Land-use change can happen; it already has

Choose Clean Water NZ spokesperson Marnie Prickett says dairy cow numbers do have to be reduced.

Change is hard but it is, as they say, the only constant in life. Steve Lowndes’ opinion piece last week (‘‘Banning dairying not the answer for Canterbury’’, Aug 28) was a kind of meditation on this. Lowndes, like others, fears change – he frets about the ‘‘significant social and economic problems’’ he believes would result if we were to ban dairying. In the same breath, he describes a multitude of mounting environmental (and therefore, social and economic) problems Canterbury, and the rest of New Zealand must face.

He tells readers – his constituency – we have to adapt to climate change, that the native wildlife that needs to survive in order for us to have functioning ecosystems is in crisis, and freshwater quality has declined.

But he says banning cows in Canterbury is not the answer. The thing is, I haven’t heard anybody suggest it is. Greenpeace, arguably the most vocal opposition to intensive dairy farming in recent years, has its hashtag but it’s #TooManyCows, not #BanCows.

To write an opinion piece that seeks to counter an argument no-one’s making is a sign of fear, not of the clear thinking New Zealand desperately needs to develop resilience, diversity and innovation in its primary industries.

There is no doubt we must and will have fewer cows in New Zealand, even in Canterbury.

Dr Alison Dewes, Head of Environment at Pa¯ mu (Landcorp) Ltd, says she agrees change is hard. She writes: ‘‘We are looking to reduce our footprint to improve water quality, look after biodiversity and become more climate-resilient. That is why, across many of the dairy farms, we are looking at a further 20 per cent stocking rate reduction in the next five years, [to] become more self-sufficient, and enhance animal wellbeing and performance in an optimal way.’’

Dairy giant Fonterra’s 2018 research also shows, unsurprisingly, that having ‘‘a lower stocking rate could reduce both nitrogen leaching and emissions’’.

As an aside, on nitrogen leaching it is important to point out Lowndes was wrong in saying there is no scientific reason for a 0.8mg/L limit. As Professor Russell Death, Freshwater Ecologist from Massey University, explains: ‘‘Currently most regional councils manage nitrates as a toxin to protect ecosystem health. This is akin to saying we will stop drinking alcohol when we have had so much it is toxic. I am sure many of us can attest to the fact that ill health kicks in long before we start keeling over from alcoholic poisoning.

‘‘Nitrate effects on ecosystem health are exactly the same; river health starts to decline at 0.74 mg/l, well below the ‘‘managed to’’ bottom line of 6.9 mg/ l.’’

Because of the environmental problems Lowndes lists, and others he missed (access to safe drinking water an obvious one), we must have widespread land-use change and that means fewer cows.

We know significant land-use change can happen because it already has. Think of how different the Canterbury plains looked 25 years ago. It will happen and, in places, it’s already happening.

How we make this inevitable transition should be the topic of Lowndes and other officials’ communication with the public. How do we make the transition with the necessary urgency while at the same time keeping focused on building resilient primary industries; industries adaptable to climate disruptions and focused on supporting the health and wellbeing of people, animals as well as the environment on which we all rely?

My fear is not change but that we will fail the next generations of New Zealanders in a futile chase after thoughtless ‘‘solutions’’ to climate disruption; large-scale irrigation, for example, which seeks to expand the costly systems of intensive livestock farming we have mistakenly built over the last decades.

Climate change doesn’t just mean temperatures going up. The idea that large-scale water storage is the answer to climate change impacts on agriculture suggests a lack of understanding of the wide variety of social, political, biological as well as climatic disruptions predicted. What happens when we can’t source phosphate fertiliser? What happens when climate change amplifies pest and disease pressure? What happens when it’s not just one season of drought? How will our infrastructure cope with the increasing frequency and intensity of storms?

These are vital questions, that genuinely need answering. Troublingly, Lowndes’ article suggests Environment Canterbury could be a barrier to finding the answers.

I don’t know what all the answers are. I suspect no single individual does. However, if we’re all working from the basis of one critical assumption I am confident we have the expertise in New Zealand to find the answers together. The assumption being that change is not going to be straightforward but it is inevitable.

Because of the environmental problems Lowndes lists, and others he missed, we must have widespread land-use change and that means fewer cows.