Content supplied by Federated Farmers
Despite 5.7 dairy cattle for every man, woman and child in Southland, the region now boasts some of most environmentally compliant farmers in New Zealand.
"The compliance monitoring results from Environment Southland, which came out before Christmas, was a real boost for our guys," says Russell MacPherson, Federated Farmers Southland provincial president.
"It is not just us in the far south but this is a trend throughout New Zealand. After catching talkback radio recently, the shame is that some people have been suckered in by a clever but increasingly redundant slogan. "
"I mean the Ministry for the Environment’s "River condition indicator Summary and key findings" must be the most non-reported study of 2013. A 10-year review of water quality found, “of the parameters we [the MfE] monitor, all are either stable or improving at most monitored sites. Four of our parameters show stable or improving trends in 90% of sites”.
"Take the Mataura River, which received the regional award for the most improved river at the first New Zealand River Awards. There are physical results proving that it is working and it goes to show how Southland’s farmers are hitting their straps environmentally."
"The majority of Southland’s 887 farming effluent discharge consent holders inspected by Environment Southland were fully compliant with their consent conditions."
"While we farm in what seemingly feels like a glass house, the fact is we are doing better each year environmentally and economically."
"In terms of ground and surface water, the vast majority of our farms are doing pretty well here as well."
"Federated Farmers believes a new attitude shown by Environment Southland, to actively work alongside farmers like in Taranaki, is starting to pay off. Farmers previously felt like they’d be belted for anything but we’re now seeing partnership and greater understanding."
"The way town and country are coming together is also evidenced by the way the New River Estuary has galvanised Invercargill residents around storm and wastewater."
"It will upset those who have made a career out of grievance but truth eventually cuts through spin."
"Perhaps that’s the nub of the issue we face as it’s all about perception, much like that Lincoln University survey from last year. There’s what some people think we do and what we actually do. Trying to connect the two is going to take time."
"That could start by having the same scrutiny our farms are put under extended to our local councils."
"I mean there’s been three human sewerage spills within a month into Lake Wakatipu and the latest one closed a 200 metre stretch of beach right where our family, like many, swim and boat when on holiday."
"If town and country had the same level of scrutiny then the national conversation, I feel, would be much better," Mr MacPherson concluded.
4 Comments
On page 4 it tells us that %34 of groundwater tested was marginal, ie.Marginal – any results exceeding the above criteria. It does not tell us how bad the %34 is
http://www.es.govt.nz/media/33567/environmental_compliance_monitoring_report_2012-2013.pdf
Good - the E coli result must be at levels less than 1 MPN/100 mL OR
Nitrate Nitrogen levels less than 9 g/m3 OR a series of results that do
not show an increasing trend in the level of Nitrate (an increasing trend
is defined as: an initial Nitrate-Nitrogen concentration in the order of
6 g/m3 and consistently increasing over a three to five year period);
Not Good - the E coli result must be at levels more than 1 MPN/100 mL AND
Nitrate Nitrogen levels more than 9 g/m3 AND a series of results that do
show an increasing trend in the level of Nitrate (an increasing trend
is defined as: an initial Nitrate-Nitrogen concentration in the order of
6 g/m3 and consistently increasing over a three to five year period);
Not Good = Marginal
That kind of thing usually pops up when one group (eg council) are tryng to push through a blanket control (and one that usually only really applies to 10% of their area)...and watchdog groups jump on them.
The watchdogs get told they have to explain themselves and show the reason for their objection, always in writing, with expensive reports attached.
The the authourity government decides whether they can bulldoze the objections, get around them with closed meetings, or whether to introduce detail like you see above.
Because the original objection is in writing, and has to be very specific, it makes such self-created-loopholes easy to invoke. Then the objectors are rendered powerless because they can't object to a "working solution", nor can they go to a wider approach to continue their objective as that will be presented to powers-that-be (in writing) as the objectors trying to hold-up the process with fabrications ("moved the goal posts"). Thus the objectors get pigeonholed, or their initial objection becomes tissue paper.
Then when the law is entrenched, preferable with other laws or schedules referring to it, and people are mostly complioant, they just pull out the loopholed parts - leaving the objectors stuck trying to object to historically accepted legislation..... (hard to insist something not be removed...). It also gives the authourities time to find some nutter academic with an axe to grind to make some surgical reports of their own (using ratepayers money... - objectors of course, have to pay from their own pockets)
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.