Canterbury’s Cowtopia
Cowtopia defined as: gains from dairy farming privatised to the few while environmental costs are socialised to the many.
Canterbury has nearly 20% of New Zealand’s 5 million dairy cows. In the province there are more dairy cows than people -930,000 compared with only 600,000 people. Since 2005, the number of cows in Canterbury has more than doubled, an increase of over 1/2 million.
If cows were people, then Canterbury would be considered New Zealand’s fastest growing city. This fast growing Canterbury Cowtopia by the end of last year consisted of 1179 dairy herds with an average population of 789 each.
Canterbury’s increasing Cowtopia is causing widespread concern. Cantabrians are worried about ecologically degraded lakes, streams and rivers. Many feel this ecological damage, as a loss to their core identity –what it means to be a New Zealander with access to 100% pure New Zealand.
A local artist –Sam Mahon is incensed by this public loss and the inability of governing bodies to protect Canterbury and New Zealand from the waste products of the expanding dairy industry. Sam has a long running campaign against the politicians who he identifies as responsible.
A more hidden concern, is that Canterbury aquifers are experiencing rising levels of nitrate pollution, which cannot be filtered out. Already there are cases in Canterbury of high nitrate levels in some shallow private bores that are no longer fit for human consumption. If nitrate pollution is left unchecked, the deeper public bores will eventually be affected too -endangering Christchurch’s -a city of over 400,000 people -water supply.
Surely this is a ecological time bomb. When it hits -which will be when the big slow wave of nitrate pollution coming from Cowtopia enters the aquifers under Christchurch (there is a time lag of decades) -then all hell will break loose.
It is not just locals who are concerned about New Zealand’s environment, the latest OECD environment report, indicated the quality of life in New Zealand is under risk, due to a lack of long term planning. Specifically, it said;
New Zealand’s growth model, largely based on exporting primary products, has started to show its environmental limits, with increased greenhouse gas emissions, diffuse freshwater pollution and threats to biodiversity……
A history of “soft limits” and giving into commercial interests is taking its toll……
Recently, Canterbury had a well-attended water debate hosted by radio journalist Kim Hill. What I found interesting, was given the depth of feeling about polluted water there wasn’t a call for a moratorium halting further dairy farm conversions.
All the speakers in the debate agreed, that they preferred sophisticated pollution pays type mechanisms, such as the Murray-Darling mechanism for controlling salinity -where the marginal user pays for their pollution -through an allocated salinity credit system -to ensure Adelaide has access to fresh (not salty) water. This type of mechanism could be used to stop further nitrate and phosphate pollution in New Zealand.
Another idea promoted was that resources under constraint -like clean/pristine waterways and aquifers are in Canterbury -should have a price on them to ensure resources are not wasted.
Good Canterbury farms, using high tech monitoring and more accurate irrigation systems are only using 1/3 of the water of neighbouring less efficient farms. Yet wasteful farms have no incentive to change, because their water rights were given to them long ago -when the water situation was not so constricted.
More water efficient farmers by using better technology, only use the needed amount of water and no more, this means harmful pollutants such as nitrates and phosphates are not over produced and these pollutants are not flushed through porous soils into water systems and underground aquifers (at least not from summer irrigation).
The audience was asked if they would accept water charging for Christchurch residential users if rural users also paid a charge -90% put their hand up in agreeance. So the audience also held the opinion there are ways to change farmers polluting behaviour, other than a blanket ban.
Why hasn’t New Zealand’s resource management legislation protected Canterbury from Cowtopia? Cities in New Zealand cannot grow by ½ a million people, they cannot create hundreds of outlying townships with nearly a thousand people in each, without triggering a hoard of resource consent activity.
At the legal level the difference is that farm pollution is largely a resource consent free activity –only pollution leaving the farm by pipe is a consenting activity –animal pollution from urination and defecation which leaches through the ground or is washed into water courses has not triggered a resource consent.
This means there is a double standard -farmland being converted to more intensive and more polluting rural activities, like dairy farming, is not restricted. Yet farmland being converted to more intensive urban uses, housing etc is highly restricted. There is a structural imbalance between rural and urban activities. This sort of systemic ‘favouritism’ may be a factor in why New Zealand fails to diversify its economy.
Resource management legislation needs to be reformed in New Zealand -currently it is not fit for purpose -resources like fresh water are being abused. Yet the current government says the Resource Management Act environmental protections need to be removed because of the housing crisis. They argue that the economy takes precedence over the environment. The dilemma is how to remove unnecessary restrictions on building houses while implementing better restrictions on polluting activity.
A better alternative to degrading the environment for short term gain would be the sort of opportunity advocated, by the greatly missed, Sir Paul Callaghan in books like, Get off the Grass: Kickstarting New Zealand’s Innovative Economy.
My impression on what most New Zealanders want with respect to these economic and environmental issues, is they do not want to halt economic activity on farms, or cities for that matter. What they want is for these activities to face their true environmental costs.
There is an excellent video here of an interview between Sam Mahon and Mike Joy a senior lecturer in ecology and environmental science at Massey University. They explain how New Zealand’s community collaboration process for governing water standards has been distorted so that only industry interests are being met.
Elsewhere in New Zealand there are other examples where farmers are privatising the gains and socialising the costs. New Zealand’s resource management legislation has failed to protect the public interest.
