to really deliver?
Brendan Hoare outlines here the journey the organic sector has been on to get organics recognised by the government with the passing of the Organic Products and Production Act 2023 (Organic Act). As Brendan states, cooperation from government was pivotal.
The next eighteen months are when it is decided how the new Organic Act will be actioned by establishing the national organic standards and regulations. So we’d like to know which parties are planning to help a smooth transition to the new rules? Who has policies that will help boost organics to the next level? Despite amazing achievements by our organic growers, farmers and brands (see the 2020 OANZ Market Report), New Zealand still has less than one percent of organic certified land, whereas in Europe they are currently at 9.1 percent and are aiming for higher.
It’s going to take not only the grit, determination, and creativity of organic producers (which they have in bundles), but also the commitment of partners in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to enable organic businesses to thrive. The resourcing of ministries and the policies that drive them are down to the government of the day.
In early June 2023, I went to the five political parties in parliament, as well as TOP and NZ First, and I asked them these three questions:
Organics is climate action. World-wide, governments are putting significant funding towards organic agriculture, because it helps meet biodiversity, freshwater, and emissions goals. For example, the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy aims to have at least 25 percent of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming by 2030, along with a significant increase in organic aquaculture. What is your party’s policy with regard to using organic farming to meet climate change and environmental goals for NZ, so that we remain internationally competitive?
The Organic Products and Production Act 2023 (Organic Act) was passed in April this year. This means a step up in regulation for new and existing organic businesses, and a chance to really grow the organic sector both domestically and for export. How are you going to help the organic sector adapt and thrive under the new regulatory regime?
Farmer extension programmes for organic farmers and growers are almost non-existent in NZ. What funding would your party provide to work with farmers who want to convert to organic, or who already are organic, but need the right information and support to create a world-leading organic business?
I got answers from four parties, printed verbatim below in alphabetical order of the party’s name. I got an acknowledgement of receipt, but no reply, from the Māori Party, TOP, nor NZ First.
If these answers do not satisfy, then I encourage you to keep asking the parties: what are you going to do for organics?
ACT New Zealand
Organics is climate action: ACT acknowledges that New Zealand’s farmers and growers utilise a variety of systems and practices to maximise on farm productivity and sustainability. ACT believes that farmers and growers should, within limits, be free to implement the tools that best allow them to pursue climate, environmental, and sustainability goals as they see fit.
Helping the organic sector adapt to new regulations: Although well intended, the Organic Act failed to strike a balance between ensuring a strong regulatory standard for certifying the organic status of products for the export market, and keeping costs for small, local, or domestic organic producers at a minimum. ACT will continue to explore options which strike this balance.
Farmer extension programmes: ACT believes that free market principles should drive innovation. Uptake of organic agricultural practices should be driven by market demand.
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
Organics is climate action: The Green Party agrees that shifting towards organic farming will be key to transition to more sustainable forms of agriculture and horticulture. We would support this transition for farmers through low-interest grants and loans, and phase out the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use. These actions are just a couple of steps to take to ensure we remain credible internationally on climate, and to ensure our products meet the increasingly high standards now needed on the international market.
Helping the organic sector adapt to new regulations: The Green Party has worked alongside advocates for years to achieve mandatory organics standards. Minimum standards not only provide greater certainty for consumers, but they also give producers a guarantee that everyone is working to the same standard. OANZ’s sector strategy that was released in 2020 said that there is the potential to add $4.7 billion in what they call ‘better growth’ to our economy by the year 2030, of which the Organic Act was identified as a key tool for achieving this. That said, we recognise the transition to the new legislative regime will require resourcing, and we have been actively lobbying the Minister of Agriculture for both short-term and long-term financial support for the organic sector in light of these changes.
Farmer extension programmes: We would support farmers to transition to more sustainable forms of agriculture, including organic agriculture, through low-interest loans and grants. This incentive, paired with regulatory changes to the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser will send a strong signal to the market, with time and support as we shift to value over volume – reducing emissions and pollution in our waterways.
