National News > July 2007

Federated Farmers  National Conference 18/19 July 2007

Rob Roney
Chairman New Zealand Council
Fish and Game NZ

Developing a Sustainable Relationship

Introduction
 
First of all, thank you for the invitation to attend and speak at your conference. It is the first time that I am aware that either of our organisations has made such an initiative, particularly at a governance level, and I am very confident that an improved understanding between us will lead to mutual and on-going benefits.

As Charlie has mentioned, I live on the West Coast of the South Island, by choice, where I enjoy some of the country’s best hunting and clear water fly fishing.

I do have an interest in trees and forestry, and the site we planted on had previously been gold mined. It probably wasn’t the best investment I’ve ever made and I did anticipate we would accumulate some Carbon Credits along the way.  And yes, I have expressed my views to the Government. 

I do have family members involved in farming, and my late father in law David Kane was a Federated Farmers provincial chairman for North Otago.

It may also interest your that last week I spent 4 days flood-bound on a dairy farm in Northland, and gained some first hand experience of the trials and tribulations of farming in New Zealand. This included rescuing new born calves and milking by hand. It also gave me an opportunity to observe the spectrum of environmental farming practices.

I intend to start by briefly outlining the functions and aims of Fish and Game New Zealand. Although our functions are clearly set out under the Conservation Act (1987) our primary responsibility is NOT conservation or to be an ‘environmental lobbyist’ as we are often portrayed. Our statutory function is simply to ‘manage, maintain, and enhance the sports fish and game resource in the recreational interests of anglers and hunters’.  We therefore make no apology for our strong advocacy on habitat protection and public access.

Politically our organisation is based on a ‘user pays, user says’ model, involving elected and unpaid governors, including the NZC Chairman! It is a successful model, and one that is envied by angling and hunting organisations world wide.  In essence it has the end users of a public natural resource managing those resources for sustainable use, within a statutory framework.

The system works because the resource is managed by those that have the most to lose if it fails. This helps to ensure we manage our species sustainably. I assume a similar philosophy applies to the family farm!  Why would you not want to manage your farm in an environmentally sustainable manner? 

I should also note a difference in approaches between our organisations; while your elected representatives are the spokespeople and the public face of Federated Farmers, the opposite is the case for Fish & Game, where the Chief Executive and staff conduct public advocacy.

As farmers, you will understand that the key to maintaining healthy populations of wildlife is to look after the habitat. An important component of this, as it is for your farm animals, is clean water.  The primary responsibility for protecting the habitat and water quality that our species require however, is actually that of the DOC and Regional Councils. Not ours.

We have been forced into the role of ‘protector of streams and wetlands’ due to lack of performance of these agencies. It is certainly not our choice to spend licence holders dollars to do someone else’s job.

So, it is their failure to adequately and consistently carry out these responsibilities under the Conservation Act and RMA which has brought some of your members and Fish and Game into conflict. Sadly, some Regional Councils are only seriously beginning to address these issues now. 

Had this been done so even 10 years ago, and Regional Councils and others caused agriculture to look more closely at it’s own environmental footprint, environmentally sustainable systems would be more completely integrated into farming practices at a time when agricultural research was perhaps easier to access than now.

A lot of time has been wasted in debating the causes and effects of these issues, and in assigning blame. And it’s certainly not my intention waste any more doing that now. Instead we need to be openly acknowledging the problem and working together if we are to make any meaningful progress. I know that in my own region, and in most Fish and Game regions our staff have very good relationships with farmers overall, and do work closely with farmers to seek solutions to a range of issues.

I guess one of the questions we need to address today is why is that not being replicated at National level. It seems that our relationships work well at a one-to-one level on the ground.  But when the issues become national, and they are framed as points of principle and or generalities, or perhaps injected with an element of controversy to gain traction in the media, we talk about each other, rather than with each other. 

The challenge for both of our groups is to find common ground somewhere, and work towards positive outcomes for both organisations. When I look at the issues common to both groups, I can see no fundamental reason why this shouldn’t happen.

A clearer understanding of the reasoning behind our views would seem to be a logical place to start.

So what then are the issues connecting both organisations?

Water quality

This is a big one for us. The simple fact is - trout require clean water. In fact they are often regarded as ‘Ecological Indicators’, as anything which adversely affects trout, is likely to affect the general health of the stream or lake in general.

