By John Hart*
425,000 kilometres of river meander and roar through New Zealand.
They’re our country’s lifeblood - recreationally, spiritually, economically.
Being able to head down to your local river and jump in without getting sick was once a given for generations of Kiwis. For many this is no longer doable.
Water quality has deteriorated to a point where 61 percent of our monitored recreational river swimming sites are unsafe to swim in.
The Greens think all our rivers can and should be swimmable. And last month we launched a plan to achieve this.
Writing on this site, Federated Farmers' Ian Mackenzie attacked the plan as “disingenuous”.
There were holes in his analysis which I’ll go into shortly. But first, the parts we agree on.
The recently introduced National Policy Statement (NPS) for freshwater establishes, for the first time, a framework to improve freshwater management in New Zealand. The existence of an NPS is a good thing.
Where we part company with the Government and Federated Farmers is the setting of minimum standards for water quality under it.
The National Government has chosen “secondary human contact” as its standard.
This means water clean enough to boat or wade in, but not clean enough to dive in, swim in or stick your head under.
Do anything other than boat or wade and there’s a high chance you’ll get sick. This bar is way too low.
Kiwis expect to be able to swim, fish and gather food in rivers and streams close to where they live. This is our birthright.
The current rules will allow some New Zealand rivers to have as much nitrogen pollution in them as the Yangtze River in China. Next thing you know we’ll be welcoming tourists to 100% Pure New Zealand, but warning them to “please stay in the boat”.
I’m lucky enough to farm in the beautiful Wairarapa. Like many of our neighbours, we raise sheep and beef. A stream winds its way through our valley, providing water for stock and drinking water for several families.
We swim in our swimming hole in the summer, and collect watercress for the table.
Most farmers in my community are aghast at the idea of local water quality slumping to the levels allowed under the NPS. We’re not “blaming” farmers, as Mr Mackenzie says; I know too many who’re making quantum leaps in environmental stewardship, with riparian fencing to keep stock out of streams and more careful use of fertiliser and irrigation water.
But there is no denying intensive dairy is the driving force behind the deterioration in our rivers.
New Zealand has half a million more dairy cows than in 2008, when National was first elected. One dairy cow produces 14 times more waste than a human, so those additional 500,000 cows is the same as seven million people doing their thing directly onto our rural land.
Even with best practice, the large-scale conversion of more land to dairy farming will further degrade freshwater. Because we’ve hit our ecological limits.
We can’t have clean rivers and more big dairy. The two just aren’t compatible.
Despite that, National pushes on with its blind plan for rampant dairy expansion. So much so that Environment Minister Nick Smith has been bullying environmental groups because their approach to saving our rivers isn’t pro-industry enough for him.
The Green Party will overhaul and strengthen National's weak national policies and bottom lines for freshwater management.
We will establish a protected rivers network to permanently safeguard our most precious rivers, like we have with our national parks.
Yes, our plan will cost money. But we’d rather invest money now to reduce the amount of nutrients, sediments and faecal contamination entering our rivers in the first place, rather than hundreds of millions dollars cleaning up the mess after the fact.
We think it’s better to encourage smarter farming within agreed environmental limits, which will stand both our farmers and rivers in good stead in the future.
Yes, there are already precious New Zealand rivers for which a clean-up programme is the only way forward. Again, we believe this is an investment worth making.
The alternative - accepting the status quo and allowing more rivers and streams to become too polluted to swim in without getting sick, is not the New Zealand I want my daughter growing up in.
--------------------------------------------------
John Hart is the Green Party candidate for Wairarapa
27 Comments
As I understand it, most of the polluted rivers have urban/semi urban catchments. In the figures I have seen catchements that have a significant amount of dairy still have water that is safe to swim in, and drinkable for a healthy adult.
Testing for coliforms is easy and makes it easy to target dairy farmers, there is currently zero testing for toxic chemicals, sprays etc because it is just too expensive. Yet I imagine that living near an orchard or vinyard would be much worse for your health then living near a dairy farm.
