WORDS BY RICHARD RENNIE
As Christmas looms on the horizon and the new government ministers catch their breath before kicking off the New Year, farming leaders have some advice for them about the urgent matters they need to consider for their first term in their new roles.
The election saw something of a blue reset in the provinces after the surge of Labour votes that unusually dominated rural areas in the 2020 election, and many would view this as a “return to normal”.
But the rural sector has proven its ability to vote tactically, as it did in 2020, meaning the new government does not get a free pass, and farming leaders have been quick to remind it this is the case.
They are however prepared to give the new government a fair go and are keen to lay out some of the big issues that have been playing heavily upon many farmers’ minds over the past few years.
Regulatory overload
The Beef + Lamb report that came out in September highlighted how farmers had faced 20 new regulatory demands in the past six years underscored farmers’ biggest headache.
This is the pressure to meet what appeared to be a never-ending stream of new regulations, but not always having the advice, tools, or support to enable them to do so.
The report found annual consenting costs across four farms were as high as $30,000 with one farm facing a one-off resource consent of $220,000. The freshwater farm plans alone were costing $15,000, plus annual costs for updating and auditing.
Federated Farmers’ new president Wayne Langford captured that frustration when he welcomed the new government. He says he took heart from all three parties— National, ACT and New Zealand First—all adopting many of the 12-point policy priorities the Feds had put forward prior to the election.
These included unlocking New Zealand’s potential through water storage, allowing young farmers to access their KiwiSaver for farm purchases, scrapping the ute tax, fixing infrastructure, and making freshwater rules workable.
Langford voiced farmers’ frustration at the number of regulations, particularly those around biodiversity, green house gases and water quality.
“The intent of these regulations may have been good, but the reality of the execution and implementation has been nothing short of disastrous for our farmers.”
“The end result is a long list of highly prescriptive and unworkable rules that tie us up in red tape and heap on unnecessary costs,” he says.
A priority pre-Christmas is for the Feds to work with government to try and fix the challenging freshwater regulations for a start.
Across New Zealand, regional councils are compelled to work on new rules that are challenged for their practicality by farmers and rural communities.
Refloating He Waka
Meantime the challenges of He Waka Eke Noa that have pre-occupied the primary sector for the past five years have not disappeared with the change in government.
National has declared its intention to stay the course with the fundamentals of the Zero Carbon Act and the Climate Change Commission, although some adjustments around how New Zealand allows for meeting its Paris Accord commitments may arise.
Regardless, HWEN appeared to have fallen by the wayside prior to the election, with little mention from either industry leaders or politicians as its future direction appeared to stall.
Getting it refloated and back on course in some shape or form will have to be a priority, given the 2030 deadline the sector had set to achieve a 10% reduction in emissions on 2017 levels.
Regardless of what regulations are laid down however, overseas markets are moving at pace to set standards from farmer suppliers that may make regulations a moot exercise.
Companies including Tesco’s who purchase 40% of their lamb from New Zealand have already laid out their expectations for farmers to reduce their carbon footprint as that company moves towards reducing Scope 3 emissions from landbased activities (food supply) by 39% by 2032.
The possibility that market demands overwhelm regulation timelines is becoming more likely, leaving red meat farmers in particular with few options to adapt their farming practices, other than to try and offset carbon, or reduce stock numbers to a point they are no longer viable.
Getting water rules right
Canterbury farmers in particular will welcome the support across all parties for more water storage. The previous National government had strongly advocated for irrigation, with the Crown Irrigation Investment Fund helping provide some certainty for projects that otherwise struggled to get traction with their high upfront capital costs.
National has committed to quicker consenting decisions for off-farm water storage, with consent durations pushed out to 30 years to encourage more investment.
Irrigation NZ CEO Vanessa Winning has welcomed this to help farmers and growers invest for climate adaptation and land use change.
Irrigation NZ chair, Keri Johnson has also called for a Minister for Water be established to help reduce the risk of water being a political football to be kicked around every three years. She sees it as an all-encompassing position covering wetlands, water storage, drinking water, farm management, hydro and dam safety.
Given its value as this country’s most precious resource, it would enable New Zealand to better manage, allocate and preserve that resource to add value while also protecting the environment in a more holistic approach than today’s splintered, siloed efforts.
Looking after the rules we have
Farmers frustrated at incoming regulations could justifiably also be expecting the new government to take a closer look at existing regulations. Some are hindering efforts and technology uptake that can provide farmers with the tools so desperately needed to meet the challenges of climate change, and market demands for lower residuals.
Foundation for Arable Research (FAR) CEO Alison Stewart has voiced her frustration at how her farmer members are shut out of accessing the latest technology in crop treatments, as new generations of low residual, ‘softer’ sprays are available to their peers overseas.
With delays in Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) approvals skyrocketing to as much as five times the statutory limits, New Zealand farmers are at real risk of falling behind as the European Union lowers limits or outright bans many of the older chemicals slow regulations here have seen them stuck with.
Alison Stewart has said it is the single biggest issue facing the sector, and one that has only grown worse in the past six years.
Plant and Animal Health New Zealand has noted how Kiwi farmers have had to rely upon old chemistry and products that will soon no longer be acceptable to overseas markets, leaving New Zealand at real risk of holding unsalable product, and compromising this country’s reputation as a safe, modern food supplier.
The European Union’s timeline on its Green Deal means by 2030 pesticide use is to be halved and
residues restricted. This leaves New Zealand little time to adopt new treatments and technology to be in tune with those regulations.
Similarly, scientists, farmers and companies have grown frustrated by New Zealand’s increasingly out of date regulations around gene editing technology which makes trialling crops here virtually impossible. They are leaving the country falling behind the likes of United States, Australia and South America as those countries use the technology to adopt crop production to the challenges of climate change and diseases.
At present New Zealand researchers are forced to trial GE crops overseas, with no prospect of them being able to be brought back here.
Prior to the election National promised to end the ban on gene technology trials here and pressure will be strong from across the primary sector to see this conducted. In line with other OECD countries New Zealand’s trial approval process will be streamlined to enable quicker proof and uptake of the technology among farmers and orchardists.
The New Year gives farmers and government a chance for a reset after what has been a challenging, stressful period. It also gives cause for hope with no leaders advocating for a ditching of regulations intended to respond to climate change, protect biodiversity and maintain water quality, and this is at least a good starting point for a new relationship.
Back to Real Farmer