Content supplied by Federated Farmers
Having worked with DairyNZ to analyse the $100m freshwater fund policy, recently announced by the National Party, Federated Farmers believes it could vastly improve water quality outcomes.
“The Fund to retire farmland would be perhaps better interpreted as a policy to create on-farm wetlands,” says Ian Mackenzie, Federated Farmers Environment spokesperson.
“After talking with the team at DairyNZ we’ve arrived at a very different conclusion to that other groups have come up with.
“Instead of looking at this as a linear purchase of land, or trying to recreate MAF’s old farm advisory division, think more along the lines of NIWA’s guidelines for constructed wetlands.
“A fund $10 million a year could purchase at least 286 hectares. Using NIWA guidelines and if turned into strategically located wetlands, DairyNZ and Federated Farmers believe it could remove 60-70 percent of Nitrogen from around 9,500 hectares of farmland.
“We can easily take people through the calculations but if applied to suitable sensitive catchments then you are potentially looking at a major gain for a relatively modest loss of farmland.
“We are not pretending this is a silver bullet, or is applicable to every part of New Zealand, but it does highlight how creative solutions are possible.
“There is also a mechanism to provide a legal home for any wetlands created; QEII National Trust covenants. Meanwhile, the Landcare Trust can bring together all parties in constructing and managing wetland buffer zones.
“It is notable that Federated Farmers played a leading role in forming both Trusts.
“Since this policy is still in formulation, the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust in cooperation with the Landcare Trust, may be good bodies to administer the fund. They are already there, they are excellent at what they do and both have regional advisors in place working with councils and landowners.
“Who better than the QEII National Trust supported by the Landcare Trust,” Mr Mackenzie finished by saying.
4 Comments
The issue becomes one of maintenance once established. Speaking from experience - the maintenance of fenced off native areas takes more work for many years, than the establishment of them. On the plus side, a series of wetlands can become a valuable biodiversity corridor.
Other land uses such as forestry have legislated areas to be set aside around wetlands and it is the land-owners responsibility to manage and maintain them. Why is farming different? Why should the tax-payer bail out the land-owner by buying the land back? Who would actively manage these areas? As these will now be publically owned areas, will surrounding farms provide public access to them?
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.