To us, high water quality, which New Zealand has historically enjoyed, is non-negotiable, and we are pleased  to see that this is now recognised in the Government’s ‘Sustainable Water Programme of Action’ and their recent announcement that National Environmental Standards are to be introduced.

The poor state of our lowland waterways has been well documented, by regional councils, the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, and more recently the OECD ‘Review on New Zealand’s Environmental Performance’.  Your own Water Quality Forum held recently, also acknowledges that changes in farming practices are essential.

We accept that this is not an agricultural problem alone; It just so happens that only 3% on New Zealand’s waterways (by length), run through urban areas usually at the bottom of the catchments close to the sea.
The correlation between agricultural intensity and Nitrate leaching into waterways is clearly established. (Environment Waikato 1999, MFE, OECD Environmental Performance Review NZ.)

That is why we introduced our ‘Campaign for Clean Water’, or ‘Dirty Dairying Campaign as it became known’, and contrary to comments by the head of your Dairy Section to the Bay of Plenty Federated Farmers Conference recently, we have never discussed abandoning it. If there is to be an end-point I would assume it will only be when we are convinced that the industry itself has taken full responsibility for it’s adverse environmental effects, and is achieving compliance with Regional Council resource consents. I cannot speak for other groups who have concerns around public health issues.

As a country we are not alone with these problems. As long ago as 1991 The European Union introduced a ‘Nitrate Directive’ for member states to address the increasing Nitrate levels in waterways. It is interesting to note that although these trends have now been stabilised or even reversed for 64% of their member states, they are now requiring them to ‘introduce dissuasive penalties for the producers who do not ensure eco-compliance’.

Changing Human behaviour is not easy. We have experienced this with our switch to non toxic shot for gamebird hunting, and with our efforts to stem the spread of Didymo.  In some ways, the position your organisation is in with nutrient and runoff and bacterial numbers, parallels our position with lead shot, which we also needed to keep out of waterways.

 In our case we embarked on a phased transition towards total compliance, starting with education programmes and voluntary use of non toxic alternatives, and over a period of 5 years, increasing compulsion to use non toxic shot, such as steel, on a wider range of waters. As you can imagine, there was some resistance to this, particularly by hunters who had to buy new guns to handle steel shot. Now, I’m happy to say, it is rare to find hunters using lead shot within 200m of any waterway. If we do, they are prosecuted.

We were pleased to see Fonterra’s CEO Andrew Ferrier introduce a 3 step ‘Effluent Indicator System’ to deal with the 30% (based on their Accord figures) who are letting themselves and the industry down and not lifting their game, on a voluntary basis.
While this is a positive step forward, I do have concerns that, when reading the fine print, it seems that Fonterra’s involvement will only occur after the Regional Council brings the matter of critical and persistent non-compliance by a supplier to Fonterra’s attention. This would therefore only occur once the Regional Council had used all its powers to require compliance, presumably including the Courts.

I genuinely hope my interpretation is wrong, as in my view Fonterra’s direct involvement is potentially more powerful than having to rely on an outside agency, acting through regulation. Giving the ‘Dairying and Clean Streams Accord’ some formal status within Fonterra’s ‘Terms and Conditions of Supply’ would be a further good signal that would not disadvantage good operators but ‘assist’ the not-so-good ones.

This is not to say, however, that Education and voluntary compliance should not have a continuing role. It is occurring, by the majority, and I congratulate those involved for that. I think there is the potential for Fish and Game to be of assistance in this process. For example, when farmers observe the results of electric fishing surveys on ditches and small creeks  and discover  trout fingerlings or native fish on their land, they often express surprise and show a genuine willingness to protect them. 

Perhaps also F&G could work with Federated Farmers on a joint award scheme for significant and pioneering efforts by individuals and become involved in assisting farmers with their plans for riparian planting.

Water quantity
 
Water has been described by some as ‘the currency of the 21st century’.  From our perspective, and against a background of climate change, decreasing supplies of fossil fuels, and intensification of agriculture to supply the world with both food and now biofuels, this is certainly ringing true.  The scramble for water is well and truly on, and unfortunately appears to be outpacing any coherent planning to manage it. (Example Environment Canterbury’s over-allocation of water rights or the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Plan 2004 being challenged within 2 years of its enactment by parliament.)

