That is certainly progress, Team Ag aligned with central and regional government.
It was about the launch of the Good Farming Practice: Action Plan for Water Quality.
It was launched in Waikato on World Environment Day by Environment Minister David Parker and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor along with farming representatives.
I really appreciated being able to read a practical plan for solving a problem that was free of emotion, hyperbole and histrionics.
I was also pleased the group coming up with the plan involved all key stakeholders – Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ, Horticulture NZ, Irrigation NZ, regional councils, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment.
It is a credit to those involved that consensus was reached with such a positive result.
Further, the plan is simple and practical.
O’Connor’s position is the principles are not a stretch for many farmers and growers.
Reading through the document I agree. There are just 21 key principles that I believe are sound and reasonable.
The plan is just 20 pages long and is practical and easy to follow.
In addition, on the Feds website there are videos and discussions that are simple and easy to follow.
The spokespeople used are credible and include Feds past meat and fibre head Bill Garland.
Yes, there are technical recommendations such as the use of soil moisture monitors for irrigation but the presentation is both informative and easy to follow.
We often hear irrigation is the root of all evil when it comes to the environment but with modern technology nothing could be further from the truth.
I was both impressed and surprised by the absolute precision that water can be applied to the land that needs it in the exact amount that is required.
The industry needs to be congratulated for that.
Its next priority will be to get that information into the non-farming media so people can see the environmental commitment of those farmers who irrigate.
Feds environment spokesman Chris Allen made the telling point about the Action Plan that “We wouldn’t sign up to it if it wasn’t practical, workable and good common sense. We should be doing it because it’s good farming practice.”
He used fertiliser as an example.
“We’re not suggesting limiting production but we should only apply the fertiliser that a crop needs. It saves the farmer money and cuts any harmful runoff.”
It is a similar story to that of irrigation and is good common sense as well as environmentally sustainable and financially rewarding.
Practically, the initiative requires all farmers who aren’t doing so to develop farm environment plans. Currently only 30% are.
There is an excellent video on the Feds website that has Barrhill farmer Malcolm Cairns saying how plans improve both environmental and economic outcomes.
That was one fact that impressed me about the entire exercise.
It isn’t telling farmers to mortgage the farm to improve the environment. It is telling farmers what they can do to both improve their bottom line and the environment.
The two aren’t exclusive.
Another upside from plans is that the information becomes available. Non farming people can see what farmers are achieving with their environmental stewardship.
The Action Plan for Water Quality should be compulsory reading for all farmers.
Environment plans will also be required in the future and I support that.
There’s no future just telling people what we’re doing. We’re going to have to prove it.
Also, the processors and the market are going to require farm plans so the earlier we get started the better.
Both Parker and O’Connor congratulated the group on the work it did and the results achieved.
That is an incredible plus for the farming sector.
It then behoves the sector to get behind the initiative.
That would be a surefire way to head off regulation and we all know a voluntary, consultative process everyone buys into is a lot more successful than heavy-handed regulation with an army of bureaucrats annoying us all in their attempts to enforce it.
The plan was developed over 12 months by the groups I’ve mentioned. They had the advantage of starting from the Canterbury plan and developing from there.
What we now have is a single, national plan that is non regulatory.
Some practices might differ according to contour and climate but the principles will remain the same.
It gives farmers a degree of uniformity and certainty they haven’t had.
As Allen said “It was a big job but we got there.”
His team is to be congratulated for that.
