Appendix 1: Focus Group Meeting Summaries
Matamata
Environment Waikato perspective
EW has two main sets of regulation addressing NPS. There is a requirement in the proposed plan for all landholders wishing to apply over 60 kgN/ha/year to have used a nutrient budgeting model. There is however no requirement that the recommendations of the budgeting model have to be adhered to, and no specific model is required to be used (although guidance notes are included in the plan).
EW has rules for stock crossings, and clearance of forestry >1 ha requires a resource consent. In high risk erosion areas a setback of 10 m from the waterway is required, which increases to 100 m in very steep land. Cultivation is prohibited within 2 m of a water body.
EW regards itself as having put a lot of emphasis on education and incentives. They see their regulation as trying to embody BMPs, and the level at which regulation is set is a subject of extensive consultation with the community. Their regulatory approach is based on a classification of water bodies, with more pristine bodies having tighter rules.
Regulation is being considered to deal with the increase in N contaminants in Lake Taupo, but it has not yet been determined whether this will be a Section 9 or 15 based regulation. EW has stated that it does not wish to compromise landholders' livelihoods in respect of changes which are made to the NPS regime in that area.
Landholder meeting
Farm type
Dairy: 3
Sheep and beef: 3
Horticulture: 3
Key issues
- Water quality for irrigation and effects that land use has
- Urban versus rural perceptions
- Realistic rate of improvement in water quality
- Impacts on drinking water and the biology of the soil
- Water quality for irrigation and drinking
- Need to improve water quality
- What restrictions will be brought in the future
Proportion believing they had an effect on water quality
Yes, but try and minimise: 4
Minimal (various reasons): 3
No (type of biological system used): 2
The facilitators felt that the group composition was probably skewed towards those with greater environmental awareness, probably through unconscious selection by those asked to contribute names.
Discussion on rights and responsibilities
The group expressed some surprise at the use of the term rights, in that they believe they experience restrictions rather than had rights. This was expressed a number of ways through the meeting, yet there were some contradictory messages. One person noted that at present there wasn't anything that actually stopping him doing what he wanted:
"Really speaking, I could behave in a very irresponsible manner ... and quite frankly get away with it ... I mean there are rules but ... there is nothing really stopping me."
The farmers saw regulation coming through the councils, through peer pressure, through industry initiatives, and through their own sense of stewardship:
"I see myself not as an owner of land with rights, but rather a steward of the land, a custodian, with some responsibilities, even it is just to ones kids. I think a bit broader than that, but others don't think like that"
[Responding to a comment about another non-group farmer's approach] "That's an old attitude, a Victorian attitude, "it's there for us to take" ..."
Although this was tempered by one's view that:
"When thinking about responsibilities, [we] tend to think of point sources rather than a broader impact across the landscape."
Industry regulation was seen as more desirable than outside regulation, since it was related to the marketplace.
"We do not want the Director General of DOC, say, to write what the conditions are. I think they need to be somehow industry self imposed."
However discussion on the usefulness of education was mixed. Most seemed to believe that there was a small minority who would try to get away with what they could, and that there was a need for regulation to control those people. This group however appeared to believe that regulation to date had merely been best practice, and that it was not too intrusive. They saw the need for flexibility in regulation:
"The worst that could happen is to get really prescriptive - so many kg of N per ha."
"There are some people who can push the boundaries and still be sustainable and not do any damage."
The facilitation aimed to bring the discussion back to the concept of what rights they believed they had. This concept of what rights they did hold was reiterated and discussed several times. After some discussion where one person indicated that he didn't believe that he had any rights ("[We] haven't got a right - it is a perception"), another responded by stating that he believed their core right:
"[We] have a right to make a living off that ... by using responsible methods of utilising that property that you own."
This seemed to get general acceptance in the group, and was then repeated on other occasions:
"... have a perceived right that when you buy land you can manage it in such a way that you can make a financial return, providing you are farming in a sustainable way."
This concept of a core right had components of a right to use the land, to make a living off the land, but to do so in a manner which was responsible. Taking each concept in turn:
Right to use the land and make a living - the economics of farming was seen as a key component of sustainability:
"Part of that [sustainability] is you making enough money to stay on it - that is really important."
The concept of a living was also related to the size and type of property:
"Some blocks are never going to be sheep and beef and be sustainable - be fine for vegetable grower, be pretty big for a fruit grower."
Responsible use - the meeting generally agreed that sustainability was the aim. They had greater difficulty in defining this though.
