Consultation on the development of the plan, the combined second-generation regional policy statement and regional plan which replaces six regional plans and the regional policy statement, started in 2004 and it’s easy to remember some of the widely varied views which were put forward right from the beginning.
While the council and its staff lauded the concept of a plan which would draw all landowners together into one framework when it came to activities which could be undertaken on their properties, farmers, naturally enough, saw the possibility of fish hooks aplenty. Comprehensive legislation generally means that in an attempt to cover every possibility, those most affected find themselves mired in red tape never intended to be applied to them.
One Plan will become operative on December 19 but as it was first notified in 2007 it’s been part of resource management decisions in a transitional phase since that time, which has thrown up plenty of examples of where problems can arise. These include farmers running low-input farming systems, with little in the way of nutrient leaching, changing to higher input systems with a worse environmental effect in order to protect the capital values of their properties.
Horizons chairman, Bruce Gordon said it had been a long journey with some tensions, challenges and learnings. But he was proud of what had been achieved. Farmers might beg to differ, especially when they look back at the hours they’ve had to spend making sure that some of the suggested regulations which would have severely constrained their businesses were amended or removed completely.
Don’t forget about their very considerable input into the hearing of 525 submissions between the middle of 2008 and 2010, and 22 appeals on decisions of the hearing panels which contained 441 individual appeal points. Dairy farmers were well backed up by the input of Federated Farmers’ policy analysts and DairyNZ staff who saw the One Plan as a forerunner of what might be imposed around the rest of the country.
In some ways results have been both better and worse than anticipated. Some councils have taken a consultative approach from the beginning and allowed farmer stakeholders a good degree of decision-making themselves. Others have been very thorough in holding public meetings and talking farmers through each stage of the process as they’ve formulated their plans then made changes in line with suggestions they’ve received.
Wendy Clark – council aware of what rural industries agree on.
But others have taken the approach of detailing changes which farmers have seen for the very first time when plans have been made available to them. As well as being shocked at what might be intended for their properties, which until that point they had no knowledge of, farmers have been enraged that as such major ratepayers in many areas they haven’t been given the courtesy of having proposed changes explained to them to get their input.
Farmers accept that there will be more and more public interest in what they do on their farms and also the unfortunate truth that they, as a group, are less well represented on local bodies than ever before. That’s why it’s so important for them to have the national resources of Federated Farmers and DairyNZ on call and able to be deployed rapidly.
Much better than this in many cases unfortunate but unforeseeable ambulance at the bottom of the cliff action is continual dialogue. That’s often best achieved through a stakeholder group to which councilors and staff can come to test out ideas and get immediate reaction. This worked well in the Auckland area with the Rural Industry Group set up 18 months before the demise of the old Auckland Regional Council now re-establishing itself as the council’s Rural Advisory Panel.
“We won’t always agree but we can tell them what we do agree on,” Wendy Clark, Auckland Federated Farmers’ president and a member of the panel, said. Fellow members include representatives of the forestry, horticulture, quarries and aggregates and equestrian industries as well Fonterra, DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb NZ and the two local boards, Rodney in the north and Franklin in the south. There’s also a place at the table for the viticulture industry if it’s needed.
Having parts of Auckland Council’s unitary plan run past relevant members of this group has meant that it’s generally been seen as being fairly good for farmers. And members of the group have learned to be more receptive to their differing points of view, while supporting each other.
More consultation of this type has to mean less regulation – a winning formula for farmers, councils and most important of all the local communities in which they live.
