Hon Minister Parker
The following is written in response to an article in the latest Farmers Weekly and relating to comments by Fonterra and to PC1 in general.
Fonterra with its support for grandparenting of the N leaching as proposed in PC1 is in my opinion effectively supporting a do little approach that will not achieve any significant improvement in environmental outcomes.
Charlotte Rutherford, sustainable dairying general manager for Fonterra was quoted in the latest Farmers Weekly as saying that Fonterra has a new environmental initiative that avoids the one size fits all programmes of the past and that dairy farmers have to accept more change is coming and quickly.
“So no one size fits all will work now for farmers as that rate of change accelerates.
“It is a farm-by-farm, bespoke approach that has become really important.”
Yet Fonterra has until now been supportive of the one size fits all programmes that are contained in PC1, so what has changed.
She also took the opportunity to point the finger at another branch of the agricultural industry as quoted below:
“Dry-stock farmers are in a position where dairy farmers were 10 years ago, having to come to grips with regulatory pressure in catchments like Waikato, where they will be pressured to also fence off waterways, she said.”
This in my opinion is classic smoke and mirrors tactics. Dairy farmers are HIGH EMMITTERS in terms of N leaching and Fonterra with their support for grandparenting of these levels of leaching as set out in PC1 are trying to direct the spotlight on others instead of accepting that they need to change their ways if they are to reduce their average leaching to match the dry-stock sector’s low average levels.
One of the main problems that most people in opposition to PC1 have is that under the proposed PC1 rules, the ‘polluter pays’ logic is inverted and those with the lightest footprint are asked to bear the heaviest costs.
She points to the issue of fencing and states that the dry-stock sector will be pressured to fence off waterways as the dairying industry has done. Whilst this is true it still does not alter the fact that even with the dairying industry having fenced off at least 90% of waterways they are still well above the dry stock industry in terms of their overall N leaching and fencing of hill country dry-stock farms will not drastically alter this fact as the dry-stock sector currently has very low levels of N leaching.
Grandparenting of N leaching as provided for in PC1 will at best lead to no change in the current levels of emissions and in fact could end up creating a situation where there is an increase in the levels. It also has the perverse outcome of incentivising people to keep their levels high as this will stop any large capital devaluation of their land through the ability to intensify land uses.
It is my opinion that rather than have a grand parented right to continue polluting there should be a set limit for all industries based on the scientific monitoring of the waterways and this limit should be enforced across all industries with the highest emitters given a set time frame (possibly five/ten years) to get down to this level.
The sub-catchment model that is currently being promoted by Federated Farmers and others, will allow for this to become a reality and therefore affect significant change for the better in a shorter overall time frame.
This sub-catchment model of managing discharge of the four main contaminants will definitely hurt some farmer’s bottom line but it will target those that are having the most impact rather than targeting those that have done the most to reduce their environmental footprint.
Targeting of the highest emitters is only right and should not have anything to do with what type of farming you do but should be based solely on your effect on the receiving environment.
There is also the fact that in some catchments N is actually not the main problem it is some of the other contaminants that are the dominant problems. An example of this is the study done by Dr Doug Edmeades in the Waikare/Whangamarino area which proves that the main issue in this catchment is in fact sediment and one of the main causes of this is pest fishes (Koi Carp) and they are not addressed in any way in PC1.
I agree that Fonterra has done some good work as have many individual dairy farmers and others but the management of discharge of contaminants should be based solely on the effects of an operation not on what type of operation it is.
In line with this it is my opinion that the main problem with PC1 is that it is based on emotion and protectionism of industry sectors and not on the actual science.
There is no point in putting rules in place that require spending billions of dollars of private funds unless we can guarantee (backed by scientific facts) there will be a return on that investment in the form of a significant improvement in water quality.
There is a term used in legal circles which is ‘The iron rule of Nature, is you get what you incentivise’. If you think about grandparenting, it incentivises everything that is perverse!
Andy Loader.
Hon FIQ, Dip Q, Dip OSH, RSP, ASA, MNZSC.