"I'd contend that you cannot define for all time what it is, that [sustainable management] is a moveable feast."
There was general agreement that it was not appropriate to have adverse impacts on neighbours or the environment, but this was tempered by a belief that the impacts had to be scientifically proven
"We don't want any restrictions or controls unless it can be positively proven that its detrimental to either to your neighbour or to the waterways or that sort of thing - there's got to be proof before restrictions come on a person doing what they want to with their property."
and that there had to be an acceptance that there would never be no impact:
"I don't think that we can pretend that an economic activity like farming has zero impact. You cannot aim for a zero impact position. You aim for a position that you believe is sustainable and in constant improvement."
Implications for management
The tools developed to assess management and investment impacts of the property rights did not work particularly well, because of the lack of current formal property rights. The situations posed therefore proved too hypothetical, and much discussion focused on what the regulations/consents would involve, the fact that being controlled would have a serious impact, whether the regulations would be practical, and what the tactical responses would be (e.g. increasing production prior to the introduction in order to be grandfathered in at a higher level). There was some recognition that formal regulation may have some advantages, such as the ability to sell part of the consent, but generally the consents were seen in the context of greater regulation rather than increased security of property rights. There was considerable scepticism about the security of any consents, with the consensus generally held that certainty would only decrease over time even with a formal right.
In general discussion there was recognition of the benefits of a more flexible regulation system, which was seen as encouraging innovation. The participants recognised the ability of some farmers to perform at the outside of the envelope in terms of production at low nutrient discharge, and this was seen as something to be encouraged.
There were no comments from this group that the level of regulation and change in regulation had significantly altered long term investment behaviour, although obviously it had altered management to the extent that was required. Among this group the EW regulation introduced appeared to be regarded as formalisation of what they were already doing or should be doing, confirming the EW view of their regulation formalising BMPs.
Summary
This group were had a strong environmental ethos and saw their impacts and constraints in terms of responsibilities. They recognised the need for regulation, and in some situations saw the need for more regulation. However they regarded themselves as having a fundamental right to farm the property, as long as it was in the context of sustainable management. They saw the concept of sustainability having a strong economic component, and that this would vary depending on circumstance. Their view of rights did not necessarily extend to continuing doing what they were doing, and the bottom line was more associated with the ability to make a living off the property.
Edgecumbe
Environment Bay of Plenty discussions
EBOP operate a stratified regulation regime in relation to NPS discharges. In very sensitive areas, (currently restricted to the Rotorua lakes area), there are stringent rules on NPS discharges, and elsewhere there are effectively no rules on discharges. The plan does however allow for animals to be fenced out of waterways, and most dairy shed effluent disposal has been moved to land spray systems.
The council sees that landholders have the right to use their land provided they are not having an adverse impact. They do accept that there will be some effect, but the aim is to reduce the effect in line with what can be reasonably achieved with good management practice.
In the very sensitive areas of Rotorua lakes the plan will cap the discharge of nutrients from farms, with no net increase in discharges allowed over the period of the plan. EBOP is using a Section 9 approach, with discharge levels established through a model of land use. [ENPLAS written by NIWA.] It is intending to allow transfer using off site mitigation as the means of achieving transfer. [That is, in order to undertake a transfer one farmer increases their discharge, and is consented to do this by purchasing off site mitigation in the form of reduced discharges at another property.] They recognise a number of issues in this, such as impacts on Maori landholders who haven't had a chance to develop their land yet, and the issue of how to grandfather discharge levels. Their intention is over time to reduce the discharges in this area by purchasing properties.
Landholder meeting
Farm type
Dairy: 8
Sheep and beef: 2
Deer: 1
Horticulture: 3
(Some landholders had more than one property.)
Key issues
- Dairy farmers in the gun - urban populations have an effect
- Science isn't robust
- Property rights under threat, legally and morally
- Rules to fence streams - would require 18 km of fencing on property
- Water quantity and impact on dilution of effluent and runoff
- Urban discharges
- Impact of spray irrigation systems for dairy shed effluent disposal
- Influence of small block holders
- Tourism impacts on water quality
- Costs of regulation and where does it stop
- Spraying of waterways
- What does sustainability mean? Balance between living today and tomorrow
Proportion believing they had an effect on water quality
Probably: 2
Yes: 8
No: 4
(Some answered differently for different farm types.)
The facilitators felt that the group composition was broadly representative of a cross section of farmers.