Our problem, of course, is that all of these factors result in increased demand on available water resources and in many instances the effects are compounding. For example, drawing water from a river for irrigation to increase production, unless gravity fed, requires energy. That in turn further increases pressure for Hydro development. Furthermore, the decrease in water volumes in the river increases the  concentration of pollutants and damages the habitat for both wildlife and our own health and enjoyment.

While water is seen to be a renewable resource, the aquatic ecosystems, which depend upon it, are not. The number of rivers in New Zealand which are unaffected by hydro development or water abstraction are finite, and decreasing rapidly.

At what point do we say enough is enough?  When all rivers and waterways have been dammed? And then what? I would be interested to hear your answers to  this question?

Fish and Game NZ are very comfortable with the fact that sustainable agricultural systems, and I mean both environmentally and economically, now appear to be policy cornerstones of the major NZ political parties. We believe that Environmental sustainability is actually  a pre-requisite for Economic sustainability. The often quoted adage “you can’t be green if you’re in the red” is fast becoming replaced with “you won’t be in the black if you aren’t green”. 

The challenge for the farming industry is to ensure farming practices are in fact environmentally sustainable. In an era where ‘food miles’ are used as marketing weapons against our products now, more intensive scrutiny of all aspects of our agricultural production must be expected in the future.

In this respect, I wonder how the extraction of massive volumes of water from rivers and it’s application to the thin soils and porous gravels of the Canterbury Plains will be judged.  Will they be forced into a ‘housed cut and carry’ system of farming as has been suggested by some?

Biosecurity

The discovery of ‘Didymo’ in the Mararoa river in Southland was a major wake-up call for us, just as Clover Root Weevil and Varroa must have been for the farming community. These biosecurity breaches remind us of two things; our susceptibility to biological influences and the fact that we are no longer isolated from the rest of the world. As a forest owner I am also aware of the risks posed by the Asian Gypsy moth and similar pests and diseases.

I see little point in attempting to make political gain over who introduced these organisms. The fact is, they were introduced and they must be dealt with. That organisms such as these are able to enter our country must be much more of  a concern for both of our organisations, and the delay in dealing with Didymo was perhaps a factor in its rapid spread throughout the South Island. With tourist numbers expected to greatly increase, we should be working together to see a lift in performance of the agencies involved.

Wildlife schedule

Of all Fish and Game species there are few which elicit emotion and hype as much as the Canada Goose, whatever your perspective.  They are challenging to hunt and held in very high status by hunters. I once suggested that in recognition of the qualities of this intelligent game bird we should have a special licence to hunt Canada Geese valued at around $200, but I have to say this reverse psychology was lost on my colleagues.

 I still have trouble understanding why people are prepared to spend $600 dollars a day to hunt on Pheasant Preserves when we have Canada Geese to hunt in the wild. I  enjoy hunting Canada Geese in South Westland and do so on a regular basis.

As you are aware Canada Goose numbers in the South Island have remained relatively constant over the past 20 years (Potts Landcare), but in the North Island where their introduction is relatively recent, they continue to increase, as perhaps you would expect.

The problem with Canada Geese is that their impacts are often inconsistent and random in terms of time and place, varying with climate, pasture quality, and control methods employed.

There is clearly a correlation between Canada Goose numbers and feed quality and quantity, as supported by studies of Caithness and Potts during the 1980’s. We have also witnessed this in my own region, the West Coast, where prior to recent agricultural intensification, Canada goose numbers were extremely low.

I believe it is significant that in my home region, one of the few where Federated farmers have not supported a change of status for Canada Geese, Fish and Game have worked closely with farmers to achieve desired outcomes in terms of Goose impacts. It is also significant that in this region farmers have also contributed financially towards achieving those outcomes, which has resulted in a 15% Coast-wide decrease in numbers between 2005 and 2006.

If there is a change of status of Canada Geese, it seems inevitable there will be a significant new financial cost to farmers. Whether those costs will be ongoing, time will tell.

Access

I must start by congratulating you on the success of your ‘Orange Ribbon’ campaign, prior to the last election. Your timing and publicity created worked perfectly. We remain unconvinced, to put it mildly, that the information you gave your members was an accurate representation of the situation, but I guess the end result justified your means.

