Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Water policy is doomed to fail

Avatar photo
I can’t see anyone in the provincial sector being remotely surprised at the draconian nature of Environment Minister David Parker’s policy announcement on water quality.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

For a start, Parker told us in June there would be tighter regulation of the agricultural sector.

He also made the earth-shattering statement he would regulate what, in his view, were some of the riskier farming practices.

Last Thursday’s statement came in three parts, a diagram, a bland summary then the actual document, all 105 pages of it.

To find out what the Government is up to you have to read the document and it makes scary reading.

We shouldn’t be surprised considering the advisory groups Parker set up.

His science and technical advisory group includes Dr Mike Joy of Victoria University, Professor Russell Death of Massey University and Otago University research fellow Dr Marc Schallenberg, all, I’d suggest, vocal critics of farming. 

Then just to rub salt in the wound there’s Fish and Game’s Adam Canning.

Federated Farmers employ scientists as do DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb. I couldn’t find a representative of those organisations anywhere.

That’s compounded by the Freshwater Leaders Group containing Alison Dewes, Schallenberg again, the recently retired head of Fish and Game Bryce Johnson and anti-farmer campaigner Marnie Prickett who, according to an Official Information Act request, was the most active of the group.

Again, there is no-one from Federated Farmers, Horticulture NZ, Zespri, the meat industry or Fonterra.

I ask what’s happened to democracy as the elected representatives of landowners were completely shut out of the process last May.

Interestingly, Tom Lambie and Traci Houhapa were on the committee but didn’t attend a meeting.

So, my strong belief is the members were selected to provide a desired result.

What annoys me is that farmers want to improve water quality and have.

There are 11,000 farmers represented on the Sustainable Dairy Water Accord that was signed in 2013.

They’ve fenced over 24,000 kilometres of waterways, bridged over 100% of stock crossing points, prepared 10,400 nutrient budgets and developed riparian management plans yet the Accord didn’t have a voice on the Parker anti-farmer talkfest. 

Add to that the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) analysis of national river quality trends from 2008 to 2017 shows for eight out of nine water quality indicators more monitored sites are improving than degrading.

North Canterbury’s Pahau River, in an intensively irrigated area, was awarded the most improved river at this year’s annual river awards.

Getting back to the Parker report, the Government is heading to a central system I believe is flawed. One size doesn’t fit all.

We’re going to have a central, independent national body obviously appointed by the Government to oversee freshwater management implementation.

Half of that body will be Maori.

We are told that voluntary efforts will not be enough, which I find interesting as voluntary efforts have achieved a lot.

We’re going to amend the Resource Management Act rather than reforming it.

There will be Government-appointed freshwater commissioners working with local councils and that’s a worry. The document tells us there will be restricted avenues for appeal, which I find draconian.

There is much about the levels and flows of water which is bizarre as the Government with the best will in the world can’t control the climate. Droughts will happen whether they like it or not.

There’s a lot about nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways despite the Canterbury water containing nitrates at safe levels. They will be safe to drink in 100 years.

We read impassioned statements about rivers being safe for swimming yet the polluted Taranaki freshwater swimming holes were caused by birds. 

Most people swim at beaches or in pools and it’s not farmers polluting either.

Surprisingly, trout and salmon get special mentions and support. The Government must know more about the export potential than I do.

What I found most insulting are that the finances are rubbish.

The document claims a sheep and beef farmer would spend $36,000 over 10 years on fencing to meet all the new requirements. A sheep and beef farmer mate believes the actual cost is nearer $1 million to fence the 23km on his property.

The document maintains much economic modelling but, surprisingly, totally ignores opportunity cost.

So, in summary my view is the nitrogen requirement is unachievable. Sheep and beef farms will become uneconomic to the extent that we will see massive conversion to forestry and trees don’t pay tax or attend schools.

The document, dare I say it, is a dog. 

I’m only pleased the Environmental Defence Society, Greenpeace and Fish and Game are happy. The problem for the economy is that those groups don’t provide any income or tax revenue to Godzone.

On the bright side, my belief is the document when it starts to be implemented will end up being the agricultural equivalent of Kiwibuild.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading