It said NZ, with one of the lowest levels of government support in the developed world, had abandoned its agricultural sector to market forces but incentives for better farming practices were required.
“It appears that the laissez-faire approach to the agricultural sector does little to safeguard the environment,” it said.
Its claims that lack of support had transformed much of the country “into a massive dairy farm for China as a result” especially angered Waikato University agribusiness Professor Jacqueline Rowarth.
Rowarth said the claim, attributed to Cambridge University researcher Andrew Tanentzap, was factually incorrect as was the inference that because NZ farmers did not receive production or environmental subsidies, they were not investing in environmental protection.
She described it as an “emotive study”.
“I am a scientist. I deal in facts, evidence and data.”
The researchers ignored the $1 billion dairy farmers had invested in environmental protection and that water quality was a lot better than was given credit.
Rowarth said the claim NZ was one large dairy farm for China was incorrect, saying dairy land occupied about 6% of NZ’s total land mass or about 12% of its agricultural land.
Other academics also had issues with the paper’s findings judging by comments supplied by the Science Media Centre.
Ann Brower, a senior lecturer with the department of environmental management at Lincoln University said laissez faire was a loaded term and it was more accurate to described NZ as lightly regulated by international standards.
Suzi Kerr, a senior fellow with Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, described some of the study’s implications as illogical.
“It appears that the laissez-faire approach to the agricultural sector does little to safeguard the environment.”
Cambridge Universtiy-Landcare Research
Forestry credits, afforestation grants and council schemes to maintain or improve water quality were available but dairy expansion was not the result of a lack of subsidies or mitigation schemes.
“The implication in this paper is that NZ previously used subsidies to minimise environmental impacts of agriculture. That is manifestly incorrect.”
Had NZ farmers still received subsidies the growth of dairying would have been far greater, Kerr said.
Other academics said the dairy industry had initiated the Water Accord that resulted in the fencing of 23,300km of waterways and bridges or culverts inserted on 99% of regular stock crossings.
Regional councils and communities were imposing nutrient discharge limits and introducing water management and biodiversity strategies.
Also, councils and central Government, the dairy industry and Ngai Tahu had all worked together on biodiversity enhancement projects.
The paper said NZ “exclusively” relied on regulation through the Resource Management Act to minimise the environmental impact of agriculture.
The rate of conversion of “indigenous grassland to exotic pasture in the South Island” had accelerated rapidly and NZ livestock emissions per capita exceeded developed nations by more than 13 times.
Of the RMA the report said it favoured development over biodiversity, enforcement was poor, there was political interference and other regulations such as the Wildlife Act and Native Plant Protection Act were rarely invoked or did not apply to landowners.