However, after seeing Charlie’s plight with thieves on his farm on TV  the recently, I can understand his concerns, but note they have no direct relevance to public access to public resources.

I think it would be helpful if I  put this issue into perspective:

The vast majority of farms in New Zealand do not have any water bodies of any interest to the general public for recreation.

• Of the remaining small minority of farms that do have rivers, streams or lakes of potential value for  recreation, a Queen’s Chain already exists on around 70% of them – which means the public already have as-of-right legal access to them for recreation.
• So when we consider the farms that do actually have rivers, streams or lakes potentially attractive for passive recreation and that are not already covered by existing Queen’s Chain, you end up with a very small proportion of New Zealand farms in total.
• Not insignificantly, many farmers and their families also require access to the great outdoors, if not hunting and fishing then tramping and boating.

I think one of the issues for many farmers I have spoken to is that they see nothing wrong with the status quo. And in the majority of cases we would have to agree –particularly where I live, and we really do appreciate the generous access hunters and fishers have always enjoyed in this country, to the extent it is embedded  in our Kiwi culture.

The problem as I see it, is that rural NZ is changing. Farms are getting larger, becoming more ‘industrialised’, many owned by syndicates with non-resident or even foreign owners. The trend appears to be towards decreasing family ownership and community involvement. More New Zealanders are living in cities and have, no rural connections or understanding – which is a huge problem for both of us.

This, together with a proliferation of ‘life-stylers’ on 10 acre blocks is beginning to make access to waterways or hunting areas progressively more difficult. I should note that urban people who fish and hunt are important in fostering and promoting rural values.

So what is Fish and Game’s perspective on Access and the Access panel’s report to the Government? There were many aspects we were happy with: the Panel’s endorsement of public rights and expectations, the high level principles, and many of the individual recommendations.

The heart of this issue for us lies in the intersection of Public versus Private property rights. While we acknowledge that private property rights are generally regarded as sacrosanct, they are not absolute. For example, water, fisheries and wildlife are public resources, and do not attach to land title as they do in many countries. 

We believe that the public should have reasonable rights of access to these publicly owned resources.  No one has ever advocated a right to roam or wander at will; but it does mean some surety of negotiated access points where none currently exist, and that should be the role of the proposed Access Agency.

What does concern us is that the Access Agency is only required to be an ‘impartial adviser’ on access issues. It appears to lack the authority to pro-actively initiate new access, and an ability to make determinations on new and ‘lost’ access rights. In this form it will largely replicate what Fish and Game staff are already doing.

Why would a landowner, who enjoys ‘exclusive access’ to a public resource, for example a trout fishery, by luck of their location, bother to go into negotiation with an Access Agency who at the end of the day has no real powers to determine an outcome. By refusing to negotiate, his exclusive access to a public resource is preserved.  We would argue that in such instances, an individual should not be able to restrict access of the public to a significant public resource.

Similarly, to leave the completion, restoration, or realignment of ‘lost’ Queens Chain to a voluntary negotiation process is clearly insufficient.  The issue should not be if the Queens Chain should be realigned, but how it should be realigned and under what settlement agreement, including compensation where appropriate.”  The existing Queens Chain on 70% of our waterways now seems to present few problems for adjacent landowners, why would we expect the remaining 30% to?

The status of  unformed legal or ‘paper’ roads in the new regime will be critically important. We are comfortable with the Access panel’s recommendation of using these as a negotiation point to acquire improved access in more appropriate locations, and their agreement  that the default position should be ‘right for right’.

The bottom line for us however  is that unformed paper roads belong to the public of New Zealand and  in law have the same status as formed roads.

Summary

In summary the message I really want to get through is that  F&G is not anti-farmer – we are pro-freshwater.  Like most of NZ, we wish our primary industries and farming well, and support their contribution to our economy and community.  Neither do we have any desire, or expertise, to tell you how to operate.  But we do claim the right to advocate for clean natural freshwater.  We believe that farming can be both profitable and environmentally sustainable – in fact it will have to be.

In the meantime, I will look forward to a point in the future, where the clean water requirements of the humble trout and their plentiful numbers will be regarded by the next generation of New Zealand farmers, not as a stroke of good fortune, but a as an outstanding legacy of their forebears’ foresight and commitment to environmentally sustainable farming practices