NZ Labour Party
The Labour Party chose not to answer the specific questions, rather they sent us this statement:
Labour’s election manifesto will be released later this year when the election campaign kicks off and we will be able to comment with more specificity at that point. However, the Government’s record speaks for itself. We passed the Organic Act at the beginning of this year which will introduce robust and practical regulation to give farmers, growers, and businesses the certainty needed to continue investing in our organics sector. The Government recognised that it was key to put in place a framework to support the growing industry and to allow producers to back up their organic status with a standardised system of certification. Alongside the Ministry for Primary Industries, we are currently undertaking the work needed to get the system up and running – including consultation with organic farmers and growers on the new regulatory system.
NZ National Party
Organics is climate action: National recognises that New Zealand farmers and growers are among the most carbon efficient in the world. However, we also recognise that to remain competitive we must work to reduce agricultural emissions. Meeting our emissions targets ensures New Zealand growers will get the best possible deal in overseas markets and for us to be attractive to international consumers. National will provide farmers with the tools they need, including choices around organic production, to reduce emissions and meet environmental obligations. We will ensure that the recently adopted Organic Act is implemented quickly and effectively in cooperation with the organics sector, and to a world standard. Offering farmers and growers choices without cost regulations, will mean New Zealand continues to lead the world in food production.
Helping the organic sector adapt to new regulations: The Organic Act passed earlier this year will help enhance the reputation of New Zealand’s organic sector and ensure it remains world leading. National believes that regulation should be ‘light touch’ and outcome focused. The Act should be implemented in a cooperative way keeping regulation and cost low for organic producers. National believes the establishment of an Organics Review Board, driven by the sector, would be the best way to ensure quick and efficient decisions that work for organic growers. We will give farmers a regulatory environment where they can have the confidence to invest and grow the organic marketplace.
Farmer extension programmes: The Organic Act is an important tool for farmers and growers to have the choice to convert to organic production. It provides the framework for clear decision making and to ensure our quality reputation remains high. National believes in the importance of strong industry engagement as a means to drive better outcomes from government policy and regulation. A strong industry representation body is the best means to build a collaborative relationship with producers. National will look to reprioritise existing funds from the MPI budget to support the New Zealand organics sector and its representation bodies and to identify ways to grow organic exports as a priority.
Organic Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), the united voice of the organic sector in New Zealand, has formulated a strategy to grow the organic sector in New Zealand. To that end, we call for the next government to:
Recognise the key role that organic agriculture plays in achieving its sustainability goals.
Recognise organics as a public good. Organic production brings about many environmental – and societal – benefits that go beyond economics. Organic agriculture should be acknowledged for the positive effect it has on society.
Implement policies to support and promote organic farming, production, and distribution, such as incentives for converting to organic, streamlined, and subsidised certification processes and other compliance requirements, and funding for extension services.
Fund and support research in organic agriculture.
Fund consumer campaigns so consumers can make informed choices, understand the value of organic products, and encourage healthy and sustainable food consumption. Education about organic products and their benefits is vital to the sector’s success.
Facilitate market access for organic producers, both domestically and internationally. Organic products need to be promoted in government-run programmes, organic export opportunities need to be supported, and resources provided to help organic farmers, growers, and businesses market their products effectively.
Speaking of resourcing …
Why is so little funding put into organic research and development in New Zealand? Why do we not have organic centres of research at all of our universities and polytechnics? Also, why is it so hard for farmers and growers to get tried and tested, independent, peer-reviewed, NZ-specific information on organic management? As a grower myself, I’d love to have an organic extension agent that I can call up to help me with a pest problem or a soil fertility issue, like in many parts of the USA. As it stands, we create our own unfunded networks and try to help each other. I’d personally like to see more of my tax dollar going towards finding organic solutions for our farmers!
Call for Climate
Soil & Health NZ have joined a campaign for urgent climate action – from all political parties. Climate Shift is a ten-point plan for climate action. Guided by the themes of real emissions reduction, supporting frontline communities, and restoring and rewilding nature, the call is for the following actions:
Climate Shift ten point plan (condensed)
End new oil, gas, and coal exploration and extraction, and commit to Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
Accelerate the transition to public and locally-owned, nature-friendly, renewable electricity.
Transition towards high-density, low emissions communities by prioritising investment in walking, cycling, and accessible public transport infrastructure over road spending.
