Farmers in pain for river's gain

JON MORGAN/The Dominion Post

FRUSTRATION: Woodville dairy farmers Don Compton and David Field with their new 100-day effluent storage pond, part of a $200,000 effluent system designed to keep nitrogen leaching to a minimum. It has an automatic paddle stirrer that keeps the effluent liquid enough to spray on pastures. The partners are farming in one of the regional council’s sensitive zones and have been told that cutting 20 per cent of the 300-cow herd will still not meet the One Plan’s requirements. 'We've invested in adding value to our farm, but all we can see the One Plan doing is devaluing the farm,' Mr Field says.

Relevant offers

Farming

Deregulation would be bad for kiwifruit growers Wool's being bred into a thing of the past Rooks, roasts and venison Touch of Bordeaux in retirement dream Follow science to profitable truth Spearheading the asparagus lobby Heroic lawyer helps Berrymans win compensation Rhododendron venture just keeps growing Taking pride in their paddocks Ruminating on the harm cows do

A plan to relieve the nitrogen burden on one of the world's most polluted rivers will force farmers to change the way they farm.

The frontline of the battle to  clean up New Zealand's  polluted rivers is a chain of  grass-covered sand dunes  between the Rangitikei and  Manawatu rivers.

The farmers whose cows graze these pastures, almost all irrigated from underground aquifers, fear they will have to sacrifice their livelihoods for the good of the environment.

Many see their only option will be to cut cow numbers and lose earnings of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But after years of asking farmers nicely to reduce nitrogen pollution from farms, the Manawatu- Wanganui Regional Council says it has had enough. The time has come to force farmers to change.

This is at the heart of the One Plan, a council scheme to issue farmers with an all-encompassing resource consent.

Emboldened by increasing public concern at the health of their rivers and research that shows the Manawatu River among the world's most polluted, the council is in no mood to back down.

It has focused the One Plan on reducing nitrogen across a region criss-crossed by rivers and streams. Farmers will be given leaching allowances that will progressively decline.

But before the regulations are imposed - it could take another year - it is attempting to help farmers find ways to reduce leaching that do not mean cutting cow numbers. It has held meetings with farmers and some have accepted nutrient management plans drawn up with the help of experts.

However, Federated Farmers has held meetings of its own. At these, farmers have been told that, using the council's formula, their only option to comply is to reduce cow numbers and those in the worst parts - "sensitive zones" of free- draining coastal sand country and high-rainfall areas such as under Mt Ruapehu and in the rainshadow of the Ruahine Ranges - will face herd cuts of up to 50 per cent.

Figures of how many farms are involved differ. Fonterra says of the region's 860 dairy farms, 433 are in the council's zones, but the council says just 45 are serious leachers.

But much more than just these farms are at stake. The One Plan could be the start of a nationwide movement. Regional councils are facing strong public pressure to clean up rivers and are watching progress in Manawatu-Wanganui with close interest.

On the sand country farms bordering the state highway between Foxton and Bulls, feelings are running high. Some farmers say such earnings cuts are unsustainable and they will be forced to sell up at huge losses. Bankruptcies would not be a surprise. Most are unwilling to speak publicly, saying it will make them a target for council consent compliance inspectors.

They are pinning their hopes on the result of hearings beginning shortly before planning commissioners. A submission from Fonterra proposes ways to alleviate the pain. The council's officers have also proposed a helpful change. However, the issue is so complex and controversial many are picking it will end in the Environment Court.

Massey University environmental scientist Mike Joy, who is submitting on behalf of Forest & Bird and Fish & Game, says dairy farmers should be looking at the long-term impact of the way they are farming. "In the short term you can overdrive a system but eventually you will destroy your ability to produce from that land."

He says increased dairying has an environmental cost that can be put in monetary terms. An evaluation of the region's ecosystems showed that increased dairy production of 3 per cent a year for five years would cost $220 million a year on services such as flood control and water purification. "I don't know what the loss of 3 per cent of dairy production would be to the region - it might be $220m - but the point is the farmer takes that $220m for a 3 per cent gain but the whole of society loses $220m," Joy says.

However, he accepts that farmers are not entirely to blame for pollution of the main rivers. Town sewage is also a contributor. He says the Feilding treatment plant has never complied with its resource consent but has not been prosecuted.

Regional council planning and regulatory manager Greg Carlyon denies the council is easy on district council sewage breaches but admits: "We've got to do better for the river."

He says dairy farmers have had enough time to make voluntary changes to curb the nitrogen effects. "We've had broad-scale promises from Fonterra about what they would drive themselves and very few have come to fruition, and certainly none at the pace of change occurring in intensive farming."

The One Plan seeks to control dairying on sensitive land but, equally, he says, on better-quality soils the plan shows farmers how they can increase cow numbers, even doubling them. "If we do it right, the potential to get more out of agriculture exists in this region more than in any other in the country."

He says the council has made a public commitment to work with the 45 farms at most risk so they will not have to stop dairying and not have to destock. Destocking is a myth spread by Federated Farmers, he claims.

"We've done 21 farm strategies and none has required destocking, only clever management. Every day I talk to cockies who have got it cracked, who will have no problems whatsoever with the system we are proposing and who accept the commitment they've got to make to cleaning up the environment."

The biggest source of nitrogen is from cows' urine, at the rate of 2000kg to 3000kg of urine a hectare. "We can't regulate just that discharge, we need to look at the whole farming system and take the wins in little bits where you can get it."

