• Rural NZ
• Adverse Events
• People issues
• Profitability
  • Compliance costs
  • e-Commerce
  • Employment
  • New industries
  • Performance
  • Producer Boards
  • Stocktake
  • Structural Change
  • Trends
• Research
• Rural Proofing
• SLM Hill Country Erosion Programme
• Community Irrigation Fund
• Stats & forecasts
• Sustainability
• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

---

• 6.1 Soil Degradation
• 6.2 Water Quality
• 6.3 Weeds
• 6.4 Pests

---

6. Environmental Dimensions

Of those 35 farmers interviewed, 28 had implemented some land use or land management strategy within the last five years designed to meet environmental needs. Eight had plans to make further adjustments within the next five years. Ten farmers had already fenced off areas of native vegetation for conservation (while three of these have also placed a QEII Trust covenant on such areas). The level of involvement in different environmental management strategies is highlighted in Table 6.1. Such evidence supports that presented by Bradshaw and Williams (1998) and Farm Monitoring Surveys, but suggests an even stronger commitment by farmers to sustainable practices than that study and these surveys

Table 6.1: Implementation of Environmental Management Strategies

The extent to which farmers have fenced-off areas of native bush deserves particular note. It reflects a pro-active stance and one where farmers, by with-holding land from production, consciously impose a cost on themselves. In many cases, farmers also bear the full cost of fencing the land. These costs, borne at the level of the individual farm, are accepted to maintain a social good. This point was reinforced in discussion at the focus group meetings. It is true that some such areas have limited productive capacity in agricultural use, but this is not always the case. Whatever the potential of the land, the costs imposed by fencing it off are real. And even where some fencing costs are supported, if only in part, by a local authority or conservation group, such contributions are frequently well below the real cost borne by the farmer.

Such conservation initiatives by farmers appear to be "driven" more by some environmental "ethic" or aesthetic appeal than by any other factor. The availability of funding for some proportion of fencing costs certainly supports such initiatives, but its availability is not sufficient to secure action. However, for farmers facing serious financial difficulties, their ability and willingness to fence-off areas of bush is often conditional on the availability of funds. Financial assistance can facilitate change. Even so, "time" rather than funding was most often noted by farmers as a primary constraint on conservation activities although admittedly, financial resources can substitute for lack of time in some circumstances (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Factors Influencing Farmers' Future Land Management Plans

Other factors were also identified by farmers as discouraging them from creating reserves on their land. Several who had already established reserves noted on-going problems including conservation authorities or local councils that lack the resources to tackle pest control within the established reserve. Equally important to many farmers was their failure to be persuaded that their own reserve or potential reserve fitted, or would be fitted, into any wider regional or national plan. Without such confidence many farmers felt that it was just as well to leave their bush areas relatively "neglected", and without any official designation as a reserve.

In the absence of a comprehensive national strategy for on-farm conservation areas, some farmers view the pressures to formally conserve bush simply as a type of political "correctness". This, together with the fact that conservation authorities frequently lack the resources to maintain the reserves in the longer-term, discourages some farmers from placing a conservation covenant on their land. In addition, potential problems associated with public access rights and loss of property rights were specifically noted as working against covenanting reserves.

While only three farmers had formally protected "valuable" reserves, others considered that they had effectively achieved the same aim - the area was fenced, they intended to retain ownership of the land for the long-term and saw no need to forego the right to privacy official designation as a reserve (and consequent public access) would bring.

Although farmers' commitment to sustainability may be more easily measured in terms of area of bush conserved, most farmers when questioned also exhibited a high level of aesthetic appreciation for their land. Less surprisingly perhaps, they frequently found this difficult to articulate. Within the survey group, 10 bush reserves were established with the aim of improving the overall appearance of the land. In addition, however, 19 farmers had deliberately retained or planted trees, and 24 planned to plant trees to improve the appearance of their farm.