Transition intensive dairying to low emissions farming by phasing out synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and imported animal feed, reducing herd size, and banning new large scale irrigation schemes.*
Ensure our laws address the climate crisis by strengthening the Emissions Trading Scheme, requiring all government decisions to keep warming below 1.5°C, and establishing meaningful environmental bottom lines in new planning rules.
Protect communities through stopping new development in coastal and river flood zones.
Scale up our climate finance commitments with funding to address loss and damage caused by climate change.
Maximise native forests’ role by effectively controlling deer, goats, and possums on all public land, and implementing a native reforestation programme.
Preserve the ocean’s crucial role in storing carbon by shifting to ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Double the area of wetlands in Aotearoa New Zealand
*We think it would have been even better if point 4 of the Call for Climate plan was reworded to: Transition all farming to low (nil?) emission organic farming by subsidising organic compliance costs, research, and training with financing from levies on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, imported animal feed, and irrigation schemes.
Jenny Lux is the owner of the organic market garden, Lux Organics, and an environmental activist, actively involved in Organic Farm NZ, BioGro, and The Green Party and currently chair of Soil & Health NZ. She was deservedly the recipient of our OrganicNZ 2023 Farmer of the Year award. luxorganics.co.nz
00Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2023-08-25 10:52:002023-08-25 10:52:00Vote organics this 2023 election
Kev Dowman tells Paula Sharp why we should be producing biochar on a commercial scale. He says it is an investment for our future, specifically the future of New Zealand’s land quality and how we can contain carbon.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.
Globally, there is scientific investment going into producing biochar, an activated type of charcoal, because of its environmental upside. And the upside is potentially massive. Biochar has the ability to hold carbon in the soil for thousands of years and simultaneously increase land fertility. Kevin Dowman is passionate for New Zealand to play a big part in this movement.
Kev is tapping into his experience and knowledge of logging and logging practices (milling wood, farming, and commercial waste products) to create biochar for domestic and commercial use. The process involves wood (or woodchip, garden waste, cardboard, or bones) heated to around 500oC with limited oxygen until it forms a charcoal, then dousing it with liquid, thereby activating the charcoal and creating biochar.
Biochar stabilises carbon (carbon sequestration). It is about 70 percent carbon, the remaining 30 percent is a composite of nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. Biochar is so porous it can interact with its surroundings. Research has proven that using biochar to increase soil carbon also increases soil pH and biodiversity, soil water retention and water quality improve, crop yield doubles, land fertility increases, there is less land erosion, microbials are more active (less disease), livestock health improves (therefore human health improves), and climate mitigation is in play. Biochar is so efficient at storing carbon (in a world where we are looking to cut greenhouse gases (GHG)), that it is being hailed as ‘black gold’ by product developers and innovators around the world.
Why is Kev so keen on biochar?
Kev converted to biochar from the other side. When he was 10 years old, Kev started skipping school to go logging with his father. By 14 he’d all but quit school to be a logger. By 19 he was helping to clear farms of their forestry before joining Kinleith Pulp and Paper Mill in Tokoroa in charge of his own logging gang.
In those days, logging was a hugely lucrative business with whole native forests being cleared and planted in pine, then cleared again. Kev worked the length and breadth of New Zealand, he saw the change from under-scrubbing (slashing the undergrowth) with machetes before felling trees with axes and a (singular) chainsaw, to the use of a version of agent orange (245T) to kill off the scrub before the trees were levelled with machinery. (He has memories of his crew working as the chemical was dropped, their clothes and vehicles covered in its residue. “We were told it was safe, they were using this type of thing in the Vietnam war.”).
Fast forward to 2019, and things ‘weren’t quite right’ with his health. Kev was on his way to the doctor but got delayed by school students protesting against climate change. ‘We have 12 years left’ [to stop climate change] was the message he heard. Kev didn’t know if he had 12 years left. But he wanted a solution for these young people. Kev is a father, a grandfather, a man who has worked (and damaged) the land and a man who deeply loves the land. And he is not one to shy away from a challenge. In that moment he decided; ‘I’ve got to do something to change this. These kids need a future.’
