Conservationists, farmers have different reactions to latest Clean Streams report
The latest report on the Clean Streams Accord has met with very divergent responses. Conservation groups are calling for the accord to be scrapped, as the report indicates increasing rates of significant non-compliance, specifically with effluent management targets.
Dairy industry spokespeople point to progress on some of the accord’s targets. They also point out that the proportion of farms inspected last season leads to skewing of the figures in this year’s report.
Federated Farmers Dairy national chairperson, Lachlan McKenzie, said.
“The good news is that the actual average for farms physically inspected has shown a decreasing trend for significant non-compliance. From 12 percent in 2007/8, 11 percent in 2008/9 and now 10 percent for the current report period.
“It’s the use of ‘weighted’ averages for significant non-compliance that turns this positive trend into a negative one.
“For instance, only around a fifth of the farms in the Waikato was inspected but the results are scaled up to represent all the farms there. Given that Waikato accounts for a quarter of the national herd, any weighting tends to skew the national snapshot.
“The truth is that 85 percent of dairy farms now exclude dairy cattle from streams, rivers and lakes. That’s just shy of the 2012 target of 90 percent. It’s also true that 99 percent of dairy farms have waterway crossings and 99 percent have systems to manage nutrients. Like with unemployment back in the 1950s, we probably know the one percent by name.”
Asked whether Federated Farmers is doing anything about that non-complying group, Mr McKenzie replied: “The industry is doing something about it. I’ve had some of my council do personal visits to farmers and over a cup of coffee explain to them that what they are doing isn’t acceptable. The response has been positive. For years Federated Farmers has been asking the likes of Environment Waikato to inspect every farm every year and to combine that with clear guidelines and an education programme, but to no avail. All they want to do is go around and prosecute people. As the figures show, that does not work. In Taranaki, where they have a culture of working with the farmers and an annual inspection of every farm every year, they have less than one percent non-compliant. That is what is achievable by people working together. Police states do not work long term.
“The industry has other initiatives as well,” said Mr McKenzie. “The Farm Dairy Effluent Design Code of Practice and Design Standards has just been released. If we can get a culture change in regional councils to work with our industry we will continue to make huge improvements. If not, progress will be slowed and all New Zealand will suffer.”
Meanwhile, Fish and Game New Zealand is calling for a whole new accord, jointly developed by the Government, the dairy industry and environmental interests.
“It’s time for a new accord because, after eight years, this one clearly isn’t working,” said Fish and Game spokesman Neil Deans. “The Clean Streams Accord has an admirable objective to reduce the impacts of dairying on the quality of New Zealand’s streams, rivers, lakes, groundwater and wetlands. But the dairy industry is still failing on that front. It’s hardly surprising that achievement in terms of reducing the sector’s impact on water quality isn’t measured, or that the goal hasn’t even been mentioned in the Annual Report for the last couple of years.”
Fish and Game says that regional council and national data shows water quality in most dairying areas has not improved, and in fact continues to decline in many regions.
“Protection of wetlands under the accord is woeful, as several regional councils have not yet identified their regionally significant wetlands after eight years, while only two have met the 2005 target of 50 percent of these being fenced.”
Mr Deans said he would be interested to see whether dairy companies proceed with sanctions against repeated poor practice by suppliers. “It was signalled in last year’s accord annual report. We’ll have to wait and see how effective this has been.” He also said that some of the accord targets were insufficient.
“The effectiveness of on-farm nutrient management to maintain the quality of water bodies remains uncertain. Just having a nutrient budget doesn’t confirm its implementation or effectiveness. Nor does merely keeping stock out of waterways – farmers must keep their livestock back from waterways and create proper riparian buffers.”
It was time to extend the current targets to cover the full range of dairying’s adverse environmental effects, and look at how to achieve the desired water quality in New Zealand’s rivers and streams, he said.
“In order for the dairy sector to attain the necessary environmental credentials, independent audit of self-reported compliance is essential. Agreement of all parties will be essential for future environmental protection.”
The environmental sector wants to participate in the development of a new accord that “meets New Zealand’s future needs, provides incentives for good environmental practice and sanctions for poor practice,” said Mr Deans.
