Farmers find flaws in report

Relevant offers

Farming

Crafar Farms: Judge ponders 'significant benefit' Best farmland 'already sold off' Zespri deputy won't step aside Government blamed for Psa entry Fonterra taps NZX to run farmer share trading Milk price inquiry to continue LIC earnings rise amid dairy confidence Another shot fired in milk price battle BayWa extends deal for T&G Optimism for booming sheep industry

A Federated Farmers peer review of a report that claimed dairy farmers were getting away with pollution has found it poorly written, with unsupported assumptions that were negatively "spun".

However, the federation leaves itself open to criticism by using as peer reviewers two staff members, Melissa Jessen, who has law and management studies degrees, and Matt Harcombe, who has an agricultural science degree and a diploma in communication and public relations.

The report they have reviewed was released last month by Fish & Game and Forest & Bird.

It looked at progress since the dairy industry’s 2003 Clean Streams Accord to improve the quality of waterways.

The writers, Fish & Game’s Neil Deans and Forest & Bird’s Kevin Hackwell, found that water quality in dairy farming areas had continued to fall since the accord was signed by Fonterra and central and local government.

They said the accord had failed to meet the target that all farm dairy effluent discharges comply with their resource consents and regional plans.

In some regions, 18-24 per cent of all dairy farms were in serious non-compliance.

Reporting against the accord’s targets had often been inconsistent between regions and often incorrect.

Regional councils had used different measures of whether dairy farms met effluent discharge consents and in some cases the accord’s reported compliance level differed markedly from the regional councils’ reporting.

The national average of serious noncompliance was more than 14 per cent of dairy farms - twice the 7 per cent reported by the accord partners this year.

A further problem had been that reporting had in some cases not been against the targets set in the accord.

For example, the accord set a target that 100 per cent of dairy farms would have systems to manage nutrient inputs and outputs by 2007. However, the accord partners had instead simply reported how many farms had a written nutrient budget.

In all but rare circumstances, councils had also failed to prosecute dairy farmers who repeatedly breached their effluent discharge consents, they said. Federated Farmers instituted a peer review, saying it would take a dispassionate look at the report.

Five weeks later, the reviewers have concluded that the report was ‘‘poorly constructed and written as a campaign tool’’.

They say Mr Deans and Mr Hackwell made ‘‘a number of unfounded suppositions and reach conclusions unsupported by the source data.

Worse, the data, in places, is ‘spun’ to support a negative conclusion when the actual data is either neutral or positive’’.

The report failed to use the same methodology for research as that undertaken by the accord partners. ‘‘The difference in data collection means no valid comparative analysis can be done; it is comparing apples with kiwifruit.’’

The reviewers say they are also alarmed at ‘‘leaps in logic’’, based on statements from regional councils, which were used to justify criticism of the accord. They say five years is too short a time to be judgmental about the accord.

Research suggests measurable improvements in streams may not be seen for 10-15 years and that for groundwater it may take up to 135 years.

Many other factors degrade water quality, they say, pointing out an Environment Ministry report that highlighted the highest average levels of faecal pollution in rivers and streams come from birds, cats, and dogs, and from leaking urban sewage systems.

The reviewers say Mr Deans and Mr Hackwell discounted information if it could not be verified by regional councils.

This included nutrient budget figures that were supplied to Fonterra by its Onfarm Environmental and Animal Welfare Assessment and by Fert Research.

They say a subtle difference between the aims of regional councils and Fonterra was not picked up.

The councils monitor compliance with regional plans and consent conditions, while Fonterra’s role in the accord is to monitor progress towards the accord goals.

Fonterra has the results of its assessments independently audited.

- © Fairfax NZ News