I see in his latest article published in the Listener that Gary Taylor, the Chairman and Executive Director of the Environmental Defence Society is again using the tried and true tactics of the protest movements in his attack on Groundswell NZ.
By that I mean that he is using just the facts that support his arguments without actually having any balance in his arguments. I suppose that that is only to be expected in the current climate with a government that seems to believe that we would be better off without farmers.
He states unequivocally that Groundswell does not represent the attitudes of most farmers and that Groundswell is a minority in the rural sector, out on its own in wanting to continue to pollute.
Two statements which are nothing more than anti-farming rhetoric and in the case of the continuing to pollute comment very close to libelous. I challenge him to first give me some numbers to back up his claims of minority representation and then to show me where he has identified that Groundswell is asking for anything that even slightly represents a right to (as he puts) continue to pollute.
In actual fact if you look closely at what groundswell has been asking for it is to have a common sense approach to some of the many new legislative requirements that allow the rural sectors to carry on farming. Furthermore if you look closely at the people that have been attending the Groundswell rallies around the country you will find that they have already been taking action to enhance the environment in their local catchments.
He states that freshwater quality is bad, and that many of our rivers lakes and ground- waters have unnaturally high levels of nutrients, chemicals, disease-causing pathogens and sediment. He then states that this pollution renders many of them unable to sustain aquatic life and unsafe for swimming.
Again I challenge him to name the many that are unable to sustain aquatic life because I certainly haven’t heard of many and I am sure if there were “many” this would have made headline news. More of the selective use of statistics.
Nowhere in his diatribe does he mention Koi Carp in relation to freshwater quality, yet particularly in the north island they are one of the worst causes of poor water quality and they have a huge effect on the indigenous biodiversity of the water ways in which they are present. They destroy the habitat and produce huge levels of sedimentation which in turn releases high levels of Phosphorous into the waterways and it seems from reading this article that he is like the government and working on the principle that if he ignores them then the general public will too. Yeah Right!
He then goes on to talk about climate change and state that the farming sector is responsible for 48% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and goes on to claim that farmers want to deny responsibility for addressing this.
A recent report prepared by Auckland University of Technology, estimated woody vegetation on sheep and beef farms may be offsetting 63 to 118 per cent of the gross agricultural emissions from this sector (Case and Ryan, 2020).
The carbon sequestration from farming is currently ignored under the ETS and surely this must mean that the basis for analysis of the GHG emissions from farming is based on flawed science and therefore gives an incorrect measure of the actual emissions from farming.
This then means that farming is unfairly penalised under the ETS from the omission of farming’s carbon sequestration ability. It is only fair that if the discussions are to be held around the detrimental effects of farming on the environment, then the beneficial effects should also be part of the discussion to reflect the reality of the situation and bring some much needed balance to the discussions.
The world needs agriculture in all its different forms to ensure the population can be fed so any discussion should be based on science and include all of the relevant information that gives a realistic starting point when discussing rules around agriculture.
Unlike the current situation where the beneficial effects of agriculture have been totally removed from the discussion and there is no balance.
The way that GHG emissions from farming are currently calculated has been proven to be based on a flawed model and this is what the Groundswell members are protesting against.
He also talks about the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill and Groundswell’s opposition to that Bill. He states that they fail to mention that this only applies to land that is owned by the Government and leased to farmers and that it is entirely appropriate that controls to protect the landscape and ecological values be put on such publically owned land while enabling low impact pastoral farming.
He then states that Collaboration works but it needs goodwill, open minds and the commitment to follow through. What the groundswell members are protesting about is in fact the lack of goodwill and the commitment to follow through by the government. You only need to look at the high country land that has been returned to government due to unworkable regulations, to see how badly much of this land has gone backwards due to the failure of the crown to adequately maintain a reasonable level of pest control, yet they are trying to implement different rules for the leasehold land which makes it virtually unprofitable.
Right at the beginning of this article he states that watching the Groundswell protest around the country, people might think that farmers are indeed hard done by and over regulated. He then goes on to state that in fact the sector is booming.
He bases this comment on the fact that dairy prices are at record highs and horticultural products are demanding high prices in the supermarkets.
This is the type of statement that I would expect from someone who has no connection to reality of the real world of commerce. The fact that prices are high does not necessarily mean that every supplier in the production chain is making a very good profit and in fact if you look at some other industry examples like building and construction where prices have risen to extraordinary levels in recent times yet many supply chain participants in those industries are going bankrupt.
Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of the new rules (in relation to the WRC’s Plan change 1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report is that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers will leave the agricultural sector.
The report suggested that these farmers will be replaced by forestry operations and even if that were true (I personally disagree) the effect on the small rural communities from this gutting of the farming industries will still result in more rural ghost towns.
MfE’s predictions were that meeting new freshwater regulations would cost landowners $900 million and another $140m a year in annual compliance costs and loss of profits.
Yet the WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules as the NPS FWM, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation.
The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy across the whole country.
MfE states that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion.
The department acknowledges they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty causes increased mental health issues among farmers.
But it concludes the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation.
Whilst this is a wonderful thought that the new rules will bring significant and lasting benefits, it is just not supported in any way by the facts.
In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated.
Koi Carp by the nature of their rapidly multiplying numbers and their feeding methods are the main driver behind erosion of the banks and the sedimentation of our waterways in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments.
The explosion of Koi Carp numbers not only exacerbates the erosion and sedimentation problems but they also lead to the extinction of indigenous flora and fauna within the waterways from both predation and the decrease in waterway health.
Koi carp contribute hugely to poor water quality and are a serious problem in New Zealand.
When they feed they stir up the bottom of ponds, lakes and rivers, muddying the water and destroying native plant and fish habitat. Koi carp are opportunistic omnivores, which means they eat a wide range of food, including insects, fish eggs, juvenile fish of other species and a diverse range of plants and other organic matter.
They feed like a vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything and blowing out what isn’t wanted. Aquatic plants are dislodged in the process and are unlikely to re-establish. Koi carp cause habitat loss for plants, native fish, invertebrates and waterfowl.
Even if we were to ban farming totally we would still have a problem with water quality from the effects of the invasive pest fish species.
So in relation to the Ecosystem Health as set out in the requirements of the NPS on Freshwater Management, surely Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the rivers from the damage they do. Along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment.
In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the health of the economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production.
The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country.
What we’re actually dealing with is the multiple impacts that humans are having on the waterways and if we really want to restore these water bodies to what we want them to be then we need to have fit for purpose legislation that still allows for all parts of society both Urban and Rural, to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety as stipulated in the Resource management Act 1991, as well as allowing improvements to the environment to be made and that is what Groundswell is about.
Andy Loader