Federated Farmers has a number of concerns over Ecan proposals and is considering whether any of these hold sufficient legal basis for an appeal to the High Court.
Federated Farmers has a number of concerns over Ecan proposals and is considering whether any of these hold sufficient legal basis for an appeal to the High Court.
One of the biggest changes to hit farming in Canterbury in a generation is about to occur following Environment Canterbury's decisions on the Land & Water Regional Plan (LWRP).
The LWRP puts in place nutrient management rules that effectively halt land use change or intensification may result in increases innitrate losses over large areas of Canterbury.
While the LWRP rules apply across the region, local solutions can be developed through sub-regional (catchment) plans developed through the zone committees. However, these sub-regional plans are still subject to the basic tenets of water quality management, including the need to maintain or improve overall water quality, and to set and adhere to limits for water abstraction and discharges. It is unclear whether the region-wide water quality standards can be replaced with local catchment ones. The plan is set to become operative later in the year, subject to any appeals on questions of law.
Federated Farmers has a number of concerns and we are considering whether any of these hold sufficient legal basis for an appeal to the High Court.
Concerns range from uncertainty as to how individual rules will be interpreted _ for example, the method for calculating nitrogen baselines and any increase to those baselines, to more considerable concerns about the impact of the provisions on the flexibility and viability of farming operations, including those at the lowest end of nitrogen loss.
An issue of particular concern for those in Canterbury's hill and high country is the rule requiring cattle standing in a lake or river to be subject to resource consent. The Resource Management Act has a very broad definition of what constitutes a river or a lake. As much of Canterbury's hill and high country is extensively farmed, it would be prohibitively expensive and impractical to fence all such waterways and, given existing water quality is very good in most of these areas, we don't consider the need for consent has been justified.
There will also be controls on the leaching of nitrates, applying across a wide range of land-use activities. These nutrient management controls will impact farmers with low nitrogen-leaching rates, including many sheep farmers and other dryland operators, many of whom will effectively have their current land use frozen with little capacity to convert, intensify or change practice. The impact extends beyond potential dairy conversions and could affect farmers' ability to undertake tenure review, change fodder crops or alter cattle to sheep stocking ratios.
The plan poses significant challenges to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy's multiple aims of increasing irrigation across the Canterbury Plains while maintaining or addressing water quality. Our concern is that the LWRP offers no opportunity for dryland farmers to get the additional nitrate loss allowance they would need to take advantage of any irrigation scheme.
Where reductions in nitrogen loss are required, these must be achieved through regimes which are certain, fair and reasonable for farmers to achieve over time. We will continue to discuss the implications of these rules and our options going forward with Federated Farmers members, Environment Canterbury and other affected parties.