Rights and responsibilities
The group focused heavily on the constraints on farming which were being caused by a raft of regulation from a number of sources. The group considered that they were driven largely by a sense of responsibility, seeing themselves as caretakers of the land:
"90% of farmers realise they are here as caretakers of the land, and that is the basic tenet that they farm by. They didn't deliberately set out to walk over everything for their own benefit - they always want to leave it better than they started ..."
"It's pride in what you do so you are not going to stuff it up ..."
but that there are a few mavericks who influence public perception. There was a sense that EBOP should be targeting these mavericks rather than going after everyone.
Despite this group not being as environmentally active as perhaps the Matamata group was, they expressed a strong concern for effects on the environment:
There are some issues you know - like Lake Taupo - we don't want that to turn to custard like Lake Rotoiti ... nobody would like to see something happen to it ..."
"The right of a New Zealander I guess is to go to any tap, no matter where that tap is, and get clean water ... practically any sort of waterway, river, lake, sea - anything, drop their trousers and leap right in sort of thing ... without any side effects whatsoever ... I think everyone would like to head down that path and do their bit to achieve that ..."
The tension between this desire and the financial and time pressures was also recognised.
The group generally recognised that farming has an impact on water quality, but were quite defensive. They tended to see farming as being unfairly singled out:
"The question really is does your operation affect water quality. I've got to say yes because at the moment you've got track up the yard, you've got tracks running into your operation, you get run off from that, so really yes we do. I mean everybody in New Zealand running an operation has got to say yes. I mean look at tourism ... well look at all the run off from our main highways, from every road in New Zealand, so everybody does create pollution."
Considerable time was spent discussing the way that regulation and societal pressures are building on farmers. These include issues such as small block holders bringing urban values into a rural setting:
"With the increase of smaller blocks we get more and more complaints. We, last couple of months have done a couple of hundred bales of silage and as soon as I started to stack them the neighbour said "I hope you aren't going to stack them there - they might bring flies into our house."
"It seems that all existing use holders have to justify their existence against anyone else that questions any part of our operation at all."
The problems of increased industry and market regulation were also discussed, with some unhappy at a perceived giving away of our rights and increased Europeanisation of environmental management.
In being questioned about whether they had a fundamental right in respect of water quality, rather than just constraints, there was a mixed view. One participant was adamant that he didn't have any rights:
"I don't believe you have one any more because with the stroke of a pen you so called perceived fundamental right can change overnight ..."
However most did believe that they had a fundamental right, although some found it hard to express:
"I believe we have a fundamental right ... I don't know what the fundamental right is, but there is certainly an erosion of it."
"A lot of it is traditional, in the way you farmed, and you know it is sustainable."
"To me a lot of the rights would be traditional, that's the only word I can think of."
"You perceive your right is to farm in a sensible manner and with that you can do what you wish on your farm, provided it doesn't impact on neighbours, other people."
"Something which gives growth and lifestyle that you desire."
Has to be monetary too because if there was something that was a hell of a lot better than dairying we'd all be doing it ..."
The group spent considerable time discussing the trade-offs involved in defining what is societally acceptable in terms of impacts. They saw the need to put sustainability in perspective, that some impacts are inevitable, and that the impacts should be seen in light of the alternatives:
"People are going to have to be educated so that we have the right to actually run a business."
"If you put that number of houses on my land I would say there would be more environmental problems with it in houses than it would be as a dairy farm."
"That is the end point we've got to look at, [what] is the end land use?"
"What is the alternative?"
The group was also keen that impacts should be scientifically proven before the rights of farmers were constrained:
"It has to scientifically proven ... if they can scientifically prove to us that what we do is not right, what would we do?"
"... should relate to the expected use of that stream. I think a small minority of people swimming in one little spot may not have the same rights as a major business upstream."
Impact on management
The group were very concerned about the impact that further regulation for water quality would have on their business. The scenarios used worked very poorly with this group, and there was general scepticism about either of the approaches to regulation would increase the security of their property right.
Issues of compliance costs kept arising, and although they were not always associated with water quality, the comments were illustrative of the general concerns:
"Compliance costs are just going to drive the costs of food up and up."
These compliance costs and hassles associated with consents could produce perverse results in terms of water quality:
"We are price takers largely, and we've got to drive our costs of production down, [compliance costs] just keep going up and we've got to go to the next level of intensity."
"If you have to apply for a resource consent it can be that difficult that you think "stuff it, I'll just go and do it anyway" and if they catch me the fine is cheaper ... than it is to go through the process of engineers and council and all that crap and the time delays."
