Comment: The LUC allocation method as proposed is as rotten to the core as Hans from Frozen, writes Federated Farmers Senior Policy Advisor Martin Meier.
In the movie Frozen, Disney introduced the character Hans. He is charming and handsome, albeit a little silly.
Princess Ana and Prince Hans immediately have a connection and on the same day get engaged to be married.
READ MORE:
• Plan Change 10: Regional council approach chosen over Rotorua council's for nitrogen
When Elsa runs away Ana goes looking for her sister while Hans stays behind to look after the kingdom. Then when Ana's horse returns rider-less, Hans goes off in search of his love.
He seems pretty awesome, right?
But then we discover that Hans just wants to marry Ana to kill Elsa and gain control of the kingdom. Talk about rotten to the core.
I was introduced to an allocation method that was said to be based on natural capital. It seemed pretty awesome.
The theory was that we can work out what a farm can sustainably produce using land use capacity (LUC), said to be the same thing as the natural capital of the farm, and use it to allocation nitrogen discharges.
Now my first thought was that here is the answer that the entire farming world (including New Zealand) has been looking to find for many decades.
My second thought was "why is the holy grail not guarded in a vault, inside a safe surrounded by a castle surrounded by a fort on an island in a secret location?".
I think you get the picture that I thought it may be too good to be true. See, Frozen has life lessons too.
Read more from Federated Farmers here.
But when Federated Farmers looked a bit closer at LUC allocation, it stopped looking like natural capital and more like allocation resource grab, which is to benefit a single group at the expense of another group.
The LUC allocation method as proposed was as rotten to the core as Hans from Frozen.
Recently Federated Farmers opposed LUC as an allocation method for Nitrogen in the Rotorua catchment.
It was a high stakes hearing because if the LUC method was successful then existing drystock in the Rotorua catchment would not have to reduce N by 17 per cent under the existing proposals (which would be difficult) but by a dreadful 40 per cent.
Dairy would have to increase their N reductions from 35 per cent to a terrifying 80 per cent.
A number of drystock and dairy farmers alike told Federated Farmers that they would not be able to continue farming if they had to reduce N to the extent required by the LUC allocation methodology.
The environmental outcomes was less certain under the LUC proposal.
Federated Farmers simply had to fight LUC allocation in Rotorua to protect farming and rural communities.
READ MORE:
• Comment: Zero Carbon Bill needs more NZ-focused research
The supporters of LUC had an opportunity to put their case and evidence to the Environment Court.
The Court rejected the nitrogen allocation methodology based on LUC for Rotorua.
It held that LUC is not reliable to determine the N leaching in the catchment as N leaching is more strongly linked to land management practices than LUC. Further LUC is not on its own a proxy for natural capital.
The effects of the LUC methodology will have had particularly high adverse economic and social effects on the Lake Rotorua catchment community as a whole.
And, like in Frozen, the villain was defeated...at least until the sequel. Other aspects of nitrogen allocation are still to be heard by the Environment Court.