5 Results
The focus group participants were chosen on the basis of recommendation from regional councils, dairy industry representatives, and local knowledge. The selections aimed for a spread of land use types, but no particular emphasis on understanding of water quality issues. The Matamata group appeared to have a bias in membership toward those with a stronger environmental awareness. The Canterbury group appeared to have a low relative awareness of water quality issues, but we could not say whether this is reflects a lower profile for NPS discharges in Canterbury, or whether it reflects a selection bias in the group. Despite this the spread of views across the three groups was very good, and we believe the results are able to reflect the range of opinion among landholders.
The results have been described in four subsections:
- beliefs about impacts on water quality
- perceptions of responsibilities
- perceptions of rights
- impacts on behaviour.
Beliefs about impacts on water
At the beginning of the meeting every participant was asked to introduce themselves and their operation, to comment on whether they believed they had an impact on water quality, and to give one particular issue they wished to discuss. The comments at this initial stage divided in the following ways:
- Sheep and beef farmers generally believed they were not having an impact or were having a minimal impact
- The farmers in the Matamata group, who generally appeared to have a high level of environmental awareness, largely believed that farming had an impact, but most believed that for various reasons, such as mitigation measures or the type of operation (biological husbandry), their operation did not have an impact.
- The Edgecumbe group were also aware that they did have an impact, with a very high proportion answering yes or probably as to whether they had an impact.
- The Canterbury group responded mostly in the negative (with only one giving an indication that he may be having an impact but that his operation was as good as it could be). We suspect that the high negative response rate here was partly driven by a suspicion of the reasons for the research and concern over the potential for further regulation.
- Several of the negatives based their comments on monitoring of water bodies within and downstream of their properties.
These responses are not an independent sample - for example later introductions would have been influenced by hearing earlier comments. We believe however that they are indicative of a fairly high level of acceptance of the impact of farming activities on water quality.
In general discussion the acceptance of the impact of general farming activities on water quality was even higher, with comments pointing to circumstances in which farming operations impacted on water quality in a variety of ways:
"You would have to be brain dead to think that you did not have any impact on water quality."
"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."
The implied belief about impacts on water quality was that the impact should be seen in the light of best management practice (BMPs). That is to say that their responses were framed such that if they were operating within best practice, then they could effectively be deemed to be having no impact. It appeared that for many responding to this question, they were responding on the basis of what could be considered to be a reasonable impact. This was often stated more explicitly later in the discussions after further exploration of the issues:
"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."
The groups all strongly expressed the opinion that farming was being unfairly targeted, with other parts of society also causing problems with water quality:
"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."
"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 its easiest to blame and sit there and try and make him do it right 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."
Other stakeholders considered that landholders largely didn't understand the impact of their operations on water quality. They considered that there was a growing awareness, particularly with the high profile attention on the dairy industry and the Clean Streams accord. However several mentioned that many farmers still didn't consider it applied to them personally, and that it was largely other farmers causing the problems.
We believe the results point to an understanding that land use activities impact on the environment. However this understanding is probably limited in respect of NPS discharges, and the participant's appeared to have a greater consciousness of impacts on the near environment than on more distant environments and communities.
Perceptions of responsibilities
The participants almost universally expressed the concept of stewardship in the way that they managed their land. Typically:
"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." [This type of response tallies with the findings in the AgResearch survey (Parminter et al, 2002) on riparian management, where farmer respondents on average rated other farmer impact on waterways as worse than their own.]
"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 ..."
One participant noted that at present, there were actually very few controls on non-point sources, but he was one of the few who saw the issue in this light:
"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 concept of this responsibility was extended to impacts on neighbours and the environment, but this concept was probably limited, even among the more environmentally aware group in Matamata:
"When thinking about responsibilities, [we] tend to think of point sources rather than a broader impact across the landscape."
Interestingly in Canterbury the impact on neighbours was discussed in greater depth than the impact on water quality, which was partly influenced by a topical concern over impacts of new wells on neighbouring irrigation takes. Their concept of the extent to which this responsibility to minimise external impacts extended was perhaps limited:
"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."
The Edgecumbe group had an interesting discussion about their core beliefs in relation to water quality in New Zealand, in which they expressed a set of beliefs about the state of water quality outcomes they would like to see:
"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 ..."
Based on the focus group discussions we believe that the participants have a strong ethic of minimising damage to their property, and that this extends to minimising impacts outside their property. Some of them expressed beliefs about water quality from their perspective as general members of society rather than as farmers, which pointed to strong environmental ethic. The extent to which this can be extended to all farmers is uncertain, and its extendability to NPS discharges is perhaps limited because of lower awareness of NPS issues as exhibited among the group participants. Again the sense of responsibility appeared to be greater in respect of impacts on neighbours and local area than was exhibited for more distant communities and environments.
Perceptions of rights
The groups' conceptualisation of their rights is perhaps the most interesting part of this research, and was the part on which the group facilitators tried to keep the group exploring. The concept of rights was difficult to define, because of the lack of legal formalisation in the area. It was initially easier to define how they did not see their rights.