Ferntown farmer Sue Brown chairs Golden Bay Federated Farmers dairy section. She said that while Tasman’s figures of 19 percent non-compliance and 8 percent significant non-compliance were disappointing, there were mitigating factors.
“TDC’s compliance staff looked at only about a quarter of the farms in Tasman and understandably concentrated on at-risk farmers. The disappointing figures are more like a bit of a blip than a true picture of where the industry as a whole is in this region. It’s definitely undesirable to get this bad report but it does give farmers a reason to look forward to industry initiatives aimed at improvements. The good payouts recently mean that farmers can budget to make changes, especially around effluent storage, and to employ consultants to design systems that implement research-based industry best practices.”
Ms Brown pointed to two industry initiatives, both launched this season: the recently released Farm Dairy Effluent Design Code of Practice and Design Standards and Fonterra’s “Every Farm Every Year” programme, which involves an annual check of Fonterra suppliers to assess a farmer’s risk of future non-compliance.
“The checks are not a pass/fail idea, they’re designed to start a conversation to get farmers thinking about where the risks are on their farms. In our region, Fonterra have contracted these visits out to AsureQuality, the company that already does the annual food safety inspections.”
Effluent management can really test farmers, especially in wet areas. Technological changes can ease the burden, but not all farmers use them. Ms Brown agrees that division exists in the dairy industry.
“Unfortunately there are some older-generation farmers who may lack good access to broadband connection. They may have lost their connection to industry groups or they haven’t kept up with the scientific and technical changes that are necessary to future-proof their businesses. They are separated from their more switched-on counterparts and that’s a shame.
“The thing is that five years ago none of us knew what to do – we didn’t have the tools to make our businesses comply with the more demanding compliance regime.
“These days, any farmer who’s struggling can get access to industry advice from people who have done the training and specialised in that area. Changes that have been signalled around everything to do with being a Fonterra supplier mean that we have the chance to make quantum leaps in terms of our performance against the accord targets. I don’t think Tasman farmers will let themselves down.”
Kevin Hague is the Greens’ spokesperson for conservation and rural affairs. He said: “Fresh water is a ‘commons’. It’s owned by the public collectively, and provides us all with benefits. When someone uses this commonly owned resource, the rights of others must not be reduced. That means farmers are obliged to protect water from the adverse effects of their farming activities. Their right to use the water (eg for irrigation) is conditional on their protection of it for the common good. It isn’t just something that’s nice for them to do; it’s actually a moral duty.
“Many farmers have taken this moral duty very seriously and the Aorere Valley farmers are a fantastic example. Sue Brown and the others need to be recognised as genuine national leaders in this regard. Farmers have different motivations: some don’t need prompting and just know it’s something they should do; others were embarrassed into action by Fish and Game’s ‘Dirty Dairying’ campaign. At the other end of the scale are those who have been forced to comply by prosecutions or by Fonterra’s refusal to collect their milk,” Mr Hague continued.
“The Clean Streams Accord has been a useful tool. It’s great to see all the farmers who have chosen to comply, and to see Fonterra’s interest in being more active in encouraging compliance. But in the end it’s voluntary. As it turns out, it hasn’t succeeded in improving freshwater quality which has continued to decline. This shows that the voluntary accord is not enough to achieve its purpose of protecting freshwater systems. The Green Party says that since a voluntary code will not ensure a return to stream and river health, Government ought to apply and enforce mandatory standards. In contrast to the Aorere, the Motupipi catchment shows how a voluntary code is insufficient. It’s a disgrace that both Labour and National have led Governments that have refused to implement mandatory standards.
“A big part of the solution is sitting on Nick Smith’s desk. Arising out of the good work done by the Land and Water Forum - a praiseworthy process - the Minister has received a draft National Policy Statement on Freshwater. If it’s adopted by the Minister, everybody will be bound to the same high standards for cleaning up our freshwater. Farmers who have already invested in compliance with the accord will have a head-start, and may already comply with the proposed standards. Those who haven’t bothered to comply with the voluntary code should have a major challenge to reach the new standards. If they can’t or won’t, they shouldn’t be farming.
“Nick Smith owes it to the nation, and to those farmers who have worked hard on this, not to water down the draft standards, and to implement them without further delay.”
Neil Wilson
