Appendix 2: Summary of Responses from Regional Authorities
As part of the process of preparing this strategy interviews were carried out with staff from the 13 relevant regional authorities. The main points made in those interviews were:
- Almost all regional authorities strongly support the Accord. While most councils voiced some criticism of the Accord targets, and particularly their lack of precision, all see the Accord itself as a significant step forward by Fonterra. There was much favourable comment about it being an industry-led initiative.
- Councils were roughly divided in half between those who saw the Accord as making either a little, or a reasonable amount of, difference to their regional environment. Importantly, almost all councils did, however, comment that the Accord has changed the attitude of most farmers, and some observed that it is making their regulatory job much easier, particularly in relation to stock access to water courses and provision of stream crossings. Some councils also commented that the Accord has encouraged farmers to prepare farm plans that look at sustainable management on their properties, and that the Accord was an element of wider initiatives by farmers to improve their environmental performance. In other words, one of the major benefits of the Accord has been to change attitudes among dairy farmers to environmental management and protection.
- Some councils were critical that the size of streams to which stock access is to be restricted under the Accord is subject to variability in measurement (is it, for instance, measured during high, average or low flow conditions). Councils generally observed that the Accord water courses make up only a proportion of those actually located on farms, with ephemeral, first order and second order streams unlikely to be included in the Accord's on-farm actions.
- Many councils saw the Accord targets as being too open to interpretation and felt those targets should be better defined. There was a general consensus that the targets did not necessarily go far enough in determining exactly what the objectives were, making environmental outcomes difficult to achieve.
- Most councils were keen to go further than the Accord targets in improving the management of non-point source discharges from dairying. Two commonly cited examples were encouraging fencing of smaller water courses, even if only by single strand electric fencing, and encouraging planting of fenced riparian margins with native vegetation. Many councils also promote farm management planning, and see implementation of the Accord as part of that wider objective. In other words, implementation of the Accord is just part of a wider range of activities councils promote to mitigate the effects of dairying on the environment.
- Most councils listed faecal contamination, nutrients and suspended sediment as the main water quality issues in lowland surface water bodies in their regions.
- Environment Canterbury observed that the main water quality concerns in their region were nitrate-nitrogen and faecal contamination of groundwater, and that this is not addressed comprehensively by the Accord. Several other councils (Manawatu-Wanganui, Wellington, Waikato) expressed the same concern for some discrete parts of their regions. [Compliance with consent or permitted activity conditions to discharge to land will generally help limit nitrogen leaching, as there is usually a requirement to limit application rates to say 150-200 kg/N/ha/y. Similarly, the preparation of on-farm nutrient management plans should limit nitrogen leaching rates to groundwater.]
- All councils supported the current project to prepare a national monitoring and reporting strategy, and most were keen to see some specific monitoring undertaken in their region, provided in some cases they did not have to pay the full costs of doing so.
