[UPDATE - Fonterra just announced that they are reconsidering their application and "decided to look at alternatives, such as irrigating to land or diverting through the local town waste treatment plant". Good on you Fonterra.]

Great stuff. Only problem is, the farmers aren’t playing ball. Federated Farmers have so far refused to sign the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord, not because of tough standards or costs imposed on their members, but because of emotive ‘descriptors’ in the document. They object to the river being described as “dirty, lacking life and culturally compromised.”

Are they for real? This is the river that was found to rate the worst of 300 international rivers in Cawthron Institute research released last year. It ranks in the bottom 10 of 77 monitored sites in the National River Water Quality league tables for all three measures: biological health, clarity and nutrient levels.

It really isn’t that surprising. As Russel pointed out after his kayaking trip on the river in March, this is a river facing multiple pressures; it is a long river with denuded headwaters, it is shallow and often has low flows, there are numerous point source discharges from councils and industry, and it’s a heavily farmed catchment resulting in nutrient and effluent run-off.

The problems are by no means down to farmers alone. But for the Feds to refuse to sign up to action on the Manawatu because the document describes the river as “dirty” really signals a new low in their head in the sand approach to water quality.

Media reports indicate they may sign the document today. Let’s hope they’ve set the pettiness aside and seen the light – better late than never.

You can find it here: www.goodfarmstories.org.nz

There’s a wealth of material, so grab a cup of tea and enjoy!

It’s very timely, given the headline of the DomPost today: “Manawatu River ‘among worst in the West’”. As Russel’s response notes, much of the pollution of the Manawatu comes from farming effluent, nutrient run-off, erosion and damage to tributaries that do not have fences and riparian strips. This photo was taken last year and shows an example of the problems.

Russel quite rightly says: “Many farmers are taking it upon themselves to improve the situation, but the large-scale changes we need to return the Manawatu to an acceptable level will require Government leadership.”

So the Greens are keen to highlight Good Farm Stories, shine a spotlight on pollution from all sources – Russel notes the contibution of industrial factories like Fonterra and Tui, and town sewage – and push the Government into action.

Because if we don’t, we’ll lose the ecology of our great rivers, the right of the public to enjoy them, our clean and green image and with it our export markets. So what are we waiting for?

We recently asked Landcorp how it was doing with compliance on effluent consents.  Their General Secretary informs us that they had one infringement notice in 2008 and two in 2007. Landcorp has 37 dairy farms, so its non-compliance rate in 2008 was 3%. They have also ensured that the earlier breaches are not repeated.

That is significantly better than the 11% nationwide non-compliance rate amongst the 10,000 Fonterra dairy farms as reported in the Clean Streams Accord report. The compliance rate of other companies’ suppliers, such as Westland Dairy, Tatua and Synlait, are unknown, but frog readers may wish to write to them and ask. Compliance by itself is not enough to clean up our polluted waterways, but it is an important baby-step to a grown-up solution.

I’d also note that other Landcorp efforts to protect waterways and wetlands have drawn praise from DoC in Southland. So, well done farmers at Landcorp.

So this is a nod to what is possible, and proof positive that we can do better.  There’s a significant minority of farmers who are irresponsible. These farmers aren’t pulling their weight, these farmers give the diary industry a bad name, these farmers pollute the waterways so that cattle downstream can’t drink the water and our kids can’t swim in our rivers. They need to be prodded into action and that’s a role for government.

We also need to remember two other factors in this equation, the first is that our regional councils are charged with keeping up standards.  They often struggle for the will and resources to do the job thoroughly, but some are leading the way – the Horizon’s One Plan in particular.

Unfortunately, the new Government seems set on weakening the laws on which the councils’ and responsible farmers’ efforts are based.  The idea that we have ‘too much’ regulation misrepresents the issue. The question is not how much or how little government we have, but ‘does it work?’

Landcorp is showing it can work. We just need Government to require the others to follow.

8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry make a submission to Horizons Regional Council opposing a draft standard requiring all rivers and streams in the Manawatū-Wanganui region to be safe for swimming?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did no such thing. Its submission to the proposed plan of Horizons Regional Council was very supportive of the restoration of waterways. The section the member is concerned about starts by stating: “MAF supports the sustainable water programme of action outcome to improve the quality and efficiency of fresh water by building and enhancing partnerships.� Further on, the submission did state opposition to one clause in schedule D of the proposal, because of a concern that the ambition was unrealistic. These were technical measures that the ministry was commenting on. The submission was withdrawn some months ago, when this issue first came up. It was withdrawn because it was clear that this one clause was being misinterpreted as opposition to a general ambition—an ambition supported by the ministry—to make all waterways clean

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister confirm that the ministry’s submission was withdrawn only after pressure from the Green Party; and can he also confirm that its submission was identical in purpose to the Federated Farmers submission, both of them aiming to knock out exactly the same clause of the draft plan—that is, the clause that aimed to make rivers and streams safe for swimming?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I cannot confirm that – in fact, I can confirm otherwise. The ministry’s submission was withdrawn after senior officials of the ministry determined that that particular clause was not being interpreted properly. I have here the full submission by the ministry. If there is any relationship between this submission and the Federated Farmers submission, I would be very surprised.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he received any advice that not only were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Federated Farmers both singing from the same song sheet but also Landcorp, the Government’s own company, made a submission also trying to knock out this exact clause – the clause that is aimed at making our rivers safe for children to swim in?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have received no such advice, and if the member is going to be here for a little longer, he will discover that it would be surprising to any member of this House, and equally to the ministry and Federated Farmers, to know that we are both singing from the same song sheet.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he received any advice that the Landcorp submission stated “The values, management objectives, and methods used to determine water quality standards do not appear to have been formulated on the basis of robust analysis.�, which seems remarkably similar to the submission from the former Federated Farmers president, Charlie Pederson, which states: “The values, management objectives, and methods used to determine water quality standards do not appear to have been formulated on the basis of robust analysis.�; and has the Minister sought any advice as to why Federated Farmers and a State-owned enterprise are using exactly the same words in their submissions against clean rivers?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It may come as a surprise to the member, but I have no ministerial responsibility for Landcorp, nor do I have any ministerial responsibility for Federated Farmers.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of this evidence of cooperation between Federated Farmers, Landcorp, and possibly even the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, does the Minister stand by his statement of 31 January: “Claims by the Green Party that the Government has been ‘hijacked’ by Federated Farmers over water policy are simply ridiculous�; and does he agree that if something looks like a hijack, smells like a hijack, and reads like a hijack, then maybe it really is a hijack?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It would come as a complete surprise to Federated Farmers that the ministry has been hijacked by them, or they have been hijacked by us. I suggest to the member that he takes a little bit of quiet time after getting into Parliament, and breathes through his nose for a while and stops making cheap political points.