The cost of complying with the One Plan on the strategies done so far is $10,000 to $20,000, he says. This figure is disputed by Federated Farmers, which says it can start at $40,000 and go as high as $450,000 when the need for feed pads, effluent pumps, big storage ponds and irrigators is included.

FEDERATED Farmers regional president Gordon McKellar says the biggest fault with the One Plan is that its nitrogen assessments are based on Overseer, the farm nutrient budgeting programme developed by AgResearch. "Overseer has an inbuilt error of plus or minus 30 per cent. It is a good guidance tool but it should not be the basis of regulation. Just imagine, if the police tried using a speed camera with a 30 per cent margin. There'd be a national outcry."

The concept of one consent to cover all farm activities is also a worry, he says. If a farm failed in one aspect it would not get a consent to farm. "What do we do then - go out of business?" It would also penalise the efficient farmer who found ways to improve their business but who would then have to apply for another consent, at a cost of $1000 to $5000.

In its submission, Fonterra asks that the first five years of the One Plan be spent under an "audited self- regulated approach".

Fonterra sustainable production manager John Hutchings says the submission has three main points: The first five years would allow time for a buildup of an awareness among farmers that it is an issue that deserves management; allow more practical and science-based nitrogen targets to be set and if the targets cannot be met then farmers should be allowed to gradually work toward them at 1 per cent a year; don't put anyone out of business, let them do the best they can with a tailored- nutrient management plan.

He prefers the Taranaki Regional Council's way of handling the nitrogen issue, though he notes every region is different. Taranaki has helped farmers fence off streams and plant riparian strips to filter nutrients.

However, scientists point out that Taranaki's streams are narrow and swift-running, unlike the wide, slow- moving rivers that travel through many more kilometres of farmland before reaching the sea.

On the sand country, dairy farmer Charlie Pedersen pulled out of talks with the council a year ago when he felt its staff were not listening to him.

He says the council was not prepared to make allowances for the nutrient-holding ability of his rich soils and grass built up by years of irrigation.

"They have ignored that and have come up with a plan almost exactly as envisaged originally. They are ready to confiscate off farmers a tremendous amount of work and investment by forcing us to run a much lower stocking rate. It is tremendously sad."

Mr Carlyon says staff submissions to the hearing now propose including sand country farmers' soil improvements in the plan.

Even if they are allowed, Mr Pedersen says he will still face the risk of ending up with an uneconomic business.

"What's fascinated me is that when Palmerston North citizens are asked whether they would like to see better water quality they've all said yes but when they're asked if they'd pay a rate rise to stop pouring sewage down the Manawatu River they all say no. In this case they're saying yes on behalf of farmers and sending the bill to them."

He says such a scheme can work in easily defined areas such as Lake Taupo, where the Government provided $80m to buy out farmers hit by a nitrogen cap.

"This proposal is probably 100 or 200 or even 500 times that. If the Government follows the Taupo precedent it will get the attention of a lot of taxpayers."

Mr Carlyon says the council could actually have been tougher on farmers. The One Plan measures will bring the Manawatu River's quality up to only half that required for safe swimming.

But he feels the argument between the economic value of agriculture and the environmental value of clean rivers is a national debate that no-one seems to want to have.

"When we hear the farmers' mantra that we owe agriculture our destiny we haven't been honest enough to say the consequence will be that we will not be able to safely swim in, let alone drink from, some of our waterbodies. I don't personally accept that that should occur.

"If the community wants to have that debate up front and is prepared to sacrifice waterways to agriculture or to our community discharges, well, then that's fine.

"But we're not having those debates because the agriculture community does not want to say out loud that we should give up the waterways."

WHAT'S HAPPENING

* River pollution: Manawatu River  test site north of Woodville  shows 780 tonnes of nitrogen a  year. The aim is to reduce that  to 370 tonnes.

* One Plan: Brings together six  plans governing natural  resources - air, water, land, river  beds, lakes and the coast. For  dairy farmers it means they will  have to keep nutrient losses on  their farm to a predetermined  figure. Those on sensitive land  will be able to achieve this figure  over a sliding scale taking up to  20 years. Failure could mean  withdrawal of "consent to farm".

* What happens next: Hearings  before independent councillors  begin December 2. Regional  council officers' report  December to January,  submitters February to March,  council reply March. Final report  expected mid-year.

Newest First

Oldest First

the lorax   #1   07:12 am Nov 27 2009

John Hutchings must have been in la la land recently to say farmers need the 'first 5 years to build up awareness'. There has been an awful lot recently re the country's rivers and the poor state they are in. It needs to be done. I don't want to see farmers put out of business, but I do want to have healthy streams and rivers. Fed Farmers needs to put away the boxing gloves every the time the environment is mentioned, and be more constructive instead of the usual bleatings of stop picking on me. This is a dairy cow issue, not sheep etc. There should be no cow paddocks adjacent to any waterway, creek, stream etc. Fonterra needs to get off it's a... and help out, the council must definitely work WITH farmers, and they must also come down VERY hard on sewage discharges. Also those very large industries with long term discharge consents need them shortened and must be made to clean up their act. Giving 25year consents isn't encouraging that. If London can clean up the Thames, with their population, so there are now fish in there, why can't we have clean streams?

Ad Feedback