Técnicas institucionalizadas 37

The One Plan requires, the Sustainable Dairying Water Accord (SDWA) and the terms and conditions of supplying Fonterra expect, that permanently flowing waterways84 _{and significant} wetlands85 _{will be fenced to exclude stock access, and culverts and bridges will be installed at} regular86 _{stock crossing points. The SDWA also expects farmers to prepare a riparian management}

84 _{Permanently flowing waterways and artificially created drains greater than one metre in width and} deeper than 30 cm are required to be fenced. Ephemeral waterways that flow during or immediately following extreme weather events are not required to be fenced.

85 _{A significant wetland is identified as significant in an operative regional policy statement or regional} plan.

86 _{Regular is defined in the SDWA where dairy cattle cross to access the milking shed, then return} following milking, more than once per month

plan87_{. The One Plan only applies to targeted WMSZ; the Accord applies to all dairy farms; and} Fonterra’s terms and conditions of supply apply to all Fonterra farmer suppliers.

All farms in this study are bisected by waterways of varying size and flow (drains, streams or creeks) and some farms border rivers (Mangahao and Manawatu). The farmers in this study clearly described the waterways on their farms. Drains (also termed stormwater drains) can be manmade or natural, not named, and only flow after rain or for part of the year. A stream or creek is bigger than a drain, often named, and flows permanently. The SDWA’s definition of a drain88 (permanently flowing water) differs from the farmers’ description of a drain (flows sometimes). The SDWA’s definition of a drain is more akin to the farmer description of a stream or creek. Additionally, the One Plan and SDWA definitions of what is required to be fenced differ89_. Although dairy industry interventions do not expect ephemeral waterways on dairy farms to be fenced, their expectation is that drains will be fenced. This difference in definition and expectation created confusion and frustration for some farmers in this study. As a result, the farmers fenced waterways (streams, creeks and drains) regardless of waterflow and size.

The farmers in this study changed their management of waterways. As illustrated in Table Seven, all farmers have fenced either all or almost all of their waterways: drains, streams, creeks and river boundaries. In addition, Ken fenced farm dams (for duck shooting), and Ian fenced some wetlands because ‘I've had a few cows die in them’. Some farmers have riparian planted (flaxes and trees), and others are leaving the riparian margins with unmanaged grass. At stock crossings, culverts have been installed as required. Max and Fred installed a bridge over the main tributaries that bisect their farms.

87 _{A riparian management plan records the species and area of fenced waterway to be planted.} 88 _{The SDWA defines a drain as an artificially created channel designed to lower the water table and/or} reduce surface flood risk and which has permanently flowing water but does not include any modified (e.g. straightened) natural watercourse.

89 _{Horizons define a waterway as: may or may not be permanently flowing but has an active bed width} greater than 1 metre. The SDWZ defines a waterway as: A lake, spring, river or stream (including streams

Table 7: The farm management practice changes made around the management of waterways.

¹: One Plan classification: T - targeted; NT - non-targeted ²: Refer to footnote No. 36

*: Jack had already installed a bridge.

The farmers discussed the benefits of excluding stock from waterways on water quality. Fencing, and installing bridges and culverts excludes cows from water. The farmers are aware of the impact of cows on waterways: ‘cows walk through, make a hell of a mess’ (Max) and ‘cows wee and poo in the river’ (Tom). Some farmers discussed how riparian margins can improve water quality, and Jim adds that a riparian margin will ‘filter sediments, nitrogen, phosphate and probably even E.coli’.

From the language farmers used, waterway fencing is now an accepted farm practice. Stu believes ‘fencing is common knowledge, it’s accepted now’, and hewas highly critical of farmers he believes ‘farm unethically’, and do not fence or encourage stock in waterways. Waterway fencing is reinforced by a number of sources, including Horizons’ fencing subsidies, the Dairy Diary, Fonterra’s fencing checks, and changes made by other farmers. Jim talked about another dairy farmer on his road, believes he has little contact with Horizons and Fonterra staff, yet he has fenced his waterways. Jim laughingly comments:

‘Old [name] up there fenced his waterway, and you think, oh god, if you can get a reluctant old bastard like that to fence the waterway, maybe we should be following suit (laughs)’.

These stories illustrate a collective change in what farmers consider to be accepted practice (a change in practice norms). Stu was critical (‘farm unethically’) of those who do not adopt practice norms. Criticism reinforces accepted practice.

The reasons why the farmers changed their management of stock around waterways varied. Some farmers fenced waterways for practical management reasons, such as preventing stock losses (drowning), preventing stock getting stuck (e.g. in soft-bottom creeks), ease of management when break-feeding, and improved cow and pasture control. Some farmers fenced or installed a bridge to improve water quality and others in response to a water quality intervention requirement (e.g. to obtain a Land Use Consent). Other farmers, like Max and Jim, changed their waterway management for a combination of reasons. Max fenced waterways primarily for cow management reasons, but also recognised the benefits to water quality:

‘I didn't want cows walking through [waterways], making a hell of a mess. Part of it was just management, we were having to drive through these muddy bogs, cows were falling in them and dying of milk fever, and it was just a stupid idea. Yeah, it had to be done …management of the place was difficult. What was my main reason? To be honest, cow management.’

Jim, a non-targeted farmer, is not required to fence under One Plan rules, and has ephemeral drains which are not required to be fenced under dairy industry expectations. Jim cites practical management and water quality as reasons to fence waterways:

‘I’ve fenced off a large number of them [drains] that I think are either animal hazards, or would benefit from excluding stock from. Well, we are told that if stock have access to them, the water quality is degraded. So by fencing them, one would assume that would improve the water quality’.

Some farmers, like Max and Fred, cross a main tributary when walking their herds to and from their dairy sheds, and are required to install a bridge for stock access. Other farmers may not cross a tributary and a bridge is not required. Max installed a bridge primarily for management reasons: animal health (lameness) and animal hazard (‘cows getting washed away when the river was flooding’), but also recognised that a bridge would benefit water quality (stop ‘cows making a mess’). Fred built a bridge in preparation for his Land Use Consent and to prevent stock fouling waterways. He knew the One Plan would prevent him walking his herd through the stream. Fred justifies his decision making:

‘I never liked walking the cows across the creek, it's quite an expensive bridge for five hectares, you can see. So, it's not an easy judgment, but the fact that I'm happy we made that choice, because like I say, I didn't like walking across the creek, and now we don't have to.’

Fonterra’s involvement in waterway fencing, and/or the dairying accord, was discussed by the farmers in this study. Many farmers believe Fonterra were trying to take control: ‘it was forced

have to fence off’ (Max). Through the annual farm dairy inspection90_{, Fonterra monitors and} records (check and GPS mapped) that waterway fencing is implemented. Fonterra introduced an enforcement mechanism for unfenced waterways (suspend milk collection)91_{. Jack thinks this is a} ‘threat’ with little substance (‘I don't think Fonterra's bite's as bad as their bark when they talk about fencing waterways’ – Jack), and he has not heard of instances where Fonterra have not picked up a farmer’s milk for unfenced waterways.

Horizons contributed fencing material subsidies92 _{to support waterway fencing on dairy farms and} run-off blocks in the Tararua district. These economic incentives were not a driver for the farmers in this study to start fencing because most were already fencing when the subsidies were introduced. Farmers’ uptake of the fencing subsidy varied. Some farmers, like Ian, Fred and Max, contacted Horizons, obtained a subsidy, and used it as assistance to fence more waterways at one time or to finish fencing already started. Jack obtained a Horizons’ fencing subsidy through an earlier incentive programme. Other farmers chose not to apply for a subsidy. Some of those who did not apply did so for practical management reasons, including waterway fencing being part of an ongoing farm fencing programme (e.g. farm upgrade or redevelopment), and small areas left to fence. Others did not apply for reasons related to Horizons: to avoid paperwork (Ken); avoid interaction with Horizons’ staff (Jim); and Paul wanted to avoid Horizons dictating the size of the farm’s riparian margin: ‘there was distances you had to fence back from the drain to actually be eligible’. Tom was unaware of the fencing subsidy programme. The changes farmers have made to their nutrient management is explored in the next section.