What Hugh said

PRESENTATION TO ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND - APRIL 4/2012

RE: INTERIM POLICY.

Thank you. I speak to you in favour of the adoption etc..

It is surprising dairy farmers are here today to oppose a new policy that will secure their future, and improve the community perception of their industry.

The use of the two new tools, nutrient use and wintering will result in improved environmental performance, farm management and stewardship.

Currently urea can be applied in winter months and herd wintering has seen cows penetrating the depth of mole plough and subsoiler drains. Not to mention the guy with his travelling irrigator going in the snow, legally apparently!!

I personally, could provide fertiliser applications and rates, and stock winter management for my properties for the past 30 years and not be embarrassed ever. Why the difficulty then getting this over the line??

Nutrient Management.

If fertiliser companies and their research arm Fert NZ effectively transferred their knowledge and research to all farmers and it was mandatory to heed advice on applications, timing, optimal use of fertiliser, prudent use of nitrogenous products and alternative fertilisers/inputs to reduce leaching the unfortunate practices mentioned might not occur. Their failure to prevent urea use in June, or urea applications on to wet cold ground in August means ES has to step in with rules to do the fertiliser’s industry job for them.

Wintering Systems.

Last winter with few frosts and continual wet weather exposed the fragility of Southland’s soils, even free draining soils to pugging, compaction and run-off to such a degree even below average farmers admitted this type of cow wintering cannot continue. Soils that have to be mechanically aerated to later cultivate have been seriously damaged often below the plough pan, impeding drainage and severely limiting future production. So again ES finds itself considering rules to improve management practices.

Real Estate Industry.

Realty agents are remiss for not generally supplying the financials for potential purchasers to do due diligence which they should. They should also be supplying topo-climate information, soil maps and explaining the strengths and impediments of the farm soils as an ‘environment due diligence’, for accurate assessment of carrying capacities etc.. before acquisition, not have purchasers work out later the hard way.

Because they don’t ES has to consider regulations with Farm Management Plans to cover these deficiencies.

Finance Industry.

Sound lending practice in my day would require banks to account for contingencies before settlement, such as adequate housing, wintering systems,

capital fertiliser, farm effluent and so on, but instead the current practice appears to be, is to settle up and further encumber mortgagors with the cost of contingencies later sometimes putting the enterprise at risk. This does two things, it elevates property values and overlooks contingencies that may be vital to reduce the environmental footprint of the new owners.

When the banking industry don’t do their job ES steps in and regulates.

2.

Lastly Dairy Co’s, or any processor and marketer of NZ farm produce, if they want market access overseas, and selling NZ made on the premise of clean, green and grass fed, then they must walk the talk and provide the necessary advisory and consulting services to improve on-farm performance and infrastructural information, to the standards they apply to their product beyond the farm gate to market. Without it ES inevitably steps in and regulates.

This policy is transitional; an interim measure until the broader policies around land and water is developed.

It will effect only new land intensification consent applications but will be closely watched by other industry players.

Farmers currently operating good systems, practising good plant and animal husbandries and who know their soils strengths and impediments, should have nothing to fear but be confident the Interim Policy will correct the ‘new entrants from further damaging their industries image.

There is a growing willingness by all these groups/stakeholders (if you like) I have mentioned to be party to solutions. If each took responsibility for their respective interests then potentially compliance costs could be declining, not escalating.

Farmers could even self audit, look at Waituna, farmers their now into their second public audit, it just shows what could be achieved working catchment by catchment, community by community.

The key I believe as a game breaker is a Memo of Understanding or a Heads of Stakeholders agreement so that all subsequent progress has the mandate and endorsement via the Memorandum.

Stakeholders have the technology, the knowledge and innovation to drive this innitiative, but lack the leadership, co-operation, determination and goodwill to succeed.

Cairan Keogh had started with his letter to Theo Spierings and had the support of an advisory group of farmers and consultants.

The point that has been missed is, it isn’t about the doubling of the industry in the past 10 years and the maintenance of water quality, but the doubling again in the next 10 years, and how this vast economic activity can be accommodated without environmental degradation.

The adoption of the Interim Rule is the starting point prompted by stakeholders and farmers not doing their own jobs.

It needs all the stake holders together writing policy, with forward thinking farmers that represent the new age not the stone-age. Parties that have a common objective of having economic progress without compromising our environment , at the least cost of compliance and control.

I endorse the Interim Policy adoption.

Thank you

Hugh Gardyne

President Federated Farmers Southland