As the agricultural landscape faces a new year, farmers find themselves at the intersection of promises made and the practical implications of policy changes.
The National Government pledged to extricate Wellington from farming affairs, introducing a suite of reforms aimed at fostering a more practical, sustainable, and farmer-friendly environment. While some changes are already in motion, the agricultural community remains cautiously optimistic about the government's commitment to seeing them through.
One of the key promises made is a commitment to redefine rules surrounding culverts and wetlands in legislation. The intent is to narrow down the definition of wetlands to encompass only those areas with significant environmental value. This shift aims to balance conservation efforts with the recognition of areas that might have limited environmental significance. Striking this delicate balance is crucial to avoid unnecessary restrictions on farmers while still promoting environmental conservation.
Stock exclusion rules, another point of contention, are slated for practical adjustments. The government aims to protect critical source areas without imposing unwarranted constraints on farmers. Striking the right balance between environmental protection and agricultural viability is paramount. The proposed changes seek to avoid unnecessarily large exclusion zones for small water bodies, acknowledging the diverse nature of farms across the country.
The National Environmental Standard for drinking water is also on the agenda for revision. The focus is on avoiding excessive compliance requirements for small water providers, particularly those serving 30 connections or fewer. The goal is to empower small rural communities and restore autonomy while ensuring water quality standards are upheld. The government plans to modify the standard to better suit the needs and capacities of these smaller providers.
The deferral of central government rules requiring resource consents for winter grazing until freshwater farm plans are in place is another noteworthy commitment. The shift towards risk- and outcomes-based freshwater plans is seen as a pragmatic approach. It allows for a more nuanced understanding of the unique challenges faced by farmers in different regions. The replacement of the winter grazing low slope map and rules with catchment-level regulations further emphasises the importance of tailoring policies to regional variations.
Live exports of cattle, once halted, are set to resume under the National Government's plan, accompanied by gold standard rules to safeguard animal welfare and safety. The insistence on purpose-built ships and a certification regime for importers reflects a commitment to ensuring that New Zealand's high animal welfare standards are maintained beyond its borders.
The repeal of Labour's Three Waters and the introduction of "Local Water Done Well" underscore a commitment to returning ownership and control of water assets to local councils. This initiative aims to strike a balance between local governance and the need for financial sustainability in water services. The government's approach aligns with the belief that decisions about essential resources should be made at the community level.
While these promises paint a positive picture for the farming community, the key question remains – will the government follow through on its commitments, and will the policies go far enough to support farmers in their daily operations? The agricultural sector is cautiously optimistic but remains vigilant, aware that the devil is often in the details.
In the midst of these policy changes, the interview with Richard Kite from thriving Southland sheds light on the crucial role of catchment groups in driving change at the community level. Community initiatives, fuelled by the practical knowledge and experience of those on the ground, are viewed as the linchpin for positive change in rural areas. The call to the new government is clear – listen to farmers, engage with industry bodies, and collaborate to create policies that are not only well-intentioned but also practical and effective.
As the year unfolds, farmers find themselves at the cusp of change, hoping that the promises made translate into tangible improvements in their daily lives. The success of these policies will ultimately be measured by their ability to strike a delicate balance between environmental stewardship and the economic viability of farming – a challenge that requires careful consideration and collaboration between policymakers and those working the land.
Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.
16 Comments
Lots of horrible stuff happened in history. Like surgery without anaesthetic. That doesn't excuse what we do now.
Isn't it just a better business idea for the country to sell meat and milk than the cows that make them?
Animal cruelty aside (the lost ship and the Saudi farms for starters), it seems like the equivalent of selling our unfinished swamp Kauri logs. Except this product reproduces if you stand it on some grass and give it a water trough.
Modern agriculture is the process of turning many calories of fossil energy, into one calorie of food energy.
That's it. That's all they do.
Backbone schmackbone.
The question - and it's head-and-shoulders more important than any point raised above (and he needs to stop glibly mentioning 'sustainability' until he knows what sustainability means) is:
WHAT COMES AFTER TURNING FOSSIL ENERGY INTO FOOD ENERGY?
I suspect it's very local food-production, and communities (meaning some of the above is the right move, if for the wrong reasons). I suspect global trade is no longer with us (can't see FOB working in a fossil-less environment; not enough surplus energy to support the parasitism).
PDK, yes there is some fossil sunlight input to agricultural production in NZ AND an awful lot of fresh solar energy.
Don't confuse NZ free range, grass based animal production systems with cut and carry, feedlot systems in other countries.
Also note that application of urea nitrogen has reduced in NZ, with farms operating under regional council approved nitrogen budget plans as part of farm environment plans.
I don't disagree with you in the wider sense that the human species is living beyond it's sustainable energy balance. I just object to NZ farmers not being considered in the specific NZ context and being given credit for the gains they are chalking up.
Fair comment - but NZ farmers chose to get on the gravy train - they could have stayed at a lesser level of intensification (and would then have had less collective debt, ironically). They would still have been price-takers (via supermarket pressure driven by customer cost-reduction demands) though; the whole food system is not maintainable, as-is.
Take fossil energy out of farming, though, and there almost isn't any. Never underestimate that underwrite.
And we need to design the format which follows.....
Cheers - my partner is a long-term member of Our Food Network, was there at the inception. And her job includes teaching food-production to school kids. We are capable of full self-sufficiency in food (about 1/4 acre in garden, 2 acres in fruit/nut trees; a covered berry area, 3x glasshouses, chooks, food-forest.- although we choose not to be so rigid.
But that raises as many question as it answers; not everyone can be on acreage (lifestyle blocks are arguably more sustainable than urban cramming) and what happens to cities?
I see a major exodus from cities to good food-land; more labour per acre (much more) and a reversion to local. Ironically, some of the ideological rejection of big government, fits that (but not for the reason they think). .
No pdk - we don't need to design the format which follows, future generations will decide the format that follows. It's not about underestimating the underwrite. It is having faith in future generations to determine their own future. We, your and my generation do not need to do it. In fact we are far better out of it. There are younger innovative young farmers out there that will choose the best/right path. As soon as you get dictated processes, you lose innovation and motivation. Leave it to those who are doing it, to decide the best path forward. Some of these decisions will be made using technology that currently doesn't exist.
I consider it arrogance to believe the the current generation holds all the answers for future generations. Agriculture evolves - always has, always will.
The arrogance is our generation burning the fossil fuels - a one-off bonanza.
And leaving them a collection of stuff which is useless - USELESS - without fossil fuels. The Air NZ fleet? Your Tractor?
Don't excuse that resource rape - we did it; we-a-culpa. Own up to it and start doing something to make amends. I apologized to my two offspring nearly 20 years ago, on behalf of yours and mine. Said I'd do what I could to rectify/mitigate. You seem to need to avoid that, seems to me you're missing the point that EVERY litre of fuel you burn - THEY CAN'T. And they'll have to deal with the consequences of YOUR burning it.
Consciences are funny things - good luck with that.
That's the bit I don't understand, not just farming but our housing and business and everywhere else debt reigns supreme. It's not just about individuals taking on debt, collectively we all pay for it and it's headlined by the massive pile of money dragged from the economy by banks. FIRE cos are defy the puppeteers.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.