The decision is pleasing for Federated Farmers as it shows that on one point our appeals have been upheld.
Although other appeal points were not successful, the decision has provided useful guidance on how some aspects of the water policies of the plan are to be implemented, which is very positive for our members.
Horticulture New Zealand and Federated Farmers represent the interests of farmers and growers in New Zealand. It felt compelled to lodge High Court appeals on the One Plan in the interests of their members but also in the interests of the wider New Zealand community.
Regional plans impact all New Zealanders and, in that regard, it is critical such plans represent a good balance between the four pillars of wellbeing, social/cultural, environmental and economic.
It was with this balance in mind that Federated Farmers appealed the Environment Court decisions. The appeals focused on decisions concerning the reference to the nutrient management model Overseer, the use of discretion by the council in granting consents to farm, and the consideration toward the economic consequences of the plan notified by the Environment Court.
Our concerns were neither the use of regulation on farms nor the use of Overseer to devised nutrient management plans for farms. It was about how regulation and the application of the Overseer tool were applied in combination.
In June, the Horizons Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council notified Federated Farmers of an implementation plan which outlined how the Environment Court decisions version of the One Plan was to be implemented on farms.
The proposed plan recognised that due to the release of version 6 of Overseer, which occurred after the Environment Court decision was released, the estimated N loss from most farms within the Horizons region was now higher than N loss values estimated under the previous Overseer version.
The consequence of using Overseer 6 to estimate current N loss from farms meant far fewer farms were able to comply with the controlled-activity rule and must now apply for restricted discretionary consent.
Add to this the requirement that all farms must obtain restricted discretionary consent to reach the N loss limits, as specified within the One Plan, within four years and the size of the challenge and uncertainty facing farmers, growers and the council becomes apparent.
The plan notified by the council in June implements the One Plan rules and policies in a way that provides all farmers within the priority water management zones a pathway to consent and an assurance that consent will be granted over a reasonable timeframe of 10 to 20 years.
This, coupled with farms being required to show a trajectory of N loss reduction that is achievable, rather than compliance with an often unachievable fixed nitrogen leaching loss limit, is a practical and appropriate solution.
Without the implementation plan, there are no assurances existing farmers would be able to continue farming within the priority water management zones.
The High Court decision confirms what was proposed within the implementation plan notified by Horizons back in June. This is a practical and reasonable enactment of the rules and policies of the One Plan and is an appropriate pathway.
Federated Farmers must continue to work closely with regional councillors and staff to ensure that the implementation plan as proposed continues to gain momentum and that the uncertainly surrounding the One Plan and its implementation is reduced.
CHANGES BENEFIT ALL
For Tararua dairy farmer Jim Galloway and other Horizons farmers the changes to the One Plan implementation herald a collective sigh of relief after seven years of uncertainty and distress.
When the council first notified the Horizons One Plan there were no resources for farmers to call on.
Mr Galloway said the One Plan requirements were unreasonable and physically impossible to meet.
"I don't think the council considered the feasibility of the rules," he said.
"We looked at models where reducing stock to one and half cows per hectare would still make no difference with meeting Nitrogen limits."
It also left him having to install more fencing on run-offs and streams. This was never provisionally requested in the plan.
Moreover, an independent economic study estimated a $60 million downturn to the Tararua District should the plan, as notified and endorsed by the Environment Court, be adopted.
"The reality is we could have been out of business. We would have had to reduce stock and lay off staff, which would have had a detrimental effect on the community with less money going round.
"That's what happens, everyone is affected and misses out," he said.
Mr Galloway is hopeful the proposed implementation plan, which has now been given a pathway through the High Court decision, will offer more opportunities and a brighter future for farmers nationwide.
He described a "massive shift" where councils are better informed and farmers have been up-skilled towards effluent management and are investing in better processes.
"We have more certainty now with long-term consents available," he said.