Kev is an intelligent and articulate man who never went to university. His white hair and tanned face speak of decades outside. Self-educated on biochar, today he has a high level of technical knowledge on the subject. To meet him, he is more than ‘a man who can’, he is ‘a man who does.’
Kev’s thought process kept coming back to ‘nature knows how to do this’. His bright blue eyes sparkle as he explains; “Nature, by way of photosynthesis, converts carbon gases into solid carbon (plants and trees). As they grow, they are a natural carbon store. (A tree or plant is considered carbon neutral when it reaches maturity.) The gas converted in this process is now stored within the tree as wood and plant fibre. Carbon remains in this state until it begins to breakdown, by natural or other means. Insects, decay, burning, and weathering, all break down the carbon and release the gases back into the atmosphere.”
Unless it is stabilised. “Over billions of years carbon has been formed into a solid state, then trapped under ground, in the sea, lakes, swamps, bogs, and even in permafrost, in the form of coal, oil, natural gas and peat. In short, nature takes carbon from the air and puts it in the ground.
“It is well known that wood burned in a non-oxygen environment produces charcoal. Once activated, charcoal is very difficult to break down and carbon in this form can be stored for thousands of years.”
Kev’s solution
Was simple, if we take it out, we help put it back. Five years on and many proto-types of biochar furnaces (the Tin Man, the Jolly Rodger, the Kon-Tiki, and the Retort Kiln), Kev has built his own energy and time-efficient kiln in order to make biochar for domestic use (copyright pending). With investment, it is something that could also be upscaled for commercial use. Kev uses a variety of techniques for different materials in order to create biochar, but at the moment, he recommends the bucket style Kon-Tiki for domestic use. His advice to the home gardener is; “No matter what system; Retort, Kon-Tiki, Pit, or other, the drier the material, the better – under 20 percent moisture content is ideal. This means less energy is wasted driving out moisture, allowing for higher temperatures to be reached in the process, resulting in better char. All systems used should have a double burning ability of gases, at higher temperatures to keep down GHG.”
He knows New Zealand is an ideal country to utilise this on a large scale. There is simply a lot of waste wood (and other materials). He is not alone in this; Professor Jim Jones and his team at Massey University see the value of using slash to create biochar on a commercial scale.
As a nation we produce a lot of slash which enter the water ways – damaging bridges, making rivers dangerous, damming small water reservoirs and washing up in large quantities on our beaches as logs or smaller driftwood. Recent weather events have seen huge amounts of damage caused by slash. Moreover, vast quantities of noncommercial grade logs are left in our remote forests, out of (public) sight, out of (the industry’s) mind. This wood currently has no commercial value, but could be a resource for biochar.
Future potential
Kev sees a future where slash or logging refuse is used as fuel for biochar, to harness CO2 as a resource for land quality. Low-grade waste logs could be made into biochar on location to replenish the soil, creating forest fertility.
Globally, historic over-farming, monoculture, and chemical use, has meant our soil is lacking in available micro- and macronutrients. Kev and other experts know biochar, mixed with organic matter, can alter this. Instead of nitrogen leaching below the plant root zone, biochar holds nitrate/nitrogen in place. Biochar increases the cations (positively charged ions within the soil) and anions (negatively charged ions). Higher levels of cations provide potassium, ammonium, magnesium, calcium, zinc, manganese, iron and copper to the plant. Anions allow for higher amounts of nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, borate, and molybdate. When biochar is present, plants perform and absorb to a higher standard.
Biochar in our waterways could act as natural carbon filters, key to New Zealand being able to clean up its lakes, rivers and streams.
Research is also proving biochar as a feed additive could reduce methane production in the cow’s rumen. This benefit to our meat and dairy industry could be vast. In 2025, He Waka Eke Noa, the Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership plans to implement taxes on farmed animal’s methane and CO2 emissions. This tax will be the farmer’s responsibility (and therefore passed onto the consumer). Instead of taxing emissions in this way, perhaps He Waka Eke Noa, could support farmers to change their methane and CO2 levels at ‘grass roots’? Independently, and as a collective, farmers given this information and access to biochar or biochar furnaces could be incentivised to change their farming practices, producing fewer animal gases. Australian farmer, Doug Pow, found (and published) that by adding biochar to feed, livestock showed improved nutritional intake therefore increased milk production, and less odour and gas. As an aside, Kevin also questions whether our bee population is being ‘carbon starved’, that by introducing biochar into our pastures our bees would thrive at a higher level.