I don't believe high nitrogen lvls in water make it unsafe for swimming, not sure what the connection is there except dairy farmers use and create a lot of urea so it has to be bad.
My observation is that most sediment is comming from logging, dairy farming uses a fraction of the land that is logged every year and it's not pouring out sediment for years on end either.
I voted greens and NZ first last election, this year I'm not voting. Winston Peters is great at stirring things up and generally making things akward for everyone else limiting somewhat the amount of BS that goes on. None of them represent my interests, and as the latests referendums have shown, none of them respect democracy. I've withdrawn my support for such a sham.
Sediment is eroding soil and is highest where river banks are grazed by livestock, steep slopes cleared of trees, or where there is a lack of riparian vegetation. The period where forest land is in cutover is only 18 months in a 28 year rotation.
High levels of nitrates can cause methemoglobinemia, but the biggest problem is increased algal growth which produces toxins, bacteria, and inhibits oxygen for fish species.
Sediment is also caused by flooding evenst. In Southland flood events have been a big contributor in recent years. Hill country farmers are the target of ESPN for sediment. It is also caused by slumping after drains are cleaned. Lots of varying reasons which can differ by catchment.
I agree with what you are saying. But i think it's time they stopped the dairy conversions anyway. Far too many eggs in the Chinese basket.
If you look at the history of NZ agriculture it's a case study in boom bust cycles. I expect dairy to follow the predictable cycle. The financialy strong will stick it out, the rest will sell out and the land will be converted to what it was before, or the next big thing.
The Chinese arm of our dairying will not collapse, they are doing it to secure food supply not profit. Everything else around it will be affected - mark my words
I agree witn this guy too. At some point we have to prioritize something other than just profits. There must be a sweet spot somewhere on thsi issue, but I feel our politicians are pushing very hard not to let their public have a say.
As per other elections I will be voting for environmental reasons not financial. Are other people out there going to do the same?
Yes me. I am going to suck it up and vote green. I decided this mebe 2 years ago.
Which rivers do the greens intend to class as protected? Making a very general statement is one thing but mailing your masthead to particular rivers before an election takes gonads I don't believe the Greens have.
While we need a party like the Greens to keep pressure on improving environmental standards at election time they will always have the luxury of being able to promise everything with the knowledge that they never have to carry it out.
The best they can ever possibly hope for is to be a minor party in a coalition and as such can always hide behind the major party not playing ball. But in the past they have shown adversity to that type of responsibilty, preferring to snipe from the sidelines while supplying votes if it suited them. It may be different at some time in the future who knows.
Cost notwithstanding, it would indeed be nice to have all rivers safe enough to swim in and a start would be to have every farm fence of 20 odd metres from every water way on their property and plant this with native trees and shrubs. Mr Hart, I would assume, has already done that. That would virtually stop all faecal matter getting directly into the water. Once that is done we can progress to making sure that every road is at least 20 mtr from any form of waterway and plant this also, this will stop a lot of the crap that people just chuck out the window from getting in the water and oil from leaking cars will not directly wash down either.
But when we talk about swimming. Where do 90% of people swim?
In the sea, so let's start making sure that our beaches are safe for swimming first before tackling river water quality to get up to that level. Where is it often, or always, unsafe to swim in the sea? You guessed it, let's start there first. The vast majority of people deserve to be able to swim safely in the sea and make use of the beaches without the risk of becoming sick.
And the Green answer to that is: but that is a council matter, nothing to do with us.
Rivers flow to the sea.
Rivers do flow to the sea, but the beach pollution almost invariably comes from an urban source - stormwater or sewage.
