As a rural veterinarian and director of a small practice focused on production animals in Northland, New Zealand, I have seen a number of changes in our rural communities over the last few years that have been directly linked to policy. Hailing from Dumfries and having worked for most of my career in New Zealand, there are key lessons for UK policymakers to learn from New Zealand agricultural policy. While British agriculture forms a far smaller proportion of the national economy – 0.6% of UK GDP from agriculture, compared to around 5% of NZ GDP – there are similarities too.
Agriculture forms a key aspect of rural life in both countries and is set to continue doing so. Farming shapes the landscape, and although important national parks take up many thousands of acres in these nations, agriculture remains the dominant form of land use. In the UK, farming is key to preserving not only our countryside environment but also ways of life, traditional livestock breeds and rural communities. Visiting the UK less than a year ago, I was delighted to be offered Herdwick lamb in Cumbria and locally sourced venison in my native Dumfries and Galloway. This points to a success in rural policy that conserves our links to traditional breeds and local communities, while also encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour in our proud rural economy.
While the Kiwi way of life is less sentimental about the role of traditional agriculture, sound agricultural policy remains essential. Agriculture is still seen as the backbone of the New Zealand economy, with food and fibre accounting for approximately 70% of national merchandise exports.
Since the Second World War, agriculture has been heavily subsidised in the United Kingdom, as in many nations. Now, we are rightly turning away from subsidising production and instead supporting sustainability. This makes sense, but caution is needed whenever rejigging interference in the rural economy, as changes often have considerable knock-on effects.
Sustainability is a term that is increasingly used in farming, and usually feels vague. It must mean more than just environmental metrics. Financial discipline, generational succession, preservation of traditional local practices, uptake of modern technology, a competitive product, biodiversity, business resilience, greenhouse gas reductions and market efficiency all form part of a truly sustainable system.
New Zealand ended direct subsidies in the late eighties as part of sweeping pro-market reforms, leading to rapid efficiency gains. As a result, the country is now regarded as a global leader in dairy and red meat production. However, there were real downsides – particularly environmental. Inexpensive nitrogen fertilisers drove grass growth and productivity, but at a cost to water quality. Only in 2021 did New Zealand cap synthetic nitrogen application to grazed pasture at 190kg per hectare a year.
Where the UK can learn from New Zealand is in how the market responded to this regulation. Consumers globally are increasingly aware of how their food is produced, and regulations can work in tandem with market expectations. Fonterra, New Zealand’s largest milk processor, now actively educates farmers on optimal timing of nitrogen application to reduce run-off and improve uptake. Farmers are also incentivised to work with environmental consultants to minimise harm to waterways.
Today, many New Zealand farmers are also aware of their own greenhouse gas profiles and can use scenario calculators to model the likely environmental impacts of their farming decisions. In this way, market-led innovation is accelerating outcomes that benefit both the environment and the consumer.
That said, not all policy decisions in New Zealand have succeeded. The UK would do well to examine the damage caused by poorly managed afforestation here. Over the past two decades, the UK has embraced hedgerows and riparian planting, supporting both biodiversity and cultural identity. These practices may not heavily influence carbon scores, but they also strengthen biodiversity, preserve history and maintain landscape character from the Cotswolds to the Highlands.
By contrast, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) has fuelled a surge in pine plantations – around 175,000 hectares between 2017 and 2022, an area larger than Greater London. While intended to offset carbon emissions, this has stripped food-producing land from rural communities. Monocultures of the Monterey pine in particular reduce biodiversity, heighten fire risk and threaten native species. Those wilding pines are now a costly menace for the Department of Conservation.
Worse still, ageing farmers often sell land at inflated prices to carbon speculators, and once planted in pine, such landscapes rarely revert. The timber is often secondary in value; it is the carbon credits that are harvested. What may seem like a straightforward transaction carries lasting, potentially irreversible consequences for rural life and land use.
So how can the UK learn from this? Through serious, evidence-based rural policy combined with a commitment to genuine environmental improvement. A farmer in Somerset might drop their children at the local school, buy parts from the tractor dealer in Taunton, employ a fencing contractor and shop at the village store. All these transactions contribute to a resilient rural economy. By supporting such communities – and incentivising native tree planting, responsible effluent management and waterway protection – we secure real environmental gains.
The pine-clad hills of New Zealand require no such interaction. Contractors fly in from afar to manage vast, silent plantations. The UK must be careful not to follow the same path.
Current concerns around inheritance tax aside, British agriculture has a promising future. But policymakers must resist the urge to oversimplify environmental metrics. A sustainable future must be about more than counting carbon.
Rory Dean is the Director of a rural veterinary practice and serves on the Dairy Cattle Vets Committee of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. He is also the author of Adventures of a Country Vet and a contributor to the Farmers Guardian. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Bright Blue.