Urgency and commitment is needed by dairy farmers to sort out their environmental compliance issues. Todays results show progress has been made in some areas, but in others, such as effluent disposal, non compliance rates rose.
With this years projected payout predicted to be high, lack of money to fix these problems can not be used as an excuse any longer.
Fonterra's "Every farm every year" campaign to address non compliance will work for the majority, but for the few that refuse to invest and sort these problems, Fonterra should use the big stick of not accepting non compliant farmers milk, to show they are serious in sorting these issues.
If this hard nosed economic stick was used on a few, changes would happen fast and the stigma of "dirty dairying" would fade for the industry. Get tough Fonterra.
Fonterra said today the slight increase in significant non-compliance with regional council dairy effluent rules was unacceptable, but believed its Every Farm Every Year inspections regime was a concerted effort to turn this result around. Today’s Dairying and Clean Streams Accord snapshot for the 2009/10 season shows significant national non-compliance rose by 1% to 16%, despite considerable improvements in Northland, Auckland, Hawkes Bay, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago.
Fonterra Group Director Supplier and External Relations, Kelvin Wickham said Every Farm Every Year was a concerted effort to address non-compliance by identifying farms at risk and ensuring remedial plans were put in place. “The programme got underway nationally in August so it was never going to change last season’s results. But what is encouraging is that the compliance message is getting through and farmers are taking it seriously. That’s also evident in the snapshot results for full compliance which rose 5% to 65% last season.”
He said Fonterra’s Sustainable Dairying Advisors have completed 1188 consultations with farmers keen to ensure their on-farm effluent infrastructure is able to cope with the year-round demands put on it. By the end of this season we expect to have 1,000 remedial plans in place. Since August, 252 farms have already completed their plans and a further 582 are underway. There are no quick fixes but farmers are working hard to get it right and in many cases a significant investment is needed to ensure systems are compliant 365 days a year.”
The snapshot showed 85% of farms nationally now have stock excluded from waterways and in Northland, Canterbury, Otago and Southland 90% have been excluded. Less than 2% of farms required bridges or culverts for waterways. Nutrient budgets had been adopted by 99% of farms but the challenge now was to work towards full management plans where nutrient inputs and outputs are measured and managed.
“Every Farm Every Year assesses whether an on-farm system is fit for purpose 365 days a year. This is about risk assessment and mitigation, not compliance monitoring. “We know effluent storage capacity, irrigation systems and feed pads or standoffs are all potential trouble spots. Without adequate storage farmers can’t defer irrigation in wet conditions and Every Farm Every Year helps them recognise that. They are also recognising the value of effluent as a source of nutrients and can see the money spent on upgrading systems has a relatively quick payback through better grass growth and productivity.”
13 Comments
Same story - lobby groups (among members of parliment) destroying the planet.
The problem exists for more then 10 years – still not much progress.
In 2003, the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord was adopted in 15 of the 16 regions in New Zealand, in effect comprising a national non-regulatory programme for the dairying sector.
Trends in NRWQN data between 1989 and 2007 (published on the MfE website) show an overall degradation in water quality in our major rivers. Over that period, nitrogen and phosphorus – key plant nutrients added in fertilisers – increased strongly at many sites. Nitrogen increased by about 1.4 percent per annum over……..
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/publications/all/wa/vol.-18…
The Accord was neither capable of nor ever seriously intended to reduce nutrient losses from dairy farms i.e. the "too hard" bit in terms of water quality problems.
The Accord probably has helped reduce stream bacterial levels and suspended solids by reducing stock access to streams and promoting better effluent treatment. The latter reinforced trends from the 1990s towards more effluent irrigation to land and away from twin-pond discharge to streams. It is of course difficult to attribute improvements specifically to the Accord given there would have been ongoing efforts by farmers and regional councils even if the Accord never existed.