As a sheep farmer, what annoys me is that John Key has really pushed dairy farming, to the point that now it's crashing. They have pushed for increased production, which has caused pollution, then on the other hand they have created thousands of jobs on the back of demonising the nasty polluting farmers. There are people out there who are genuinely interested in the environment and farming, but they are not necessarily the ones who are trying to make a lot of money out of it, by clipping the ticket both ways.
The other thing National has done has push the corporatisation of farming.With the argument that some multinational corporation will be more up with the play on environmental issues. But pollution has increased. Why? because production has to increase to pay for the job growth and expensive technology in the sector. We would be far better to go back to privately own farms with one person milking 300 cows. The real evil isn't farming it's greed and globilisation.
tim12 National hasn't pushed the corporatisation of farming. The farmers selling out to the highest bidder have done that. These have usually been sheep/arable farmers.
Water quality issues have been around longer than the National government - it is our knowledge/awareness of it that has increased and know it is being recognised. Some of the contaminants in water have been dated back 50years or more. One of the most insidious water contamination sites are old sheep dips.
Many dairy farms were sold to foreign investors (Irish, German and Dutch especially, in Southland) during the time of the Labour government. MyFarm also court overseas investors for their farms, and these are inclined to fly under the radar because it is seen as a NZ company.
The numerical majority of Fonterra farms are family farms producing 200,000kgs or less. Not that you would know that from the way media portray dairy farming. One person can't run a 300 cow farm without help. At 300 cows it is unlikely to be a rotary so you can't have one milker.
National have spent alot of time setting up trade deals with China. Dairying has boomed, which has attracted investors and speculators. Sheep farmers have cashed in i agree with that. If the price drops to $5 how many more of these smaller farmers will have to sell to corporates? I have nothing against dairy farming. My argument is that the national government is creating an environment that is going to push farming out of the hands of farmers and into corporates. I think they see this as better for economic growth. But in the long run is this going to be better for the environment?
It was Labour that signed the Free Trade Agreement with China, so of course National are going to build on that to take advantage of what it offers.
At $5 the banks will be the ones with problems. ;-)
Casual Observer - a question for you
You don't see companies the size of Fonterra or BHP-Billiton or Rio Tinto running corner milk-bar dairy's
The question is - does dairy farming suit large-size corporate farming?
Does it really achieve economies of scale?
I don't believe as a general comment, in New Zealand, it does iconoclast. Dairy Holdings is perhaps an exception - it is the closest we would have to a large size corporate system. MyFarm and FarmRight have possibly tried/are trying to duplicate Dairy Holdings but I don't believe they have been successful in doing that.
Corporate farmers are still price takers and IMO this is a limiting factor to large scale corporate systems. If you look at those larger farmers e.g.Synlait Farms (original owners), Grant Patterson, Aad van Leeuwen etc who have gone on to develop processing facilities they have either sold out of the processing entitity completely or taken in other investors - foreign investors.
Not sure if that answers your question ;-)
CO: Thanks - yes it does answer it - have suspected for some time that was the case - surprised there hasn't been any discussion of it by the talking heads - too busy aggregating
There's a far more fundamental set of reasons for corporatisation.
- Having multiple properties: downland, upland, river bottom and hill-top, production, breeding, crop and grass and some spare, and across several TLA's, gives a corporate the ability to move quickly and cheaply to mitigate issues like nutrient spikes or a local Council tightening of regulation. If such issues occur, move the stock: to another farm, another jurisdiction. Problemo solvatio.
- Having a large balance sheet gives the ability to fund big capex: barns, robots, effluent treatment and recovery, and in general, differing styles of farming. Yer 1.7 FTE staff 300 grass-fed coo, single rotary outfit is nevah gonna make That happen.
- Similarly, environmental development like riparian fencing, de-stocking, installing a million sensors, is only possible in any short time-frame by a corporate: the mom-and-pop outfit just hasn't got the capital, the time or (especially if they are well since Mixed-Age themselves) the energy to do much.