One participant illustrated the way in which the combination of pressures on a property, which include regulations and public pressure, can affect the management and investment:
"... [we have] main roads operating through one of our dairy farms - frankly we've had enough of the hassle, and along with other reasons we're shutting the dairy shed this year. You know the public pressure and perception whether its right or wrong in the end starts to wear on you ... [explanation of problems] ... The pressure and crap that you have to put up with means ... eventually it will get to you ..."
This was echoed by others who saw themselves selling up if the pressures or regulation meant that it was not possible to farm their current operation.
There were also concerns expressed about the way in which issues such as water quality were affecting us culturally:
"I think we've lost part of the reason why people came to New Zealand and that was to get away from all this crap ... we're becoming more like Europe again, you look at land values and properties held by families...we're in danger of becoming like Europe all the time and we are going to drive our young farmers away."
"What we've created with these things is we've created the opportunity for spitefulness and that goes beyond people's rights and us impinging on their rights and we have to be careful about that ... I think a lot of this environmental stuff has created divisions in the rural communities when it didn't need to ..."
Summary
This group were more focused on the negatives associated with environmental regulation. They did however still express a strong environmental ethos, and saw their farming operations needing to operate within a sustainable framework minimising impacts on neighbours and water. They (largely) saw their rights as being based on using the property responsibly to make a living for their family and allow some growth. While they accepted the need for regulation, they were concerned about the need for a scientific basis for it and the costs of compliance. They also saw the need for sustainability to be put in the context of impacts from other businesses, the role of farming in the economy, and the alternative land uses on the property.
Irwell
Environment Canterbury perspective
Environment Canterbury have no rules in their plan currently to manage NPS discharges. They do spend considerable resources in the area through the Living Streams programme, monitoring, and sediment investigations.
The proposed plan is moving toward a regime which manages NPS more comprehensively. This involves:
- establishment of water quality objectives for all resources, including drinking water sources
- legitimises NPS activities such as fertiliser application as permitted activities subject to performance standards
- makes N discharges at a specific level a permitted activity. Above this level landholders must undertake nutrient budgeting (with no performance standard), and above a further threshold landholders are required to put in place a programme of action to reduce leaching over time.
Water resources have specific numerical targets for a range of nutrients. Where these are not achieved the regional council is likely to introduce land use controls.
The council noted concerns about the precedent implications of the proposed management of Lake Taupo, and also expressed concern about the lack of thinking about the issue at national level. They particularly noted the powers that MFE has to drive water quality through standards, which make the regional job of regulating much simpler.
"When is the Ministry going to step up to the plate on this one?"
Their perception was that land use impacts on groundwater were generally underestimated by landholders and that awareness of NPS issues was low.
Landholder meeting
Farm type
Dairy: 4
Sheep and beef: 1
Mixed cropping: 4
Horticulture: 1
(Some landholders had more than one property.)
Key issues
- Have had water tested regularly - doesn't seem to be a problem
- Drinking water supplies and iron problems
- Impacts on water quality from other sources
- Run off from cropping farms, and their impact on soil structure and fertility
Proportion believing they had an effect on water quality
Good as can be: 1
No: 9
(One not relevant.)
The facilitators felt that the group composition was broadly representative of a farming type in the area, although the group was predominately owner operator by long-term farming family.
The group was largely very sceptical of their impact on water quality.
"I don't think that what we are doing as farmers is really affecting the quality of the water. In the winter time we get runoff off the land but that is something that has happened for hundreds of years."
"It is natural that sheep manure is going to end up in the waterways but if they are going to let allow us to carry on farming, well ..."
"How do we know there is a problem ... We only know what we are fed in the paper ..."
"That's why I am asking for real data - what real information have you got, or are we all just here saying the status quo is fine, we don't have a problem, let's keep it that way."
One participant had funded his own monitoring of a stream running through their property and was satisfied that the quality was high and that they were not having an impact. However two in the group were aware of ECan monitoring results from a local stream, which indicated poor quality and the influence of farming activities. No participants were directly involved in Stream care or other water quality associated activities.
Rights and responsibilities
The initial feeling from individuals in the group was of unfair finger pointing at farming or their operation. Dairy farmers pointed out the high potential impact of cropping farmers, and all pointed to the impacts of urban and other activities on water quality.
"One of the biggest issues for me in water quality is the cities themselves. There are streams... closer to Christchurch which are probably carrying large amount of pollutants into the lake, and into other areas like estuaries, and nobody is making a big song and dance about that - I think it's a terrible state of affairs."
