Comment: While it's good that Ministers have acknowledged there are flaws with the Essential Freshwater regulations - it is frustrating this has only come after the regulations are in place, writes Federated Farmers chief executive Terry Copeland.
Federated Farmers is experienced at finding practical and lasting solutions to important challenges facing the primary sector.
Our 30-strong policy teams work with hundreds of farmer members on national, regional and local issues affecting farmers and rural communities.
Often our successes are won quietly, working openly and collaboratively with Ministers, central and local government officials and a wide range of non-government organisations.
We seek lasting outcomes that are not at the expense of others or that undermine the fundamental outcomes sought.
Lasting solutions have been found to a wide range of contentious issues, such as walking access involving private land, and most recently, the rules around access to and use of firearms.
Good policies and well-designed rules stand the test of time. An important component of achieving well-written rules is that they have undergone a thorough and open consultative process.
In my opinion, the Government's recently passed Essential Freshwater regulations fail on all counts. I think a closed and poorly designed process has resulted in a bad outcome.
Even before the ink was dry on the proposals Ministers had to go back to Cabinet to make changes. They've signalled other changes will be needed.
While it's good that Ministers have acknowledged there are flaws, it's frustrating this has only come after the regulations are in place.
Our pick is that "further amendments to the Essential Freshwater regulations" will be a standing item on the agendas of Cabinet and the Executive Council for some time to come.
Ministers' recognition of the impracticality of aspects of these badly developed and highly prescriptive national rules is despite the fact Federated Farmers has been pointing them out since the proposals were first mooted in October 2018.
More than tinkering is needed.
I believe a thorough and open review, resulting in a major overhaul is required if the regulations are to serve the purpose for which they were designed, improving freshwater quality, and are to work on the ground.
This is not a case of the farming sector kicking the can down the road. We wouldn't dare, as the current regulatory can would fall apart before our eyes.
This is the fourth iteration of national policy direction in the last decade. Farmers just want to know the goalposts are fixed at a reasonable spot and are going to stay in the same place for some time so they can invest with confidence.
It is not just the primary sector that is concerned. A number of cash-strapped regional and district councils are worried about the workability of the regulations and the implementation costs for their ratepayers.
The government has calculated the total cost of changes to regional water plans to be $1.5 billion – that's about $50 million per plan – and as much as $2,000 per ratepayer in some regions.
The problem lies with the design of the process from the get-go.
Federated Farmers has been accused of picking holes in the proposals for political gain. Claims have been made that we only raise a red flag every three years. Not true.
We raised significant concerns in September 2019 when copies of the draft regulations were first released publicly.
We had been working very constructively with officials earlier in the year until on 29 May 2019 when, we believe, officials were banned from working with us on the false and unsubstantiated accusation that Federated Farmers had leaked confidential information.
It is our contention that if we, and other farmer organisations, had been allowed to continue working with officials there would have had a good chance the final regulations would have been workable.
Chief executive of Federated Farmers, Terry Copeland. Photo / Supplied
Some Examples
A couple of stark examples of what won't work are the winter grazing requirements and the stock exclusion regulations. But these are just the tip of the iceberg.
A question arises as to how the pugging requirements in the winter grazing rules survived the consultation process. It was strongly opposed by agricultural experts on the government-appointed Freshwater Leaders Group and opposed by primary sector submitters on more than one occasion.
It survived this process only to be amended after they finally passed into law.
A second example is the stock exclusion requirements Ministers have also agreed need to be amended.
There is universal acceptance that the bar set by the dairy sector in the then named "Clean Streams Accord", with respect to excluding cattle from waterways, should also apply to beef cattle.
The practicality and environmental benefits of excluding cattle from waterways when strip grazed behind a hot wire are also well understood.
There has been "violent agreement" between the livestock sector and government about what is needed for well over a decade.
What Ministers intended and what, we suspect, Cabinet thought they had signed off in May 2020 is spot on – that cattle, deer and pigs should be keep out of waterways (lakes and streams greater than a metre wide) where intensive farming is occurring.
But that's not where the regulations ended up.
MfE produced a low slope map that aims to capture "flat and gently rolling" land. But they got the map wrong. Ministers have already acknowledged the map has problems and will be tweaked. It will need more than a tweak.
The map captures at least 2 million hectares of hill and high country - double the area of farmland Cabinet were told it would, and at least four times the cost.
The map is so bad the iconic farms with very low stock numbers, such as Molesworth station and a number of Lord of the Rings farmed landscapes with pristine waterways, with require millions of dollars to be spent on fencing.
That will provide minimal if any environmental benefit and will undermine money available for weed and pest control. Molesworth alone requires in the order of 300km of fencing.
Imagine Frodo and Sam getting caught behind a deer fence when trying to escape the orc-troops near Udûn.
So what is needed if the current regulations won't work?
It's important to recognise that we already had national direction on improving water quality in place, that regional councils, communities and farmers were in the process of delivering on these obligations and that regional councils have stock exclusion regulations in place.
In my opinion, there was no gaping hole in the national freshwater regulatory framework that justified such a hasty and draconian approach. Building upon the existing work would have been substantially better.
That is not to say that we should not be open to improvements to rules and regulations – just that, I think, what is now in place is not an improvement.
As always Federated Farmers is willing to work with the Government to deliver regulations that deliver both the water quality outcomes we all want - but in a way rural and urban communities can handle.
The first step is a bipartisan approach to water quality, building on farmers acknowledging that not all is well and working on the ground to address their responsibilities.
This needs to be coupled with a recognition that a one size fits all approach is not justified and that a solid, considered and targeted approach to maintaining and, where required, improving water quality will result in better outcomes.
New Zealand already sits in a prime spot internationally with respect to the production of safe, high quality food based on a high quality environment and world-leading animal welfare standards.
In its submission to the House of Lords inquiry into the NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement the UK SPCA stated that "New Zealand is the only country with whom the UK is undertaking an FTA whose farm standards have been judged higher than the UK".
We need to build on this solid platform, acknowledging where improvements are needed and adopting a continuous improvement attitude so that we maintain our reputation as an internationally trusted supplier of food.
We need a framework consisting of a suite of regulatory and non-regulatory efforts, focused on supporting farmers to make good decisions while meeting environmental responsibilities, rather than telling farmers what the answers are.
Rules and regulations are needed but they must drive sensible, practical and affordable solutions whereby farmers and growers have clear and achievable goals which they can build towards and work beyond.
