Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration.

(813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC’s Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC’s Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP.

Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability?

In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices.

Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors.

Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff.

Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits.

In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance.

The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate.

The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country’s main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population.

The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy.

When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration.

The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse.

Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways.

The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules.

Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector.

WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation.

The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy.

It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers.

It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts.

The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region.

In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled.

Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment.

In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation’s economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production.

The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country.

A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending ‘Permitted Status’ as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference.

Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented.

New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens.

With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.

Andy Loader. P.L.U.G.
Primary Land Users Group

© Scoop Media