The groups all recognised and accepted that their right was constrained in terms of impacts on neighbours and the environment - this tallied with their concepts of their responsibilities. All groups tended to use the word "sustainability" to describe the way in which these rights and responsibilities should operate. This concept was not defined, and was often accompanied by a comment such as "whatever that means".
Their rights did not necessarily apply to an existing land use. Many of the participants accepted that if a particular land use could be shown not to be within that "envelope" of sustainable use, then it should be discontinued. However others were resistant to the concept of banning land uses outright, and preferred to see lower stocking rates or other constraints on land management.
The groups accepted the need for regulation to manage the impacts of farming. While all participants saw themselves as responsible, they accepted that there were the "1%" who were not, and who caused most of the problems. Thus regulation was needed to control these people. The Canterbury group was particularly keen that this regulation be confined to the local level, and that further levels of bureaucracy not be added.
There was a consistent theme through all the groups that they did have a fundamental right, that their fundamental right related to their ability to make use of their land to provide and income, profit, opportunities for growth, and a lifestyle:
"[We] have a right to make a living off [the land] ... by using responsible methods of utilising that property that you own."
"... 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."
"I believe we have a fundamental right ... I don't know what the fundamental right is, but there is certainly an erosion of it."
"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."
This right was seen in the context of sustainability. The concept appeared to be that the landholder has a right to do what they want as long as they are operating within the concept of an envelope of responsible or sustainable use. The definition of sustainable use was seen as having a number of dimensions, and would vary according to geography, type of land and size. Thus:
"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."
Sustainability was seen as including income, profitability and opportunity for growth.
"Part of that [sustainability] is you making enough money to stay on it - that is really important."
"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 ..."
Our perception was that the conflicts between environmental outcomes and their farm operations were by and large not seen by the participants as direct conflicts, but something that could be managed. Where there were direct conflicts, the issues of scientific proof, and the need for trade-offs were raised. The groups were adamant that any constraints on their rights had to be based on proper scientific evidence, which many participants believed was not available at present.
"It has to scientifically proven ... if they can scientifically prove to us that what we do is not right, what would we do?"
"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"
The issue of trade-offs was also presented by all groups. The participants saw that there would never be zero impact from operations, and that the harm that farming did needed to be seen in the context of:
- the economic importance of farming to the economy
- the alternative land uses
- the impact of other parts of the community
- the values being affected.
"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?"
"... 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."
The other stakeholders interviewed were questioned about their perceptions of their rights and landholders' rights. Almost all the other stakeholders saw the individual rights as being subordinate to the community's rights. Some saw the environmental impacts as an absolute - i.e. if they occurred then landholders would need to change their practices, while others saw the process as a "community judgement" about what sacrifices it was prepared to make - economic or environmental.
Those other stakeholders spoken to were divided on the subject of existing use rights. Most tended to support the view that there were no existing use rights - that current practice was an environmental subsidy of commercial activity, some saw the need for compensation payment not as a recognition of existing rights but as a practical political means of achieving the desired outcome or as a transitional measure to assist in coping with change, and others while not fully supporting existing rights saw moral difficulties in making people change who had been undertaking the same activity for generation.
These other stakeholders had a similar evidence based view on impacts as participants in the focus groups, but differed in that they strongly supported a more precautionary approach than was being adopted at present.
Impacts on management and behaviour
In general the study process did not work as well in terms of determining the way in which landholder beliefs about their property rights affected behaviour in relation to the resource. We believe that this is because the nature of their current property right is too diffuse, and their behaviour is essentially tied to their current management of the property. We attempted to clarify this further by presenting scenarios in which these rights were altered in some way, but the responses tended to relate more to the impact of additional regulation rather than the change in property right. For example one participant, responding to a scenario where regulation might be introduced, made it quite clear that the first management response would be too increase production prior to the introduction of the measures to ensure that they were grandfathered in at the highest level possible! We believe that the concepts were probably too hypothetical for the participants to relate to their current circumstances. It is likely that in order to work further with this aspect of the programme it would be necessary to choose a group which have greater experience of regulation or potential regulation of NPS discharges - such as the Taupo or Rotorua lakes situations.
However despite the problems encountered there was sufficient information gained from the research process to develop some useful conclusions.
Our overall impression is of no significant impact from the current situation. Despite the lack of certainty as to their current rights, our primary impression is that this is not causing significant impact on management of their operations. Participants appear to regard the potential for changes to their rights as a risk that is understood, but too remote at present to be worth considering. This attitude also led to a strong desire to avoid changes which involved further regulation, even where they increased certainty.
An emphasis on the need for flexibility - many comments pointed to the need for flexibility in managing constraints on properties. Scenarios which had the potential for management innovation were preferred to those where particular activities were fixed. The participants in one group immediately noted the potential for trading of N discharge permits under one scenario, and considered this would be highly beneficial.
"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."
Compliance costs - there was extensive discussion in both the Edgecumbe and Irwell groups about the costs of compliance associated with more regulation. When combined with the comments about flexibility, these comprised 80% of discussion regarding hypothetical scenarios where property rights were formalised in respect of NPSs. 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."
Non regulatory pressure - there were several comments regarding the impact of non regulatory pressure on farming operations. These were most evident in the Edgecumbe group, with the encroachment of lifestyle operations and impact on farming operations:
"... [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 ..."
