Bruce McNab - A farmer's perspective
Released 11 Jun 2008
Federated Farmers spokesman for the environment
Farmer's address to Environmental Defence Society - Auckland
All of us have a carbon footprint. We are all consumers of finite resources and are all users of natural resources, to varying degrees.
Every one of us has a responsibility to manage the adverse affects on the environment.
The environment is not just the natural environment, but the social, cultural and economic environments in which we, the human race, must manage in order to exist and function.
Sustainability is about how we, as humans, manage the natural, social, cultural and economic framework in an integrated way. Sustainable changes in human behaviour are seldom engineered by regulation. Changes, for the better, evolve from observing best practice, from resourcing knowledge in how to implement change and, most importantly of all, motivation and desire to do things better!
As a farmer, I am driven to do things better. For 39 years I have willed myself to improve the sustainability of my family owned farming business. You learn about true sustainability as you go along and sure, sometimes things don't go as planned they seldom do when you are working with nature harvesting a natural biological process which is what my farming business is all about.
The four legs of sustainability support each other in a balanced way. If one leg breaks then our community structure topples over without economic viability, good stewardship of the natural environment is threatened.
It wasn't that many years ago that support for the environmental issues was largely confined to dedicated small action groups who were undoubtedly ahead of their time. In the last few years, the environment has become distinctly mainstream globally and is near the top of political agenda's worldwide.
Coinciding with the rising awareness of environmental issues is the concern about the ability of the world to feed the ever increasing population. It's a case of not just feeding the rising population, but meeting the demands of more affluent groups in society. It's a challenge because people not only want more and better food, but they are rightly concerned about the methods by which it's produced.
In New Zealand, for much of its short history, it has remained isolated or protected from the rest of the world by virtue of its geographical location. But with modern day communications we are part of the global economy. A good example of this is raising food prices. Basic commodities such as rice and wheat have risen dramatically. We are seeing the same with dairy products as well and this is one of the factors behind the rise in domestic food prices.
Recently Federated Farmers of New Zealand released a report showing that while food prices have increased the farmer's percentage of such an increase has not. In the case of Lamb Chops for example, a farmer gets about a quarter of the value of the products when it is sold in the supermarket.
At the same time farm input costs have gone up. In my own case, fertilizer was costing me $185 a tonne a year ago twelve months on the price is now $480 a tonne. It's been a struggle and the cheque books have been closed for some time, and will remain closed until prices lift and costs go down.
Perhaps one other observation worth making in respect to farming is that I remember
back in my youth, the friends and relations in the city were regular visitors to the farm. They helped out with lambing and milking and generally understood something about country living. Today people have a relationship with their supermarket not their local farmer and that's a recipe for alienation and this concerns me.
The environment and farmers
Reading some newspapers today it wouldn't be hard to get the impression that rural and urban New Zealand are at war. Dairy cows are portrayed as being killers of the environment aided and abetted by farmers who couldn't care less about keeping waterways free of pollution.
Yes, farmers are at the interface of resource use and that inevitably puts them in the spotlight, but the notion that they don't care about the environment is not true. The reality is that farmers and their families swim and fish in waterways and use the water from the streams for their house hold use. So why on earth would they knowingly want to pollute such waterways?
Yes, there are a minority of farmers who always seem to be behind the eight ball, slow to adopt best practice and reluctant to empathise with wider community concerns. Every sector in society has a minority who can not seem to recognise their responsibilities in being good citizens, respectful of the rights and needs of others.
With the best of intentions however, all too often in an attempt to lift the game of the minority, the regulators impose handbrakes on the hard working, well-performing and the majority of good practitioners. Adoption of best practice is something most farmers strive for, they don't need to be bullied or cajoled through catch - all regulation. For the few who knowingly don't comply with common-sense best practice, then probably case by case prosecution is the only solution...Accentuate the positive, discount the negative.
Today there is whole series of levels of bureaucracy dedicated to "protecting the environment", some of it good some of it bad. The natural values that we all cherish can be protected through better understanding of all stakeholders' perspectives and with all stakeholders focusing on truly sustainable outcomes. (I defined true sustainability earlier on.)
I also said earlier that many urbanites don't understand farming and sadly, many well-educated officials fall into that category. Some Resource Management Act regulation is poorly formulated and poorly processed. This is not necessarily the fault of the RMA itself, for the general ethos of the Act is very worthy indeed. Rather, too often there is a "clumsy ignorance" in policy and planning which actually impedes true sustainability and at the same time overrides respect for property rights which is the corner stone of our democracy.
There is a shortage of good planning staff in New Zealand. I would like all planning trainees, in the process of completing their degrees, to spend some time on farms building their understanding of the realities of life in the country, particularly life at the interface of resource use and management. The creation of wealth and economic sustainability of local communities is not necessarily antagonistic to sound environmental stewardship. The words environment and conflict are too often linked. Even this conference theme "Conflict in Paradise" would seem to reinforce this notion. It's true the RMA process lends itself to conflict. It seems that too often parties head for the environment Court which is costly and time consuming.
The way forward
I would rather a willing engagement between relevant stakeholders, such as Farmers, non-government organisations, Iwi and other land user groups occur at the beginning. Mediation may need to follow. The point is: if stakeholders can Voice their different perspectives and in doing so, develop a better understanding of each party's position, then the scene is set for a truly sustainable consensus outcome.
The court should only be a place of last resort. If a way forward is agreed at the "grass roots" level then the council would have a much more accurate feel for what the community wants rather than rely solely on disparate lobby from outside submitters, some of whom have no connection with the local community.
I believe there is more rapport and commonality of views between the majority of farmers who demonstrate sustainable management and say non-government organisations like Forest and Bird, than some commentators would have the public believe.
Is there potential in developing terms if reference between the farmer lobby and say Forest and Bird so that engagement early in proceedings becomes a two way commitment? Of course there is! Ingredients required: Honest and mutual respect. A fair and reasonable outcome will occur (most of the time.) Remember, accentuate the positive and discount the negative.
There are some huge challenges ahead, but they needn't be conflict. The need to increase food production will lead to greater intensification of land use and there are issues around this. This applies especially to dairying and horticulture. For their part, farmers want to be allowed to farm in a sustainable way. Sound management practices should be permitted rather than controlled by regulation. My hope is that the public will acknowledge the good things that are happening on farms through understanding the good stewardship ethos that most thinking farmers subscribe to.
All the parties should engage in an open and transparent way in determining the way forward for sharing valuable resources such as water. Inevitably, sustainability involves a four way dimension - a balance of environmental, social, cultural and economic factors. Most New Zealanders live their lives without being threatened with the undermining of property rights through councils administering an Act that is unclear in direction. It should be incumbent on all of us to acknowledge this dilemma and empathise with any individual or group that is threatened with diminution of their rights of ownership.
The community must share the cost of impaired rights of the individual if most of the benefits accrue to the general public.
I salute freedom of speech but would like an end to the pot shots being taken at each other through the media which in the end do little to credit anyone. Far better to "think smart" beyond the narrow interests of our own groups. Far better to be genuinely solution focused.
I don't think that all the parties involved in the environmental debate are that far apart. We just need the will to stick together, get a balanced debate going without the emotion and media hype and agree to stick to the facts.
