5.1 Defensa y seguridad
5.1.6 Lucha contra incendios y emergencias
The dairy industry responded to mounting media attention (‘dirty dairying’), increasing concern, and mounting scientific evidence about the impacts of dairying on freshwater quality. The industry developed a voluntary industry initiative to reduce the impact of dairying on freshwater quality. A collaboration between Fonterra (the largest dairy company in New Zealand), regional councils and government (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry for the Environment), culminated in the signing of The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord (DCSA) (Fonterra et al., 2003). The DCSA was a statement of intent and a framework of actions to promote sustainable dairy farming in New Zealand, and focused on reducing the impacts of dairying on freshwater quality. TheDCSA contained five performance targets30 and associated dates, and progress was measured against these targets.
Media reports highlight the various actors’ perspectives at this time. From Fonterra’s perspective, action was taken to address society’s perception of ‘dirty dairy’ farming, and to assure international and domestic customers, dairy suppliers were working towards environmental goals (Morgan, 2003). The other Accord partners, central and local government, were understandably supportive of the industry’s voluntary approach. Central government indicated that regulatory interventions to address declining water quality were a strong possibility, if the industry had not
30DCSA targets: stock exclusion from streams; bridges or culverts on stock crossing points; effluent discharge to comply with regional council conditions; systems to manage nutrient inputs and outputs; and
acted accordingly. The then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stated strong support for the accord and its collaborative process, and highlighted the growing worldwide concerns about declining freshwater quality (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2002). In contrast, Federated Farmers and dairy farmers were in opposition to the DCSA. Some media reports suggested that dairy farmers were angry because of a perceived lack of consultation, lack of certainty and a perceived loss of control (Rural News, 2003). Other reports suggested some dairy farmers also believed Fonterra had no authority to develop an accord (duplicating regional government’s role), and that there was no need for an accord because they believe dairy farmers are already implementing environmental practices (NZPA, 2002). Fish and Game were critical of the DCSA, described it as ‘wimpy’, and believe the long term targets will ‘fail to resolve the environmental threat from dairying’ (NZPA, 2003).
Annual assessments of progress against the DCSA’s standards were reported in the Snapshot of Progress reports (Fonterra, Ministry for the Environment, Local Government New Zealand, & Ministry for Primary Industries, 2013). The progress reports relied on farmer self-reporting, and the results indicated good progress towards achieving the DCSA’s targets. However, an independent survey prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to measure progress towards reaching stock exclusion targets, found significantly lower levels of full stock exclusion than previously reported by Fonterra in the snapshot reports (Sanson & Baxter, 2011). This survey resulted in Fonterra contracting AsureQuality to audit and check the progress of dairy farm stream fencing (walk and GPS map).
Media reports again highlighted the various actors’ perspectives near the end of the DCSA’s ten- year lifespan. The Accord partners (Fonterra, central and regional government) agreed that dairy farmers were moving towards sustainable agricultural practices, but recognised that more changes were required. However, the partners were concerned about the percentage of dairy farmers that were non-compliant with regional council resource consent conditions. Fonterra’s response to the lower than expected stock exclusion figures, was to announce that suppliers would be required to complete stream fencing by set dates, and indicated the threat of economic sanctions. Regional councils supported Fonterra’s ‘stronger’ stance to achieving stock exclusion targets (Local Government New Zealand, 2011).
While recognising that some progress had been made, environmental organisations Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, were largely critical of the DCSA and of the accord’s progress. Press releases
noted their criticism of the lack of credibility and accuracy of progress results, the apparent ineffectiveness of a voluntary approach in achieving dairy farmer behaviour change, and called for independent monitoring of progress and regulation to address declining water quality (Fish and Game, 2011; Forest and Bird, 2011). Fish and Game in particular were highly critical of the accord’s success, when they believed that the science at the time was indicating a continual decline in water quality.
The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord expired in 2012, and was replaced with the more comprehensive Sustainable Dairying Water Accord in 2013 (DairyNZ & DCANZ, 2013). An increased focus on water quality from central government (NPSFM), local government (regional plans) and the stakeholder-led approach (Land and Water Forum), necessitated some change from the previous accord. The Sustainable Dairying Water Accord is no longer a bilateral agreement between Fonterra and government (and only applicable to Fonterra suppliers), but broader to include the majority of New Zealand’s dairy companies (as accountable partners31), DairyNZ, organisations with an interest in pastoral farming (e.g. Federated Farmers is a supporting partner) and other stakeholders who represent non-farming interests (e.g. Federation of Māori Authorities). In addition, new targets were added, existing targets tightened, and a more robust and independent performance monitoring system developed. The purpose of the accord, and the dairy industry’s commitment to New Zealand, was to ‘enhance the overall performance of dairy farming as it affects freshwater’ (DairyNZ & DCANZ, 2013, p.3). The Accord sets out the good management practices that are expected of all New Zealand dairy farmers, and the Accord’s signatories provide a legitimate account of the industry’s activities and progress to the public. This accountability and transparency is a measure of the industry’s social responsibility and is linked with the industry’s stated values (in this example, stated values for freshwater in New Zealand). Media reports suggested that environmental organisations Forest and Bird and Fish and Game were critical of the 2013 Accord for its voluntary approach and lack of regulation, despite scientific evidence of a continuing decline in water quality.
Conclusion
A range of inter-linked international, national, regional and on-farm factors influenced the introduction of water quality interventions in New Zealand. At an international level, discussion
and debate about the impact of agriculture on the environment, and an increasing international demand for products produced in an environmentally friendly manner, contributed to an increasing awareness about the impact of agriculture on the environment in New Zealand. An increasing international demand for milk powder, combined with a change in land use from sheep and beef to dairy in response to a change in government economic policy, contributed to the expansion and intensification of dairy farming in New Zealand.
More than two decades of scientific research, linked intensive agricultural practices with declining freshwater quality in New Zealand. Sediment, nutrient enrichment, and faecal contamination of waterways were noted. Since the early 2000s, scientific research specifically identified dairy farming as a contributor to freshwater decline. In addition, almost two decades of qualitative and quantitative public perception surveys highlighted both the New Zealand public’s and international customers concerns about the negative impact of farming on water quality. Fish and Game’s high profile ‘Dirty Dairying’ media campaign in 2001, strongly criticised the dairy industry for water quality decline.
In response to increasing scientific evidence and concern about dairy farming’s impact on water quality, government and the dairy industry progressively introduced a suite of water quality interventions. At government level, central government set the direction for freshwater management in New Zealand by preparing a national policy statement and by providing funds for regional water management initiatives. These central government interventions were guided by the recommendations from the Land and Water Forum (a freshwater stakeholder group). Under the Resource Management Act 1991, central government freshwater quality policy guides regional government decision making about water quality management and choice of regional policy. In addition, the dairy industry introduced two successive voluntary dairy industry accords to reduce the impact of dairy farming on freshwater quality. The current industry accord sets out the good management practices that are expected of all New Zealand dairy farmers.
This historical chapter provides context for the remaining chapters in this thesis. Chapter Six follows, builds on the international and national context in this chapter, and presents water quality, dairy farm systems, water quality interventions and the regional actors involved in farming and water quality in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region. These two historical chapters provide context for the following two results, discussion and conclusion chapters.