Most of the above is well outside the usual political forces, but of course the more the urbanites wail about the environment, the greater the incentive to corporatise......be careful wotcha wish for....
waymad, I agree with the thrust of what you are saying however I believe there are two tiers of corporate farms in NZ and the driving forces behind them are quite different. There are those 'corporates' which are farmer based and those that are non farmer 'investor' based. Investor based farms are more likely to focus on dividends and there are some horror stories out there where investors wil prioritise dividend return (due to them needing the cash to fund the mortgage they have taken out to fund their 'investment') over environmental good, works. Not saying farmer corporates are always squeaky clean but they are in the game longer term and understand the volitility of payouts/climate etc.
It is much less useful now to be able to switch TLAs now as all RCs are bringing in nutrient limits, stricter environmental requirements etc. While some might differ in the detail, they all have a degree of doing the same. Riparian fencing is a condition of supply for Fonterra so you have to make the time now - it's not a choice. There are always lead in times - usually 2-5years notice. Capex on barns/sheds etc can be more available via corporates but it's not always the case it can depend on whether it's a 'farmer run' corporate or an 'investor' corporate.
Your last comment is especially true ;-)
Bob Jones said it years ago in an election campaign, and just a few minutes ago the ex- CEO of Landcare (on RadioNZ ) confirmed that farmers are prepared (encouraged by banks?) to spend far too much to buy farmland in the first place. If they held back some of that money they would be able to cover the development and maintenance costs of environmental protection.
Frankly they have to be encouraged ( pressured? ) into this and the best way would be by using the banks to become a party to it by upping their risk positions.
A tale
... I used to visit a family run farm in Southland. Well balanced, flats and hills, producing beef, wool,lamb, venison and velvet. Well planted with shelter belts, ponds and large numbers of ornamentals. Good quality running streams serving the stock. Picturesque and supporting a large family.
Fast forward. Marriage problems. Farm valued at dairy rates. Farmer forced to sell out.
Drove past a year or so back. The land is stripped bare. Not a tree in site. The homestead sits isolated in the middle of a large paddock, its wonderful garden gone. Irrigators spread out across the flats. Compleltley characterless and bare. A foreign worker drives cows along the road.
One of the most depressing thinsg I've ever seen.
Meanwhile, back in Hawaii......
Yes - if a farm is owned by people who live on the very same land, it's usually taken better care off than when the same piece of land is maximised for profit for an absentee landlord.....
DFTBA - I agree with your sentiment and pleased to see you said 'usually'. ;-)
What rastus describes is more the change from sheep/beef to what must be a large(ish) dairy farm. Pivots can't operate through trees though I have seen some planings of low growing plants on fencelines between where the pivots run.
rastus your comment refers more to change and perceptions.
I would challenge your assumption that the streams had quality water in them if they weren't stock excluded. Water testing on dairy conversions in Southland after converting, frequently shows an improvement in water quality e-coli levels simply due to stock being excluded. That doesn't mean that they weren't swimmable with sheep - it just means there is usually less e-coli with dairy.
While I agree a property planted in trees is much nicer to look at, they aren't practical with pivots (I'm a tree planter not a tree remover by the way :-)). You will see arable farms that operate pivots and also sheep farms with pivots also without trees where the pivots run. It's the pivots not dairy per se that causes trees to be removed. Pivots are much more efficient with water usage than the old border dyke/wild irrigation.
The dairy farm is likely to be supporting more families than when it was sheep, the fact that they are foreigners is irrelevant - how do you know they are not NZ citizens now?
Gardens are a personal preference. I find it disappointing to see matagouri and briar rose coming in to some areas that were once clean - the Grahame Sydney type landscapes. But these areas are usually now DoC owned so the land is reverting and in 100+years time the so called 'iconic' Graham Sydney landscapes could be a distant memory as native bush which once covered these hills will be once more. In my remaining lifetime they are likely to be in the 'ugly' stage that is necessary before they become beautiful bush clad mountains again.
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.