Philippa Stevenson: Farmers win reprieve over pollution permits

Waikato farmers are off a sharp hook but still stand to be reeled in after an upset in an Environment Court hearing.

By rights a case about how quickly new controls could go on nitrogen fertiliser spreading on farms which drain into sensitive Waikato River catchments should still be being argued in a Hamilton courtroom today.

As I mentioned a fortnight ago, the case arose after the Ecologic Foundation appealed provisions in Environment Waikato's proposed regional plan related to fertiliser use and runoff.

In what foundation senior fellow Jim Sinner considered a landmark case, the organisation, formerly the Maruia Society, wanted the regional council to require individual farmers and/or groups of farmers in sensitive river catchments to have farm management plans approved by the council by 2007.

The council agreed that management plans were needed but favoured consulting farmers before bringing in new rules.

Neither party got to put months of preparation to use after the case - expected to take two weeks - ended after just two days. Two other parties, Carter Holt Harvey and Wairakei Pastoral, argued that the foundation and Fish & Game had substantially departed from their original submissions and the court had no jurisdiction to approve their new proposal. The judge agreed and the matter will return to court only if the ruling is appealed.

The foundation, which made its first submission on the matter seven years ago, has yet to decide its next course of action, but Environment Waikato says it will now begin consulting communities about the "best ways of maintaining and enhancing water quality".

It's something that Maungatautari farmer Bill Garland has given a lot of thought to. The deputy chairman of the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, chairman of the NZ Farm Environment Award Trust and trustee of the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust spent hours preparing 17 pages of evidence to put before the hearing.

Since it wasn't to be aired in court, I went to the Garland farm on the slopes of Maungatautari to see what the practical sheep and beef farmer and committed conservationist would have said given the chance.

Like a reflection of his twin concerns, a topdressing plane was looping around the valleys dropping clouds of fertiliser as I arrived. And on the driveway Garland's ute was packed with native trees to be dotted around the farm that already includes at least 37ha of protected bush.

Doubtless mirroring the views of many farmers, in Garland's unpresented submission I found a strong chord of resentment that others - in this case, the foundation - feel they know more about tackling vexing environmental issues than land owners, no matter their shade of green.

Bill and Sue Garland find it galling that their 36 years of careful observation and management of a sensitive area can be so easily dismissed.

"Not only do we consider water quality but we take into account the protection of biodiversity and landscape value when we make our decisions on where best to spend our money," I read.

The Garlands' seven-point recipe to produce the best environmental outcomes includes fencing waterways and upper catchments that are prone to erosion or are in native bush, excluding cattle and running sheep only in sensitive areas, and nutrient budgeting and following good application practices.

It would seem a recipe to warm any greenie's heart, but Garland fears not. "Sadly, Ecologic think their wisdom and understanding of what goes on in hill country is better than ours," he wrote.

And he deplores a foundation suggestion that neighbour pot non-complying neighbour.

"This will lead to deep-seated resentment that will fester away for years. Whole families will get caught up in the tension and inevitably the community will take sides. Any regime that pitches neighbour against neighbour should be rejected."

In his various roles, Garland has seen many a farmer turned on to environmental protection by encouragement, education and plain common sense - a remarkable turnaround when only 25 years ago the Government paid farmers to clear land and put on more stock and fertiliser, he says.

Environment Waikato chairwoman Jenny Vernon agrees. "Just like the Smokefree legislation, if people understand the reasons why controls are being imposed, then they are much more likely to be supportive."

Undoubtedly, though, the threat of more draconian measures serves to focus the attention and that's just what the foundation has achieved.

The consultation process needs to progress apace and so does the implementation of meaningful management practices. The ball is in the farmers' court.