One-size regulations do not fit all farms

Survey shows the 20-plus new rules are misdirected and cost too much, writes

Kate Acland is chairwoman of Beef + Lamb New Zealand

In September, Beef + Lamb New Zealand released the first-ever report that quantifies the significant cumulative effects of the Government’s environmental reform agenda on sheep and beef farms.

We knew this research would be an important piece of work and that has been reinforced by the encouraging feedback we’ve had from all parts of the sector.

The findings have really resonated with the farmers I have been talking to over the past few weeks.

They’ve been telling us for some time they’re worried about the potential cumulative financial impact of 20-plus new regulations, laws and reforms coming at them in the climate, freshwater and biodiversity space.

They know improvements to the environment are needed but the sheer volume and pace of these rules mean mistakes have been made in the process — even former Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor has admitted the Government didn’t always get it right.

Frustratingly, one-size-fitsall rules were developed, requiring all farmers to make changes to their farming practices, even if the rules aren’t relevant to the impacts their farms are having on the environment.

The rules sometimes went further than they needed to achieve the desired outcome and the cumulative impact of that across so many rules was significant.

Of course, when you look at the rules individually, it may not appear there will be a lot of cost or administrative burden on farms — some critics have accused farmers of whingeing.

But when you set them all out and add up the cumulative financial impact, you can understand why farmers have been so worried and why confidence is at an alltime low.

One farm included in the study was facing a $1.2 million cost for stock exclusion — when the Government mandated map being used to determine if they needed to fence was wrong.

The average annual before tax farm profit for a farm of that size, in that region, is $112,000.

This rule was recently improved (but not completely fixed) after three years of work and pressure from organisations such as Beef + Lamb.

Another farmer faced oneoff direct costs of $75,000 and annual direct costs of around $88,000, when the B+LNZ Sheep & Beef Farm Survey shows us the average farm profit before tax for that region or type for 2022/23 is $174,800.

This impact is despite that farm’s proactive environmental stewardship.

We are absolutely not arguing against regulation. Farmers recognise ongoing investment in environmental improvements is needed and many are already well on that journey.

But we would like the new Government to undertake their own assessment of the cumulative economic impact of what is in train, and work with farmers to improve the rules so they still achieve the desired environmental outcome but are more flexible in the way that is achieved.

We would like the Government to look at the full picture and to ensure the spend farmers make is focused on getting the best outcomes — targeted investment at proven actions with measurable impacts.

One example is stock exclusion. Farmers agree with the principle that stock need to be excluded from waterways on flat land, but there needs to be flexibility for farms that have very low stocking rates and therefore very low risks.

The definition of a Significant Natural Area in the Indigenous Biodiversity National Policy Statement is too broad and would capture large parts of farms. The focus should be on protecting truly significant biodiversity.

We do understand that improvements are required and that it is vital to retain our social licence with New Zealanders and ensure consumers have confidence that we are making the right changes to safeguard the environment.

But it’s time to take a breath, review, reassess and simplify some of the approaches so we can strike the right balance between what’s good for the planet, our farmers and the country.