"The council had a problem in town with a sewerage system that overflowed and went into the estuary... so it got in the paper but nothing else happened about it. Are they going to get prosecuted? We would be ..."
"A law for them and a law for us ..."
"I also wonder ... how much pollution goes into the lake from ... the wildlife that is there?"
"It's an issue that it's easiest to blame the person that it's easiest to blame and sit there and try and make him do it rights and you feel someone else could be better for doing that ... and not doing their bit - but it's only a quarter of the problem."
However there was recognition of the basic tenet of stewardship of the land which has been expressed in other groups. This includes the concept of leaving the land no worse than one found it, being able to make a profit but not having an impact on neighbours or the water quality. The discussion in the impacts regard was primarily about impacts on neighbouring farmers, because the issue of irrigation takes having offsite impacts on other irrigators was particularly topical in the district.
"We must leave the land in as good as when we first had it - that is your right that goes through all farmers."
"[You have] a right to make a profit."
"We haven't got the right to make an income at the expense of the land."
"Your activities shouldn't impact too much on either a neighbouring farmer or an area farmer."
"It [spraying] relates to what we can do that affects our neighbours ... and the same with the sprays - [we] have to be careful that they don't get into waterways. You don't spray around the fenceline or put the boom over the creek, put chemicals in the creek and things like that. That does affect our water quality."
As with other groups they saw their responsibilities being embodied in the concept of sustainability, although definition of this was seen as difficult.
When pressed on the reasons for this right existing, on member of the group saw the right coming from the original decision to live there and buy land there. They saw that the right comes with the resource, and they should be able to use it to the best of their abilities. Whilst recognising that there were a small minority of farmers who gave problems, the group was varied on the need for regulation. The main part of the group was strongly opposed to it, but there were some expressions of unease. These arose from a belief that there were farmers out there who acted stupidly in respect of the land and downstream impacts, and should be controlled. Even those who identified this problem however had a problem with further regulation, and expressed some unease with what they were themselves proposing:
"There are two ways of thoughts - do we have a free market where we just go along, or do we have like ECan come on and say "No you can't do that"?"
They recognised the difficulties in legislation because of the geographic variation, and generally approved of more local regulation rather than "another layer of bureaucracy" by involving central government. Some saw market driven regulation (the Clean Streams Accord) as being preferable to bureaucratic regulation. The theme of further regulation turned the discussion to the difficulties of dealing with the various bits of red tape, the difficulties of being a small business person, and the lack of recognition of farming's role in the economy.
The group expressed strongly a need for any regulation to be driven by monitoring and facts. They saw a great deal of emotive comment being passed, and some systems, such as organics, being accepted as sustainable despite their own reservations about the sustainability of copper sulphate and energy use. One individual saw that the key issue was to allow a few mistakes to be made, since there was no precise definition of sustainability and impacts, as long as the mistakes could be caught before things got too bad. There were also a number of comments about the issue of being guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around, and the cost of establishing innocence.
Impact on management
In this group the scenarios used for the previous two groups were changed to two questions. These addressed directly the issue of what would happen if their non point source discharges were converted to a formalised consent, and the differences between a consent for land use and a consent for discharges. This had mixed results. Whilst there was some consideration of the added security a consent would give, in general the responses were driven by the dislike of further regulation, considering that present legislation was adequate to penalise those who do pollute. The key features of management impacts were the limitations on ability to farm, costs of implementation, and constraints on flexibility. In general the consent for discharges was preferred (to the extent that further regulation could be said to be preferred!) because of the greater flexibility this allowed.
It seems that the participants in this group did not see the current situation of property rights as significantly impacting on their management and investment programme. The lack of certainty was seen as a risk, but as a risk which was to be considered rather than a constraining risk.
Summary
This group largely did not consider that water quality and NPS discharges were a major issue, and this position drove much of the discussions, with a general tenor against further regulation and interference in their affairs. The group had a strong ethic of stewardship and maintained the principle of not impacting on neighbours. The principle of not impacting on neighbours was extended to not impacting on the water and environment, but this did not come out in the discussion until later.
The group saw their primary right as being able to use the land to make an income, and this right derived from the purchase of the land and the decision to live and farm there. The rights were constrained by the concept of sustainability, although this was not well defined. There was a strong feeling that further constraints on their operations should be based on proof of impacts.
There was not a strong sense that the current situation of poorly defined rights in relation to NPS discharges was a constraint on their management and investment operation.
