When water is brown and whitebait are not white

BY LINLEY BONIFACE

OPINION: Here's an extra question for those of you who enjoy this newspaper's five-minute quiz. At what stage is the amount of farming effluent polluting our lakes, rivers and streams considered "unacceptable"?

I'll give you a clue. Last week, when the annual report from the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord revealed that dairy farmers were getting even worse at dealing with the toxic runoff from their land, Agriculture Minister David Carter said the result was "totally unacceptable".

Then again, last year's report – which showed a similar decline in standards – was viewed as "unacceptable" by both MAF and Barry Harris, chair of Fonterra's sustainability leadership team.

And why did MAF, Fonterra, the Environment Ministry and regional councils sign the accord way back in 2003? Because they agreed the levels of environmental pollution were unacceptable, and wanted to head Fish and Game New Zealand's Dirty Dairying campaign off at the pass by cobbling together a voluntary scheme that had no power to force non-complying farmers to clean up after themselves.

You might assume that the word unacceptable implies there is something you refuse to accept. But think again. When it comes to waterway pollution, unacceptable is the word you use when a situation is appalling, and you plan to do nothing about it.

So when is the amount of farming effluent polluting our lakes, rivers and streams considered unacceptable? Apparently, never.

The accord aims to keep dairy cattle out of waterways, treat farm effluent, and manage the use of fertilisers and other nutrients. Of its five standards, only two are being met. And the most important standard, on managing effluent discharge, has dropped to its lowest level yet, with non-compliance worsening from 12 per cent in 2007/08 to 15 per cent in 2008/09. Farmers in Northland have a particularly shameful record, with compliance dropping to 39 per cent.

After seven years of an accord that was supposed to achieve "clean healthy water" in dairying areas, we are going backwards.

Most of us know that New Zealand's clean, green image has always contained more hype than truth. The number of dairy cows has doubled since the 1980s, massively increasing the potential for effluent runoff, but the majority of farmers now take responsibility for the impact their activities have on the land. The question is why the Government refuses to step in to police the small minority of farmers who either don't care about stuffing up our waterways or are too inefficient to run their farms properly.

You'd think another year of dismal results would at least prompt discussion about the possibility of replacing the current toothless voluntary code with clearly defined water standards and far stricter enforcement. But no.

Mr Carter's response was to give the following more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger comment: "Unless every farmer takes responsibility for improving effluent management, the environment and dairy's reputation will suffer." Well, d'oh! I think we've all grasped that, but what are you going to do to prevent it from happening?

Judging from dairy industry strategy introduced last year, we shouldn't hold our breath for a more coherent response. While Mr Carter and Prime Minister John Key appeared to be talking tough about the need for the industry to show leadership over environmental sustainability, cleaning up dirty dairying was barely mentioned among the goals set for the dairy industry during the next decade.

Federated Farmers gave a similarly discouraging response to the latest accord results. "Clean Streams report shows dairy's openness", trumpeted the headline on a press statement from the federation. "While the focus will be on the negative," it went on to bluster, "the industry's openness and accountability is a much bigger positive."

Is it? The industry's openness and accountability is, indeed, a welcome contrast to its historical lack of accountability. But I suspect few of us would regard this as a bigger positive than, say, clean rivers.

The Manawatu River, where I used to swim as a kid, is now one of the most polluted waterways in the Western World. (Presumably, that's why the winsome hotties frolicking in the Mangatainoka River in the Tui ad are so lithe: the puking from the diseases they get from all the pollutants in the water prevents them from putting on weight.) The water is brown, and even the whitebait are no longer white.

Isn't it about time that somebody said that was unacceptable? Or let me clarify that: isn't it about time that somebody said that was unacceptable, and actually meant it?

- © Fairfax NZ News