Biochar is not new to the world. Evidence of its use has been found in the Amazon between 500-9000 years BP (before present) to make arid soil fertile. In 2010, scientists James Hansen and James Lovelock started working with biochar for carbon dioxide removal. Many countries are exploring ways of eliminating or storing carbon. In New Zealand, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, has benchmarked and monitored soil carbon in 275 of its 500 on-farm sites (to June 2022). They are well aware of our carbon resources.
Is biochar part of the answer?
In 2023, the Wall Street Journal writes that large companies around the world are offsetting their carbon emissions with carbon credits and by buying into biochar and biochar products. In 2018, Fonterra Nelson transitioned from using coal to burning wood in a process called ‘co-firing’ to power its premises. Kev suggests it would be a small step to create biochar in the process. Fonterra, will you lead the way?
Should New Zealand be refocusing its CO2 gaze on options like biochar in order to validate its green credentials? Kev Dowman certainly thinks so.
Further information
Garden Biochar Production
Making biochar, by Living Web Farms. A six-part series recommended by Kev Dowman. youtube.com/watch?v=svNg5w7WY0k How to make a Retort Kiln youtube.com/watch?v=PxrsBQDBQOk
How to make a Kon-Tiki Kiln youtube.com/watch?v=1o0QqePtNM4
New Zealand Biochar Research Centre massey.ac.nz/about/colleges-schools-and-institutes/ college-of-sciences/our-research/research-projectsand-groups/new-zealand-biochar-research-centre/
Paula Sharp is a Nutritional Therapist based in the Bay of Plenty. She is interested in organic food production and how quality food creates quality health. She recently attended a biochar workshop hosted by Kev Dowman and was inspired by his findings on natural soil enhancement.
Biochar
Submitted by Dylan Graves with permission from BNNZ.
What is biochar?
Biochar is produced by heating biomass in an oxygen-free or air-limited environment, called pyrolysis. If used as a soil amendment it will have biology added to it before application. Yes, it is similar to charcoal, but not the same.
Biochar’s key attributes and benefits
Biochar is a stable form of carbon derived from biomass. The chemical carbon bonds are very resistant to breakdown through biological processes.
It’s very long lived: Pyrogenic carbon in fertile grassland soils has been dated to over 7,000 years in the US Midwest, and 12-14,000 years in Russia.
It has a microscopic pore structure which provides immense internal surface area and optimum habitat for soil microbiota. This porosity makes biochar an ideal amendment for increasing aeration and water retention of soils.
Biochar has a high cation exchange capacity, which gives it superior adsorption qualities and provides the ability to bind and retain dissolved nutrients. The soil microbiota can use them and make them available to plant roots.
How is biochar produced?
Traditional charcoal production methods, such as smouldering in earth mounds or beehive kilns, are typically slow, polluting, and inefficient. Because of the lower temperatures in these processes, the charcoal produced has a high level of hydrocarbons remaining and is less suitable for many of the applications appropriate to biochar. It is also less long-lived and will degrade or decompose in soil.
An internet search will generate multiple methods for creating biochar at whichever scale suits you. Purposed incinerators, open air-drums, or small-scale kilns are available for household or farm-scale biochar production.
Commercial reactors produce syngas, industrial heat/ power, biochar; and potentially a range of condensates (pyroligneous acids, oils, and tars).
Things we could be doing with biochar in NZ:
Turn virtually any organic material ‘waste’ into a useful product.
Improve the fertility, aeration and water retention of our pasture and arable soils.
Reduce the emissions of CO2, N2O, NH4+ and CH4 from agricultural soils.
Reduce nutrient leaching into our waterways. Biochar can be used in soil or to filter water.
After it is saturated with nutrients it can then be used as a soil amendment – the burden becomes a benefit.
Carbon sequestration – short rotation crops could be converted to stable carbon.
Other applications include animal feed supplements, bedding, manure management, effluent treatment, building materials, and more.
