NZ's Water War: Farmers v. Anglers

There are a number of battle lines drawn in New Zealand's waterways, the most visible is the one between the Federated Farmers (an organisation that lobbies on behalf of member farmers) and Fish and Game (a statutory body that lobbies on behalf of recreational fishers). The two are adversaries because of the effects agriculture has in degrading waterways, and hence fish population.

Essentially, Fish and Game accuses farmers of destroying their fishing grounds, and Federated Farmers accuse city slickers of economic treason and misunderstanding farmers.

How accurate and useful these claims are is another matter, but it's typical politics.

Their sentiments are demonstrated with the coverage of the recent report on NZ's degrading water quality.

First, Federated Farmers:

"Federated Farmers' dairy chairman Lachlan McKenzie said members were aware of their impact on the environment but deserved credit for the environmental improvements they have made. They used much of their animal waste as liquid fertiliser and 78 per cent of dairy farmers had fencing around waterways under Fonterra's clean-streams programme. He said New Zealand's 1200 dairy farmers accounted for a quarter of total exports and were targeted as an "economic tall poppy".

"Farmers genuinely care about what they do and what impact they have."

And now Fish and Game:

But Fish and Game New Zealand spokesman Rick Cullinane accused Federated Farmers of not wanting to take any responsibility for the problem.

"We keep pushing our clean and green image but the reality is getting worse and worse. The effect on the fishery means that the water quality is poor and there's less fish."

My take? As I wrote before, my experience is that most farmers do care about the environment, to the degree that they know how to. As a rule of thumb, 80% of the environmental harm stems from 20% of the farmers, knowingly or otherwise. This matches the above-quoted 78% of dairy farmers with riparian fences quite nicely. So, yes, farmers should be given credit for improving agricultural practices. But Fish and Game also has a point. Farmers should also be given credit for causing the degradation, as data indicate. Though water quality would certainly be deteriorating faster if farmers did nothing.

It is their duty for the two organisations to lobby as they do, but the bigger societal questions to be answered sooner or later are:

What intensity of agriculture can we have without compromising fishing?

What level of fishing can we afford without compromising agriculture?

Where along this continuum does society want to be?