I am writing on behalf of the Primary Land User Group (PLUG). PLUG was formed as a cross-sector group to promote realistic and affordable solutions for the improvement of water quality in Waikato. We have been fighting to achieve evidence based water policy here in Waikato and in many ways this fight is a microcosm of much larger arguments on many different issues nationally. It is an argument that attempts to push beyond the traditional rabbit warren of politicking and parochialism and seeks to shine the light of reason on many of the issues impacting on New Zealanders as a counter-weight to bandwagon commentary and social media irrationals who increasingly consume our air-time on these matters.
As farmers we are not asking to be left to carry on as usual without change, only to be included in the conversations that will eventually impact on our livelihoods, regional communities and the $23 Billion dollars of annual export revenues that underpin the New Zealand economy.
Here are some examples of Primary Industry issues surfacing in recent weeks that in our view require further discussion and factual scientific evidence which might better inform both the general public and our policy-makers.
In the past 2 weeks a single commentator, Mr Charlie Mitchell, who visited Western Sahara has penned no less than 8 ‘reports’ on Stuff, targeting our fertiliser industry and farming. According to Mr Mitchell, our usage of artificial fertilizers is responsible for all manner of sins – from prolonging the plight of the Saharawi people to degrading rivers and poisoning New Zealanders. Notwithstanding the unfortunate plight of the Saharawi in their territorial dispute with Morocco, Mr Mitchell seems oblivious to the fact that we trade with many other countries embroiled in similar territorial disputes, many of whom have more reprehensible human rights records than Morocco – China being only one such example. He also ignores the fact we have been using artificial fertilizers for over a century and to the best of our knowledge, there is no medical evidence of associated health issues in the general population.
Artificial fertilizers have been fundamental to the development of our rural economy and have saved many millions of lives in developing countries post-Green revolution. Any move to restrict phosphate application will be disastrous for our farming sector, given our natural geology of phosphate deficient soils. And, whilst artificial N does indeed contribute to water pollution, the science is very clear that it is a minor rather than a major contributor.
This type of incendiary reporting (and selective morality) simply serves to widen the gulf of ignorance between town and city. Whilst farmers try to challenge it using science and reason, with the speed of social media and the adoption of such commentary it quickly becomes an “alternative -fact” for a large proportion of the public.
It has come to our attention that there is some talk about regulators buying a number of dairy farms in the Waipa sub-catchment and converting them to organic farms – despite the scant evidence that organics provides any environmental dividend whatsoever for waterways. The total capital being invested is expected to be in the order of $100M.
Whilst they will no doubt argue that this is a Justified use of public funds for an environmental benefit and a legitimate use of such funds, the scale of this ‘investment’ and the lack of credible scientific evidence that it will provide any substantive benefit whatsoever apart from fattening the wallets of those contractors, consultants and salespeople involved in implementing and managing such a conversion, surely warrants some probing questions.
Our view is that we should be we be embracing market incentives and efficient use of our resources within responsible environmental boundaries rather than this myopic vision of a few unaccountable, (albeit well intentioned) bureaucrats who are using public funding to wind-back our food production.
Sir Peter Gluckman’s recent report to the Prime Minister “Mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions – strategies for meeting New Zealand’s goals” is a thought provoking foray, into the murky world of Carbon. Whilst Sir Peter, does an excellent job of summarising the many and vexed issues around this debate – even in his final summary “Despite the many scientific, economic and implementation challenges, failure to take action in the agricultural sector will not only be costly to those farmers who find themselves unprepared for change, it will also ultimately be costly to New Zealand” he alludes to the potentially catastrophic costs involved in taking such actions.
Dr Tim Mackle (Dairy NZ), has recently calculated, that with the current “generous” subsidized approach being promoted by government, an average dairy-farmer would be asked to pay between $12,170 and $32,500 per year depending upon the chosen Carbon price per tonne. However given all subsidies were removed from farmers (along with many other industries) in 1984, one has to seriously question just how long the political will to “subsidize farmers” will remain. At a price of $200/t (as suggested in the recent Productivity Commission’s report) and no subsidization, the average dairy farmer will face a cost of an eye-watering $231,800/year – clearly financially unsustainable.
Whilst it may be considered a regional problem by some, the outcome has much wider implications for New Zealand’s national water policy-making. Successes in decentralization of water policies have been ‘patchy’ at best with some regions (such as Gisborne and Auckland) achieving workable outcomes. However the current PC1 debacle threatens to derail any confidence in this regional water approach. Without going into too much detail here are some questions that should be considered:
There is also a wider national question – what type of environment and how much of that environment do we actually want? How much of the economy and how much community are we prepared to sacrifice to obtain that? When landowner’s financial viability and reasonable usage of private property is impinged upon, for a perceived ‘global leadership’ or public benefit – is that OK too? These are national debates that need removing from the clutches of a few elites in government and on advisory panels.
Environmental problems like all problems are solvable, and farmers upon whose private properties the vast majority of our waterways and more than a quarter of our native forests reside – have much to offer. But long-term solutions will continue to elude us so long as we head down the current track of ignorance and blame, of bureaucratic bungling and stoking the fickle fires of public misinformation. We need only look to the current Housing New Zealand meth testing debacle to see what happens when a few “rule-makers” consider themselves to be ‘above’ reasonable evidence and pursue an ideological hypothesis without careful validation…We need environmental solutions that are both evidence based and market cognizant – that shouldn’t be too much to ask for any taxpayer/ratepayer.
Andy Loader
Co-Chairman P.L.U.G.