The primary sector will soon have its first input controls in the form of a nitrogen cap.
Many countries, including parts of Europe and North America, have placed restrictions on fertiliser use to try to mitigate the impact of farming on water quality.
These sorts of blanket input restrictions are something most of us want to avoid here.
Input-based processes can be very restrictive and end up impacting on the ability of agriculture to innovate.
We see from Europe that input-based rules have a significant impact on the viability of farming, and they are a blunt instrument that impacts every farm, regardless of its environmental performance.
These systems overseas are also underpinned by significant subsidies, which we do not have in NZ.
NZ is unique in its effects-based regulation that looks at the impact of individual farms and allows farmers the flexibility to make changes that best suit their farm businesses.
The benefits of using an output-based regulatory approach to managing the nitrogen loss from farmland is that innovation is incentivised, and farmers can manage how to respond to limits.
As the scrutiny intensifies, one of the sturdiest defences we have against input restrictions are tools such as OverseerFM.
Being innovative is about learning as you go, and we have had some significant learnings out of introducing output-based controls using OverseerFM. But we are in a much better position now to introduce effective approaches that will lead to improved water quality.
What’s important to remember is that every farm and farm business is different, and solutions will be different too. But not doing anything is no longer viable.
So, to be able to assess the change needed, you need to know where you are starting from and where you could go.
So, what does an effective output-based approach look like?
It’s about farmers and growers understanding their current position and the impact of changes they can make on their farm. OverseerFM gives farmers choices in how they respond. It allows farmers to demonstrate a quantifiable reduction in the amount of nitrates they are leaching into the environment – supporting a licence to operate.
We believe meaningful long-term change will require a combination of compliance action and support for on-farm innovation by providing farmers with the tools they need to farm better.
Many farmers and farm consultants we talk to value what we’ve got here: a tool that uses science to allow councils to regulate based on outputs.
We know there are some criticisms about the robustness of the tool’s modelling. We back the model and welcome investment into its ongoing development to ensure it covers more and more innovative solutions that support sustainable farming.
OverseerFM is a modelling system that predicts long-term averages, it is not a real-time measuring tool. This means the results can be compared to assess the impact of management practice change, rather than the state of the weather and this provides a reasonable basis for judging effect.
One of the best things farmers can do to support robust results is to be involved in the analysis. Rubbish data can only ever deliver rubbish results.
Knowing the farm system being modelled is the key to getting real and useful results that can inform your farm plan.
Make sure if you use a rural professional that they know your farm and have the best information on how nutrients are managed.
There’s little doubt that there are some places in this country where intensive agriculture is damaging the local waterways. But it’s really important that our country’s responses to that are compatible with our market driven agricultural sector that relies on innovation and not subsidisation to prop up food production.
That’s important for farmers, and it’s important for NZ.
It’s time for the sector to get behind output-based regulation if we want flexibility and a thriving agricultural sector that promotes itself as a sustainable food producer.
Who am I?
Caroline Read is the chief executive of OverseerFM.
