It’s been a monumental task and while it’s among the most controversial proposals he stands by the process and outcomes. That’s not to say the proposed plan is the ideal solution for anyone – it’s come from a consensus and all stakeholders have had to be prepared for give and take.
Sunckell admits there will be farmers who’ll find it difficult and for some it will be distressing. At the proposed plan’s heart is a zone-wide load limit. Initially it restricts nitrogen leaching losses from all farming sectors to 4830 tonnes N/year by 2017 as a result of good management practice.
A further 15% reduction from 2022 across the zone will be achieved by adopting improved management practice, defined as being about half-way between what farmers can achieve under good management practice and the maximum feasible reduction.
Sunckell defends the number as being based on the best scientific evidence available to the zone committee at the time and defends the setting of a 15kg N/ha/year loss limit as a line in the sand above which farmers in the zone must apply for a consent by 2017.
“If we’d set it at 20kg N/ha/year then those above that would just have to cut their leaching by even more if we’re going to get to the total catchment load limit,” he said.
“Given the options in front of us, it’s the best negotiated outcome we could achieve. It’s not a happy space to be in for some farmers, it’s not nice and it may have severe ramifications for the agricultural sector but it’s where we had to get to given the task we had in front of us.”
The collaborative process meant the committee had to look at what outcomes the community wanted in terms of the environment and the economy.
To return Lake Ellesmere, Te Waihora, to acceptable water quality levels and ensure the good health of drinking water wells it determined action was needed from farms not just close to the lake but from those back up the plains to the foothills. Around the lake where heavier soils are less leaky in terms of nitrogen it’s phosphorous, sediment and faecal contaminants that have to be controlled with actions identified in farm environment plans.
Further away the focus shifts more to nitrate leaching. That’s where dairying has been hit hard and farmers are struggling with the concept of good practice leaching loss limits being slashed by 30% rather than the average zone-wide reduction of 15% and having to achieve that number by 2037.
Other farming sectors have to cut leaching further too but not to the same extent with arable farmers expected to cut just 7% from their yet to be determined good management practice limits.
Sunckell said the committee recommended the range of cuts to the regional council commissioners based on an average hit to earnings before interest and tax of 5-7% to each sector. That creates a sharing of the required reduction that’s proportional to each farming type’s nitrogen loss and ability to pay.
It’s a logic industry groups such as DairyNZ and Federated Farmers are strongly contesting in their submissions against parts of the plan. The 23-year time frame given to achieve the cuts was purposely set as the committee viewed it as providing the chance for intergenerational change. Sunckell said ECan commissioners had made it clear that while the outcomes set by the community need to be met, the process to get there shouldn’t be about restricting and restraining farming businesses.
“It’s never been about mandating what you have to do but rather here’s where you have to get to – now decide how you do it.”
While committee members are a broad subset of the community they don’t have a representative role so, although Sunckell is a dairy farmer, he’s by no means there to simply champion that cause. But he’s made sure the committee’s got to hear from the sector and use sound science to inform its decisions.
Sector groups and expert panels had been convened during the zone planning process and various strawman scenarios were developed to work out what the impact of actions would be and if they’d achieve the overall goals. But the committee also had to hear from all interested parties and that included the more radical voices that railed against dairying and irrigation. Some wanted to see dairying gone for good.
One strawman scenario almost went that far, modelling the impact of bringing all dairying to the heavier, less nitrogen leaky soils closer to the lake and putting cows into total confinement. It also meant letting the lush, irrigated paddocks up the plains, west from State Highway 1, revert to native grasslands.
“That would have achieved the load limit goals, the clarity and trophic levels we wanted for the lake but everyone, well almost everyone, could see what it would do to the region economically, what it would do to the communities in the region,” Sunckell said.
“It wasn’t acceptable.”