Standards and carbon sequestration eligibility
One of the primary drivers for economic production of biochar is likely to be the price of carbon credits, either through a government-operated cap and trade system like the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme, or via a voluntary market such as Puro.earth. In order for this value to be properly attributed, quantification of the carbon stored in biochar needs to be robust and verifiable and must take into account the complete lifecycle analysis (LCA) of production and application, along with reliable models of its longevity in the environment.
Modern pyrolysis plants as well as certain types of farm-scale methods such as flame cap pyrolysis systems can produce biochar in an energy efficient way.
European Biochar Certificate
The European Biochar Certificate (european-biochar.org) is a voluntary industry standard in Europe. In Switzerland, however, it is obligatory for all biochar sold for use in agriculture.
IBI Standards
The IBI Biochar Certification Program is a voluntary scheme administered by the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) to provide certification of biochar products (biochar-international.org)
The Biochar Network New Zealand Inc. (BNNZ)
Biochar Network of New Zealand (BNNZ) is an incorporated society constituted in 2019 with a mission to promote widespread acceptance of biochar. BNNZ has members with a high degree of practical knowledge who are passionate about biochar and its benefits. Join BNNZ at biochar.net.nz.
The silts from recent floods are devoid of the all-important pore spaces, organic matter and microbes that make up a living soil. Charles Merfield gives practical recommendations on how to use organic processes to re-establish these and revitalise mineral-rich silt.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.
An ideal soil is 45 per cent mineral, 5 per cent organic matter and 50 per cent pore spaces occupied equally by air and water.
The relative sizes of sand, silt and clay particles.
What is silt?
Silt, sand, and clay are terms for specific sizes of the rock particles that make up soil – see figure 1 above.
Silt is left on flatter areas after flooding because the water currents are too slow to carry sand, and clay is so small and light it stays in suspension. Silt is also used as a general term for finer materials left behind by floods.
The east coast of the North Island has been particularly badly affected by flooding from Cyclone Gabrielle because many of its rocks are siltstones and mudstones. There are predominantly made of silt and clay particles, and they are highly erodible, so large amounts were carried by the floodwaters.
Silts left behind by flooding (and also deposited by wind), is how many of Aotearoa New Zealand’s extremely fertile soils began, then vegetation built up the organic matter, biology, and structure to form soil. While flood silt is not soil, it can be transformed into soil, often highly fertile soil. This can take a few, or tens of years, depending on approach.
Contamination
The first thing to determine is if flood silt is contaminated with harmful materials. Most biological materials such as sewage will naturally decompose over time so in the long-term they will not be damaging.
If it is suspected synthetic chemicals have been washed down, it is a much more complex problem and the effect will depend on the exact chemicals and their amounts. This issue is too technical to cover here, you need expert advice. Start by contacting your council and if you are organically certified, talk with your certifier.
Integration
How best to deal with the silt depends on how deep it is.
If it is less than 20 cm deep it can be dug in or cultivated into the soil below. This should bring the soil back to a form of normality quite quickly. Experience on pasture has shown that mixing the silt with original soil improved recovery, both short and longer term. Cultivation also destroys the interface between original soil and silt which can be a barrier to air, water and roots.
Between 20 cm and 60 cm deep it can be cultivated in, but, doing this manually in a garden will be very challenging, and even commercially, specialised equipment, e.g., a spading machine is likely to be required. Also, the amount of silt will be greater than the original topsoil meaning it will take longer to get back to full health.
Beyond 60 cm the silt will have to be removed if it is causing other problems, e.g., has buried infrastructure or is killing perennial plants or trees.
Incorporation
If the silt is not removed, then the best action is to get plants growing as quickly as possible to start the process of turning the silt into soil.
Some perennial plants, such as kiwifruit and citrus have low tolerance of waterlogging and anaerobic soils. For these species clearing the silt about 30 to 50 cm from around the trunks within 48 hours may be the difference between the plants living or dying. Sadly this will have been impossible or impractical in many situations.
Biological materials such as compost and manure and incorporated into the silt that can really kick start the soil-forming processes. Five per cent soil organic matter can equate to 500 to 1000 tonnes of organic matter per ha, so, in this situation putting on hundreds of tonnes of compost can be justified, if at all feasible. This will also boost the populations of soil microbes in the silt, to help its transformation into soil.
