Frustratingly, one-size-fits-all rules were developed, requiring all farmers to make changes to their farming practices, even if the rules aren’t relevant to the impacts their farms are having on the environment.
The rules sometimes went further than they needed to achieve the desired outcome and the cumulative impact of that across so many rules was significant.
Of course, when you look at the rules individually, it may not appear there will be a lot of cost or administrative burden on farms — some critics have accused farmers of whinging.
But when you set them all out and add up the cumulative financial impact, you can understand why farmers have been so worried and why confidence is at an all-time low.
One farm included in the study was facing a $1.2 million cost for stock exclusion — when the Government mandated map being used to determine if they needed to fence was wrong. The average annual before tax farm profit for a farm of that size, in that region, is $112,000.
This rule was recently improved (but not completely fixed) after three years of work and pressure from organisations such as B+LNZ.
But there are other examples.
Another farmer faced one-off direct costs of $75,000 and annual direct costs of around $88,000, when the B+LNZ Sheep & Beef Farm Survey shows us the average farm profit before tax for that region or type for 2022/23 is $174,800. This impact is despite that farm’s engaged and proactive environmental stewardship.
We are absolutely not arguing against regulation. Farmers recognise ongoing investment in environmental improvements is needed in many cases. Many are already well on that journey.
But we would like the new Government to undertake their own assessment of the cumulative economic impact of what is in train, and work with farmers to improve the rules so they still achieve the desired environmental outcome but are more flexible in the way that is achieved.
We would like the Government to look at the full picture and to ensure the spend farmers make is focused on getting the best outcomes — targeted investment at proven actions with measurable impacts.
One example is stock exclusion. Farmers agree with the principle that stock need to be excluded from waterways on flat land, but there needs to be flexibility for farms that have very low stocking rates and therefore very low risks.
The definition of a Significant Natural Area in the Indigenous Biodiversity National Policy Statement is currently too broad and would capture large parts of farms. The focus should be on protecting truly significant biodiversity.
We do understand that improvements are required and that it is vital to retain our social licence with New Zealanders and ensure consumers have confidence that we are making the right changes to safeguard New Zealand’s environment. But it’s time to take a breath, review, reassess and simplify some of the approaches so we can strike the right balance between what’s good for the planet, our farmers and the country.
· Kate Acland is chairwoman of Beef + Lamb New Zealand.
