A Fed Farmers peer review of a report that claimed dairy farmers were getting away with pollution has found it poorly written, with unsupported assumptions that were negatively "spun"reports Stuff The report they have reviewed was released last month by Fish & Game and Forest & Bird. It looked at progress since the dairy industry's 2003 Clean Streams Accord. The writers, Fish & Game's Neil Deans and Forest & Bird's Kevin Hackwell, found that water quality in dairy farming areas had continued to fall since the accord was signed by Fonterra and central and local government. Fed Farmers instituted a peer review, saying it would take a dispassionate look at the report,and 5 weeks later, have concluded that the report was "˜"˜poorly constructed and written as a campaign tool''. They say Deans and Hackwell made "˜"˜a number of unfounded suppositions and reach conclusions unsupported by the source data. Worse, the data, in places, is "˜spun' to support a negative conclusion when the actual data is either neutral or positive''. The report failed to use the same methodology for research as that undertaken by the accord partners. "˜"˜The difference in data collection means no valid comparative analysis can be done; it is comparing apples with kiwifruit.''The reviewers say they are also alarmed at "˜"˜leaps in logic'', based on statements from regional councils, which were used to justify criticism of the accord. They say five years is too short a time to be judgmental about the accord. Research suggests measurable improvements in streams may not be seen for 10-15 years and that for groundwater it may take up to 135 years.
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.