Essay was written in September for Xmas 2019 which seems a long time ago. Needless to say my thinking and research has progressed. This is a moveable feast but bear with me. 2
Australia has relied on ag throughout white history to keep the colonies solvent + initially supply Britain with food. Foreign capital (initially British but later also US, Canada, China etc) have been a big deal for ag. No q. 3
Ag also historically relied on statutory marketing bodies that gave growers collective power and leverage. As 1980/90s reforms opened up economy, those supports were removed. Power was dispersed. 4
That power was traded to big private corps/family set ups, who now have the only leverage in the market. It also sparked the need for more capital to get bigger (or get out). We sent out invitations. 5
Greater competition made Oz farmers more efficient but also more exposed (less subsidised) than in any other countries apart from NZ, last I saw. They made huge productivity gains but that is tailing off now. 6
Then we opened up water trading, going to high economic return, without the transparency required to get anywhere close to the mythical “perfect market”. This essentially picked winning crops even tho we say we don't pick winners. Hilarity ensued. 7
“Australia is falling behind the rest of the world in terms of farm productivity growth and the intensity of its investment in agricultural research, as well as in policies conducive to farmers providing environmental services desired by the community." 
9
I think where the report falls down is it assumes the way to go is to keep plugging away begging for freer trade while other countries continue or increase subsidies and take more (not less) control over their food sources. 10
Not advocating slamming doors shut on trade but be aware, big ag firms and state owned enterprises continue to step around trade rules by owning the land, the production, the processing (ie vertical integration.) 11
So that leaves the smaller farms selling to niche farmer markets, bigger farms advantaged by leverage, scale, influence, political lobbying. Middle growers most squeezed IMO. And that's before you even think about climate effects. 12
Enter environmental PAYMENT FOR SERVICES (not subsidies) which should be part of a full natural capital accounting program IMO and also injected into farm books (as part of balance sheet.) 13
Your assertion I don’t trust farmers wrong. Simple political point. If billions of taxpayer funding going to farmers, trust will be broken if no transparent evidence for enviro outcomes. City will say FU. 14
Breaking golden thread between food producers and eaters will turn a whole enviro services program into a shitshow - or sports rorts on steroids. 15
What’s more, the younger gen who are struggling for permanent (any) jobs, housing etc while worrying about climate will need proof their taxes are being fairly utilised and they deserve it. 16
Dumb thing to me is that in a country that prides itself on being high ag producers, there is not deep thinking on what we want from our farm/land management/food production/enviro sector. It is a big failing of govt and advocacy groups. It's a national security issue. 17
Key ingredients for integration: expanded nat capital accounting, transparent water manag, bolster food production/security with true food sovereignty inc manuf/processing, ecoservice payments for land management embedding Indig managers/rangers, national strategy for soil+water.
As to my perceived paternalism, I actually bend over backwards not to sound paternal but perhaps I have failed that. My voice is my voice. Thanks for the convo. All things liable to change without notice. Research brain. 18 ends
You can follow @gabriellechan.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: