THE Government released its regulatory freshwater proposals on September 5 with a fair bit of confusion following.
Key ministers insist it is just a discussion document and a paragraph or two of feedback is sufficient.
Farming groups would have strongly welcomed it being just a discussion process.
Until now there hasn’t been any real opportunity for meaningful input from Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb and DairyNZ so a chance to discuss and work through concerns with the Government, iwi and other key stakeholders would have been grabbed with both arms.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just a discussion document.
Alongside the Action for Healthy Waterways discussion document waved around at public meetings are two critically important and well-advanced regulatory proposals.
They include a 25-page Proposed National Environmental Standard for Freshwater (NES) and a 58-page Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS). There is also a Draft Stock Exclusion Section 360 Regulation.
A genuine discussion wouldn’t include these lengthy, well-advanced and important documents.
So, when farming groups talk of the devil being in the detail, that is what we mea.
If the detailed wording of the legal documents matched the high-level explanation provided by the Government, with some changes such as provision for regional variation, it could be workable, albeit with some pain for farming and regional New Zealand.
But there are technical concerns, critical gaps in information around the implications and a lack of economic appraisal, including downstream economic impacts.
This is the only chance to submit so if it is a discussion it feels very much a one-way discussion.
On top of that there is confusion about key details.
One example is whether existing fences less than five metres from waterways will need to be moved.
Environment Minister David Parker says they will not need to be, particularly if only recently put in.
But Ministry for the Environment staff say they will need to be moved, but by 2035.
And the actual proposed wording says if an existing fence’s setback is under 2m on average or less than 1m at any point it must be taken out and moved to 5m by 2025.
Meanwhile, Forest and Bird suggests a 5m setback is inadequate, that more productive land should be fenced off and it should be planted and kept weed and animal pest free. This is again without any assessment of the economic costs or any scientific justification and I haven’t seen any offers from them to provide gardening help or financing.
The consultation of six-weeks, later extended by two weeks after the outcry from rural NZ has compounded the confusion.
It’s not enough time to try to fill the technical, economic and scientific gaps and to highlight concerns with workability.
Unlike a select committee process there are no guaranteed hearings.
After your feedback is lodged, a group of people assembled by the Government are tasked with summarising submissions before they are put to Cabinet to make final decisions.
Before this is shot down as a feeble attempt to stall for time be assured it isn’t.
It’s a cry for sufficient time to make sure the final regulation is fair and realistic.
In reality, there is already more common ground on this than many realise and across the country farmers, industry and catchment groups are already changing practices and working hard on solutions.
We all want good water quality for future generations.
We know farming, like other land uses, can have a negative impact on the environment. While there are some environmental improvements and positive trends we know we still have a way to go.
What we need is a process that builds on that existing momentum, allays confusion and takes the time to get it right.
Sadly, the timing of this whole process seems to be based around election cycles and fast-tracking as much stuff through in a government term as possible.
Ultimately, that might just lead to missed opportunities and perverse outcomes.