Regeneration
While silt will have very few soil microbes and other biology in it compared with healthy soil, it is far from sterile. Soil microbes are blowing around on the wind all the time. To get soil biology amongst the silt requires living plants.
Living plants, particularly the exudates from their roots (see the article ‘Humus is dead – long live MAOM’ in OrganicNZ Nov/Dec 22), are what turns silt to soil. Any plants are good and the more diversity of species the better. However, there are a number issues to take into account when deciding which species to use.
The seed needs to be readily available and not expensive. This typically means pasture and arable species, i.e., cover crops.
Species need to be suitable for your climate and also the time of year, i.e., don’t plant frost sensitive species in autumn / winter in cooler areas.
The plants need to grow quickly. To hold the silt together when it rains and stop it blowing around as dust in the dry. That also means pasture, and especially annual arable species / cover crops are best.
You need all three of the herbaceous (i.e., pasture and arable) functional plant groups: grasses, legumes and forbs (‘herbs’).
Grasses have fine fibrous root systems that are very good at holding onto the silt and keeping it in place. Annual arable species such as ryecorn, triticale, and maize have deep rooting systems which will hold onto more soil and grow into the original soil to tap into its nutrients.
Legumes can fix nitrogen which will be in short supply. However, legumes need the right symbiotic bacterial to do the fixing, which may not be present in enough numbers in the silt. It is probable that white clover, being so ubiquitous across New Zealand, may be OK. Other species are likely to need inoculum applied with the seed. Inoculums are species specific. Talk with your seed supplier.
Forbs are everything that is not a grass or a legume. Put in what ever you can, especially some deeper rooting species such as chicory (perennial) and sunflowers (annual) as these can ‘punch’ through the silt into the original soil and help transport soil microbes up into the silt. They will also help get oxygen down into the original soil as their roots die and create air channels.
Annuals are generally much faster growing than perennials which is what is needed for quick establishment to protect the silt from wind and rain, but, they only grow for a few months. Try mixing some perennials’ seed in with the annuals’ seed so once the annuals are finished the perennials can come through. This is a form of undersowing described in the article ‘The root of the matter: Intercropping and living mulches’ in OrganicNZ Jan/Feb 23.
Avoid species that don’t tolerate wet conditions, lucerne is the obvious example, as they wont like the anaerobic conditions in the silt. Ask your seed supplier.
The exact species are not critical – the really critical thing is to get the silt sown with something rather than nothing, and sooner rather than later.
Having a range of species can also help provide resilience because if some species don’t do well, then others will grow to fill the gaps.
Don’t delay planting too long as the top of the silt will dry out. Drilling, if possible, would be preferable to broadcasting and rolling or raking the seed in.
Silt that is smelly is likely to be anaerobic (or have toxins present) so cultivating it to introduce oxygen is likely to be required. Seeds sown into smelly silt may die due to toxins.
If using machinery, the silt will need to be dried out enough to be tractable. It is likely the silt will be variable, from more clayey areas where the flood water was moving the slowest, to sandy areas where it was moving fast. Tractability will thus vary as the texture (makeup) of the silt varies, – be careful or you will bog the tractor!
Once you have some plants establishing, getting a full soil nutrient (macro and micro nutrients) and pH test will be valuable, and vital for commercial operations. This is because the silt is likely to have limited amounts of plant-available nutrients, as these are tied up with soil’s organic matter – which is very limited in freshly deposited silt. Adding organic matter will supply nutrients, or use certified organic fertilisers.
Good luck and ngā manaakitanga.
Dr Charles Merfield is an agroecologist and head of the Future Farming Centre, which is part of the BHU Organics Trust. This article used information from a number of sources, particularly resources compiled by www.landwise.org.nz and www.hortnz.co.nz, but have not been personally tested by Dr Merfield.
https://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/iStock-1388648540.jpg15001998Staff Writerhttps://organicnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/OrganicNZ-2024-Masthead.pngStaff Writer2023-05-03 12:47:352023-05-03 12:47:35Silt to soil: Rejuvenating silt organically