The "greatest" political achievement of the Accord is to ensure, despite the "dirty dairying" campaign, the ongoing non-regulation of most farm nutrient losses i.e. the 90% lost from the paddock, not the effluent system. We have the relatively minor exceptions of Lake Taupo and some Rotorua lakes, and even those regulations just cap losses and dont require reductions. OK, some Manawatu farms will be regulated depending on appeals to Horizon's One Plan...
But surely Fonterra is simply defending its patch, with Feds doing the same but more stridently, on the basis that doing just enough to maintain perceptions of progress will fob off the public and the (currently) few overseas markets where environmental integrity matters.
Remember that its not "a few bad farmers letting the side down" - large nutrient losses, especially nitrogen, are normal in NZ dairy farm systems. The impact depends on how sensitive the receiving stream / lake / estuary / coast is to elevated levels of nutrients.
So shouldnt we focus more on the regional councils that seem content to muddle on with a non-regulatory half-baked approach to nutrient-driven water quality problems? While the Land and Water Forum report http://www.landandwater.org.nz/summary_report.pdf makes lots of useful recommendations (expected to set the platform for Govt policy), it doesnt address the political weakness of regional councils.
Guy Salmon noted in 2008: "...many regional councils have found that doing very little to manage the environment is a good formula for avoiding trouble." This issue and other insights (e.g. lack of capital gains tax) are in http://www.ecologic.org.nz/components/get_file.php?mid=207&fn=Governance_of_the_Rural_Environment.pdf/Governance_of_the_Rural_Environment.pdf
Walter your linked article also said that the Manawatu River, which is often quoted as being heavily polluted improved due to farmers efforts. Mind you I would never expect you to bring balance to the environmental debate. You only look for the negatives - and only at farming.
The fact that some heavily polluted rivers – mostly in dairying areas – have turned the corner in recent years gives us cause for optimism for the future, says Dr Davies-Colley. For instance, the NRWQN shows water quality has improved in some Taranaki rivers and the Manawatu. A programme of widespread riparian fencing and planting in Taranaki probably explains most of the improvement there, he says.
The article also quotes high bacteria levels in rivers as being part of the causes for river degradation. Here urbanites are also to blame e.g.
Environmentalists are shocked the Christchurch City Council wants the freedom to pour raw sewage into the Avon and Heathcote rivers more often.
The council also wants to be able to increase the number of places around the city where it can release untreated sewage.
The council says upgrading Christchurch's wastewater network to ensure fewer sewage discharges into the city's rivers is an ineffective use of money, with no environmental benefit.
As reported in The Press's State of Our Rivers series last year, the council cannot meet its consent condition to discharge sewage into the Avon and Heathcote catchments only once every two years.
That is despite spending more than $40 million upgrading the network, which can be overwhelmed by stormwater in heavy rain, causing overflows of untreated sewage.
The council is seeking a variation from Environment Canterbury (ECan) to lower the standard to once every six months and increase the number of discharge sites from 12 to 25.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/801492
During heavy rainfall the city council is allowed by resource consent to discharge untreated sewage to our rivers because the pipes fill with rain and it can't get to Bromley. Imagine a dairy farmer using that excuse! Downstream again, Hansens Park is a restored rubbish dump. It has a resource consent to discharge contaminants to the river and will do so for many years.
http://heathcotevalley.communityspot.org.nz/index.php/our-river-its-in-…
It seems the rules for urban communities is 'discharge at will' while farmers it is 'prosecute at will'.
Our water ways will only improve if everyone makes a concerted effort to reduce pollution levels.
No excuses in my blog Walter. Your link states that some rivers are improving - due to farmers efforts. No excuse there - just fact.
At least farmers are doing something to reduce pollution, Walter. Pity the same can't be said for urban authorities and big business.
Denial of the reality from you Walter. Again and again.
CO - when efforts are not done on both fronts – the damage on our environment and costs are mounting. I cannot understand why this issue takes over ten years, is not a concerted national wide action, introduced and executed by the good farming community to sort out the cowboys.
Blaming other industries is a clear indication of not taking the issue seriously enough.
