Why freshwater plans have shocked farmers

The Government’s freshwater proposals have long been signalled so the thrust of them should not be a shock to farmers. But it is critical a balance is struck. This is key to a resilient NZ which looks after everybody’s wellbeing — farmers too.

A wise man once said to me, “the only thing that surprises me is that you’re surprised.” Last year, the Government said it would be making significant changes to regulations for freshwater in Aotearoa.

This would include amending the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM), the document which defines how regional councils manage freshwater, and developing tough new National Environmental Standards which would limit land intensification and improve water quality.

The issues were clearly set out, specialist advisory groups established and primary sector groups locked out.

But the devil is in the detail. What has resulted is a significant document which some think will lead to wholescale change of farming. So how did we come to this?

Although the first NPSFM was promulgated in 2011, it was not properly implemented. Regional councils were inconsistent and often slow. This means that some regions already have strict and complex requirements about water, while others did little to change.

No surprises then that Government has sent a clear signal that changes in planning need to happen quickly, and rules imposed swiftly, to prevent ecological harm in the short and long terms.

I support change and national bottom lines for our water are important. But not at the expense of community cohesion, rural resilience, and social development. Especially where limits and targets have already been set by local communities and translated into regional plans.

So, there are things which need careful consideration. Let me explain four.

In regions that already have complex regulatory frameworks, another layer of rules may be required, and may confuse.

In these places, local communities have been heavily involved for several years in the setting of water quality and quantity limits. These processes have been affirmed through RMA hearings. Evidence and submissions have been heard, and assessment of the social and economic implications have been exhausted.

Will these communities have to relive this time-consuming process? And the RMA is an effects-based statute but moving to a model that estimates farm losses, not calculates environmental harm, may result in previously consented farming not occurring.

In some catchments further development may not affect overall water quality, but modelling on a farm-by-farm basis would show a theoretical increase in nutrient discharge — a “no-no” according to the new document.

Farming and infrastructure developments are long-term activities with multi-decadal investment timelines. Some of the new regulatory changes will have to be implemented immediately or by 2025, meaning some farmers will have to implement changes to their systems much more rapidly than they might otherwise have been planning for.

There are also virtually immediate rules limiting land-use change, intensification and irrigation development that kick in at a very small scale — only 10 hectares — which is the size of a paddock for some large farms.

Tough luck some may say. I say, as we face an uncertain climate future, we need to ensure our policy and regulatory settings do not limit our future options.

We know water availability will change — droughts will become more frequent and prolonged, and rainfall will occur in less frequent, but more severe events.

So, water storage and how resources are allocated are just as important in protecting community and ecological wellbeing as setting water quality attributes and limits.

If we can make good decisions for our catchments and communities now, that allow flexibility whilst protecting our unique species and waterways, we can ensure our resources continue to give us the values we have always enjoyed.