Environmental Management on the Farm – What’s Really Happening?

Are increasing consumer and environmental expectations resulting in New Zealand’s farming businesses becoming more environmentally focused? Irene Parminter reports on developments in this area.

Consumers are an increasingly assertive lot, as recent experience with genetically modified food would suggest. The publicity surrounding incidents such as "mad cow disease", E. coli outbreaks in Japan, the United States and Scotland, and hormone-treated beef, have raised consumer awareness. Many consumers, both overseas and in New Zealand, are demanding assurances about food safety and quality, and to a lesser extent animal welfare and environmental management on farms. Food safety and quality concerns are able to be addressed by introducing reputable, audited quality assurance systems, and environmental concerns by reputable, audited environmental management systems. To be complete, these systems must include an on-farm component. In 1998, MAF commissioned a research report dealing with on-farm quality assurance and environmental management systems (QA/EMS) and their implications for farmers/growers and the environment.

This research is a further example of the work carried out under the BMP programme discussed in the article above.

The resulting report was published this year. It makes it clear that in the future, the ability to trade successfully is likely to be dependent on having some form of on-farm quality system in place. If this is the case, then economic viability — one of the pillars of overall agricultural sustainability — will require on-farm quality systems. In addition, on-farm QA/EMS have the potential to contribute to the achievement of environmentally sustainable outcomes, while minimising the regulatory burden on farmers/growers. The report suggests that community objectives for environmental management on farms may be met by QA/EMS, as well as market-driven objectives. For example, consumers who demand assurances that a product is produced in an environmentally friendly way may be satisfied by an EMS which ensures that erosion is minimised and effluent is treated to minimise impacts on waterways. These issues are also likely to be important to communities, as expressed in the regional plan. It seems logical to allow the use of suitable, audited EMS to satisfy regional council requirements, reducing the requirement for consents, consent conditions and

However, the report indicates that QA/EMS are not yet achieving their potential in contributing to environmental sustainability, for three main reasons. First, current systems are driven by market requirements. The market’s main concerns are product safety and quality, and these concerns are reflected in the QA/EMS currently in operation. Most of the systems reviewed in the report do not address the effect of production practices on the environment, other than to require that producers "meet their statutory obligations", for example under the RMA.

photo courtesy of Terry Parminter, AgResearch photo courtesy of Justine Pederson, AgResearch
From paddock to plate - the consumer of the future may want to be assured about environmental management on the farm, as well as food safety and quality

Secondly, the impact of QA/EMS on environmental sustainability is limited by the voluntary nature of most systems. Some sectors do not have QA/EMS, and within sectors that do, most are voluntary, so some farmers/growers have chosen not to join them. In many cases, community environmental objectives can only be achieved when a critical mass of farmers/growers has adopted techniques to minimise adverse effects, e.g., the impact of effluent treatment systems on water quality.

Finally, QA/EMS are not an appropriate policy tool for dealing with public goods, e.g., the enhancement of biodiversity and landscape values. There is no defined benefit for the long-term viability of the farm from these goods, so it would be difficult to "sell" them to producers (or even consumers) as components of a QA/EMS.

These reservations aside, QA/EMS are currently making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable outcomes, and the report indicates ways this contribution could be enhanced. The report highlights the need for co-ordination between regional councils, farmers/growers, processors and marketers, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. For example, without co-ordination, farmers could face different recording and auditing requirements for each processor or marketer supplied, and for each product (e.g., wool, beef, lamb, venison). Compliance with regional council regulations may require further records and audits, even though many of the requirements of marketers, consumers and regulators coincide. The report also notes the lack of legal certainty as to whether QA/EMS may be accredited under the RMA, to reduce the need for consents, or to satisfy consent conditions. Current research funded by the Sustainable Management Fund is addressing the legal and practical impediments to the use of QA/EMS to satisfy district or regional council requirements under the RMA. Uptake of QA/EMS by farmers would increase if there were clear benefits associated with them, such as reduced compliance costs under the RMA.

The need for further work in developing EMS appropriate to the primary sector is highlighted in the report, although some sectors, e.g., the wine grape and kiwifruit industries, have made considerable progress towards developing their own EMS. The development of environmental modules, with clear performance standards and on-farm indicators, is suggested as an area requiring further research.

MAF recently held a workshop with a number of industry representatives to discuss the report findings, and has made an ongoing commitment to co-ordinate a working group dealing with issues raised in the report.

Irene Parminter Irene Parminter

Senior Policy Analyst, Hamilton

Irene has worked for MAF for the past three years. Her background is in horticultural and environ-mental economics. Recent work has included analysis of roading reform, telecommunications, and effluent disposal, as well as an ongoing role in horticultural monitoring and forecasting.

Previous Page TOC Next Page

Contact for Enquiries

Amber Duncalfe
Editor - RM Update
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Tel: +64 4 894 0710
Fax: +64 4 894 0745
Contact this person

 
Print this page Print this page