Looking into the country side and in some regions the situation is appalling - with stock access to waterways everywhere.
Personally I have zero tolerance for 'dirty dairying'.
I am not blaming other industries, merely pointing out that waterway health is determined by more than just dairying, though dairying is the only industry that gets mentioned in the media.
with stock access to waterways everywhere.
There are no restrictions/regulations on sheep, beef and deer farmers regards stock exclusions from waterways.
Dairy cattle excluded from streams, rivers and lakes:
Target: 90pc by 2012 (50pc by 2007)
Result: 85pc, up 5pc.
Regular crossing points have bridges or culverts:
Target: 90pc by 2012 (50pc by 2007)
Result: 99pc, up 1pc
Systems to manage nutrient inputs and outputs:
Target: All farms by 2007
Result: 99pc, no change
Effluent discharge to comply with resource consents and regional plans:
Target: All farms immediately
Result: 65 per cent, up 5pc
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.php?c_id=3&objectid=10713…
Those calling for Fonterra to refuse to pick up milk from farmers who have issues are truly ignorant about dairy farming. If milk can't be picked up it is dumped and there is every likelihood that it will end up in the waterways. So it is a Clayton's Choice really.
There are two standards operating anyway. Recently a I heard about a farmer that had had a visit from their regional council and got a 100% pass. Within days the Fonterra chap arrived, did his check and failed him. The farmer informed the Fonterra chap that the Regional Council who operates under legislation and is therefore the higher authority had passed him. So as far as the farmer is concerned, he was ok. There was nothing the Fonterra chap could say to that.
Comments have being made in the media about record payout to dairy farmers and therefore farmers should have the $ to spend. What most don't realise is that production is down on many farms and that this negates a substantial part of the increase in payout. A new effluent system costs upwards of $60,000. There are some exciting developments in the options now for effluent systems. As more options become available they will become cheaper and more farmers will willingly embrace them.
But don't forget. It is a minority we are talking about.
CO - i applaude your stance on dirty dairying.
I think farmers will only really clean things up when there is pressure from within their communities and farmers like you, and it is true that some progress has been made, but I think that 10 years into this plan we should be much much further on. If they pollute, cane them.
You are right though about urban pollution too.....harbours such as the waitemata and manukau prove that only too well.
The pollution of our waterways is a serious issue though and one where yet again we are badly let down by our legislators.
CO - Im am not disaggreing with anything you say and applaud your obvious commitment to the industry just a couple of thing we as dairy industry people have to remember though.
A typical dairy cow urine patch has the N loading equivalent of 1000 kgN/ha; a typical sheep urine patch has an N loading of 300 kgN/ha. There is a huge difference in the potential for leaching especially given the C:N ratios of dairy pasture are lower therefore less ability for the soil to 'mop' up N. Dairying is also far more intensive than sheep farming growing perhaps twice as much DM and therefore a great deal more urine patches per ha per year at higher concentration. Also there arn't too many thousand head beef operations (or 5000 sheep operations) that yard thier animals everyday to create a point source of environmental pollution. My point being don't bring the sheep and beef boys into the equation because dairy does not have an environmental leg to stand on compared with sheep and beef farming. My personal opinion is that many areas have converted to dairying from sheep and beef that should never have been for environmental and economic reasons. In saying that Im a massive fan of the dairy industry but dairy people need to be realistic.
We also need to look at efficient effluent systems as being a bonus for farm profitability. Even the $60 000 figure you mentioned is not much fertiliser this days on a large dairy operation. Correct me if im wrong but isn't it around $20 per cow worth of fertiliser equivilant if your return the vast majority of effulent back to the paddock.
Attitudes are changing but as an industry we have to realise that we need to do a good job with our effluent every day.
CO - yes, it is a minority of dairy farmers in terms of effluent non-compliance. But typical nutrient losses to water from an expanding and intensifying dairy sector is a much bigger issue. Expanding on CR's point, this amounts to a massive industry subsidy via a "free" externality.
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.