KEY POINTS:
Many Kiwis will have noticed a deterioration in the freshwater places they know and love - and come to the shock realisation that most New Zealand lowland rivers are too polluted to swim or fish in.
They will have read the proliferation of signs warning against swimming or fishing, and the reports revealing that 95 per cent of our lowland rivers are brimming with agricultural pollution and algal blooms.
Federated Farmers insists we must accept degradation if we want a healthy economy, if we want to feed the world. But if we destroy our environment, we won't even be able to feed ourselves.
Because farmers do not pay for their environmental impacts, agricultural pollution is effectively being subsidised by the New Zealand public.
The response from the dairy industry is usually to tout the "Clean Streams Accord", suggesting that this agreement has solved or will solve the problem of farming impacts on freshwater. This accord is flawed in many ways and will do little to limit the impacts of dairy farming. Our rivers would be better off without it, because then enforceable regulations could take its place.
A fundamental flaw in the accord is that it focuses only on larger streams. Thus, many all-important feeder streams are already beyond saving.
The red-band rule of thumb (a waterway that is deeper than a red-band gumboot or too wide to jump) allows for a farmer to opt out of planting those crucial small streams.
On most farms, even a large river narrows to the point where it could be stepped across. Similarly there will be a wide point where even a larger river can be crossed wearing red-bands.
This escape clause means that, under the terms of the accord, few farm waterways require fencing, especially the crucial feeder streams where fencing would make the most difference. By the time they reach red-band requirement, the damage is done.
Another problem is that while implementation of the accord is monitored, outcomes are not. Meeting targets is lauded as being great progress, but there is no measurement of any benefits.
An agreement like this sounds workable, but the reality is very different. Imagine if we decided to get rid of all traffic policing and rely instead on a voluntary accord between road users and the police agreeing on a set of targets and management plans.
The result would probably closely resemble the clean streams accord; the honest, caring people make a huge effort to abide, while the rest take advantage.
We don't expect anyone to obey road rules without policing. Why would we expect farmers to police themselves when we all pay the consequences when they fail?
* Dr Mike Joy is senior lecturer in environmental science and ecology at the Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University.
