It is my contention that this article is stacked with half-truths and by that I mean that they have actually told the truth but only told the half of the truth that supports the contention that there is a large divide between the various farmer types (i.e. sheep & beef Vs dairying).
Quote:
“Tensions are growing between Waikato dairy and drystock farmers as the sectors bang heads over the likely dollar consequences of the Healthy Rivers proposed regional plan change.
For many red meat farmers, the results of a test drive of the Farm Environment Plan required by the regional council plan have been a financial bombshell. Frustrated and upset at what they see as a lack of understanding of the challenges of their sector and environments, they are calling for different treatment and policy flexibility.
For the region’s dairy farmers, who say they’ve been anticipating the regulatory crunch and spending to meet it for more than a decade, the drystock response is out of order. They say there has to be one rule for all and that the plan change proposal is a hard-won compromise which could be replaced by regulators with something far worse if rural consensus isn’t reached.”
In itself all of the statements are true but in fact when you know the whole truth they seem to be almost untrue i.e. the calling for “different treatment and policy flexibility”; the dry stock response is out of order. They say there has to be one rule for all and that the plan change proposal is a hard-won compromise which could be replaced by regulators with something far worse if rural consensus isn’t reached.”
Different treatment is being called for but across the board for all types of farmers and there is no suggestion that there should be anything other than one rule for all.
The call has been for the plan change to be based on a different policy (i.e. Catchment management) which will allow flexibility to target responses based on scientific monitoring that identifies the worst performing catchment areas across all types of farming.
The statement from Waikato Federated Farmers vice-president Andrew McGiven where he confirmed there is growing friction between dry stock and dairy farmers and he called for a “Team Ag” approach to the likely effects on farmers of the proposed new measures to restore and protect the health of the Waikato and Waipa Rivers, does not take into account that PLUG has been set up to provide exactly that, a diverse team of rural land user groups with the ability to make a combined submission against the proposed plan change.
Quote:
“Waikato Federated Farmers, which initiated a study testing the implications of the plan change on 13 mainly drystock farms, say the results are of significant concern to members. Fonterra ran a parallel study on the effects on 11 dairy farms. The resulting report by AgFirst showed a big variation in costs to comply with the Farm Environment Plan part of the plan change, from zero dollars to more than $500,000, mainly for hill country fencing and water reticulation. The study did not cover the costs and restrictions around the plan’s proposed nitrogen limit point and associated reductions, or land conversion restrictions.”
This part of the report quotes the results of the Fed’s study (of mainly dry stock farms) being of significant concern to members and then goes on to say Fonterra ran a parallel study on 11 dairy farms but does not say whether any of the dairy farms had concerns.
The way this paragraph is written almost suggests that there are only concerns for dry stock farmers where in fact it does not mention whether or not any dairy farmers have concerns and therefore the inference is that they don’t.
This paragraph mentions the report from AgFirst showing a big variation in costs (from $0 to more than $500,000 mainly for hill country fencing and water reticulation) but that it did not cover the costs around other issues such as nitrogen limit point and associated reductions, or land conversion restrictions.
Apart from the fact that this could be taken to show that the effects are all about dry stock farming only, this paragraph and the following one which states (the “potentially massive” costs that could be imposed on hill country farmers could put them out of business), to me emphasises the lack of any real economic analysis of the proposals in the plan change and when this is done then I believe that there will be a very big shift in thinking from most of the affected parties.
Once they see the end results of this proposed plan change i.e. costs of FEP’s, costs for fencing riparian areas, loss of capital land value from inability to intensify production on land due to N restrictions, loss of services in rural areas from lowered off farm spending and reductions in rural populations.
Quote:
“Bailey rejected dairy sector criticism that drystock farmers could have started investing in preparation years ago.” We may not have a water accord like dairying but a hell of a lot of work has been done on developing hill country sustainable farming systems. Yes, a lot of work needs to be done but there’s no comparison with a flat dairy farm.”
Reticulation and fencing on hill country took a lot of capital, Bailey said. “There’s a real lack of understanding about drystock farming, especially hill country. The challenges are very different and the systems we run are very different. It’s really sad, it’s becoming a sector versus sector situation and it’s starting to effect rural communities.
Bailey said contrary to claims, drystock farmers had been very engaged in the plan change process. “But they’ve got to be profitable. There’s got to be give and take and flexibility for farmers to adapt.” There was a “huge upwelling” of reaction to the potential impacts. “They’ve said they will take it as far as they need to.”
Waikato Federated Farmers president Chris Lewis said the branch will be calling for substantial revision of parts of the policy
Cambridge dairy farmer Garry Reymer, whose farm was in the test study, is unhappy with the tone taken by the federation.
“We can’t have one rule for one sector and one for another. Whether we like it or not we need a licence to operate. We can’t continue to farm without buying into NZ Inc. If you haven’t taken steps to go down this path in the past 10 years, don’t blame me. Some dairy farmers were doing it (preparing) before the accord, some needed a bit more pressure. But you can’t try to discount the money I’ve spent already.”
All farming group’s, dry stock; dairying; commercial growers etc. have in recent years made huge improvements to their farm practices to reduce environmental impacts and to imply that one sector is asking for different treatment is wrong and only serves to exacerbate the situation where we end up with sector versus sector and the resulting effects on the rural communities.
Cambridge farmer Garry Reymer is quoted as being unhappy with the tone taken by the federation and stating that we can’t have one rule for one sector and one for another but in actual fact to the best of my knowledge he is the first person to be saying this, and he is wrong in fact as far as I can see.
I have seen and heard many people and groups opposed to the proposed plan change but I have yet to see or hear of anyone calling for different rules for different farming groups. The calls that I have seen and heard are for a change to the proposal but without any differentiation between farming types.
Mr Reymer also states that “you can’t try to discount the money I’ve spent already”, but I think when he looks at the effects of the reductions in nitrate discharges that are in the proposed plan changes he may find like others, that his spending has in fact ended up penalising him, because of the existing reduction in discharges not being taken into account when setting the future levels of nitrate discharges from his land.
For me this whole article just emphasises how critical it is for PLUG and others to have some really good economic analysis of the effects across the whole country (urban as well as rural areas) from the proposed plan change.
When the true costs of this proposed plan change are able to be shown I am convinced that this alone will stop this proposal dead in the water (pardon the pun).
Andy Loader. 12/11/2016