Initiatives by farmers to plant trees to beautify their properties or to conserve areas of bush were primarily based on non-economic objectives. Should they attempt to sell their property, no farmer expected such initiatives to be reflected in an increase in price, although some acknowledged that their conservation initiatives might promote a quicker sale. For some, conservation of bush areas was backed by a conscious belief in their ecological value. More often conservation planting or landscaping occurred without such beliefs but supported by the more traditional stewardship ideals that many farmers view as intrinsic to their role as land managers. Questioned specifically on aesthetic improvements, cost, labour and time emerged as dominant concerns and issues of priority and risk were only infrequently identified (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3: Impediments to the Enhancement of Aesthetic Values

There is a paradox here. Although stewardship ideals and aesthetic considerations are important drivers, many efforts by farmers to improve their environment are a response to perceived problems - soil erosion and the like - and their actions are supported by substantial research and scientific information. If while addressing such problems they could improve the appearance of the landscape or gain some environmental benefit they often did so. However, the overall message is that while farmers are generally willing to accept evidence of erosion or wind damage, for example, and to respond accordingly to meet an accepted "need", they remain sceptical of the scientific basis on which long-term conservation strategies depend. Physical evidence backed by established agricultural science promotes a response and has credibility among farmers which the ecological sciences lack. Viewed from another perspective, the principles of sustainability - in particular the interdependence of economic, social, institutional and environmental conditions - is not properly accepted. Equally, the basis for sustainable land management is seen as something apart from science - so that environmentalism remains very much a "tag-on" rather than an intrinsic component of good land management decisions. The failure to date to persuade most farmers that sustainability is more than a strengthened environmentalism pushed by a few "green" radicals emerged at several points in the study. This is perhaps not surprising, but has important implications with respect to farmers response to sustainable land use.

To better extend the analysis, four environmental problems were explored in the farm interviews at greater depth. These were:

• soil degradation
• water quality
• weeds
• pest management

6.1 Soil Degradation

The farmers generally had a high level of awareness of problems or issues associated with soil degradation. They emphasised readily visible features, such as slope and stream-bank erosion, but also noted such concerns as the impact of livestock treading on soil compaction and soil movement, and the level of soil microbial activity and soil fertility.

Only four farmers in the survey group had no plans to make change to their land use or management in response to environmental needs, either because they judged there to be no problem, or they saw no appropriate solution. In contrast, 31 farmers had changed or intended to make further changes to their land use practices (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4: Farmers' Awareness of Soil Problems and Future Intentions

Concern about the level of soil fertility was expressed by 13 of the farmers. Their focus ranged from the constraint that low levels imposed on pasture and livestock productivity, to the extent of nutrient cycling and soil microbial activity, sward density, water infiltration rates and interaction with surface water run-off.

Typically, for North Island Hill Country, 11 of the farmers had plans to significantly lift soil nutrient levels on their farm through application of a capital dressing of fertiliser. This would normally be achieved by applying nutrients in excess of annual maintenance requirements for one or two seasons.

When asked to judge the effect of their land use practices on the soil, 19 farmers stated that the effect was positive, citing the more obvious features of improved plant vigour, more even nutrient distribution and increased soil fertility, and soil stability, improved water infiltration and better run-off (Table 6.5).

Table 6.5: Land Management Practices

Farmers' Assessment of Net Impact on Soils

The 14 farmers who considered their impact to be either neutral or adverse noted problems of treading, erosion, down-slope movement of soil in run-off, soil compaction, and the need to either maintain or increase soil fertility levels.

6.2 Water Quality

When asked to judge the effect of land use and land management practices on water quality, the farmers had difficulty in identifying objective indicators.

The 12 farmers who considered their effect on water quality to be adverse, based their conclusions on observed levels of siltation and sedimentation, nutrient enrichment and faecal contamination. Reduction in siltation and sedimentation as a result of erosion control, and improved soil water infiltration and run-off as a result of changes in pasture composition and turf mass, were among the criteria that led some farmers (7) to conclude that their land management practices enhance water quality (Table 6.6).

Table 6.6: Land Management Practices

Farmers' Assessment of their Impact on Water Quality

Impact of Practices	Farmers Responding
Positive Effect
- siltation	5
- infiltration and run-off	2
No Effect	13
Adverse Effect
- siltation	3
- nutrient enrichment/faecal contamination	7
- unspecified	2
Don't know	3
Total	35

6.3 Weeds

Thistles (Californian, Nodding, Winged, Variegated, Scotch) were the major weed species identified as a problem by farmers (Table 6.7). They were also asked to rank their weed problem as "high", "moderate", or "low". This was requested as it was thought that how seriously a farmer perceived their weed problem might influence how weeds fitted into their overall land management plan.

Table 6.7: Land Management Practices

Farmers' Assessment of Weed Problems

In practice, of course, farmers' assessment of their weed problems are influenced by a wide range of factors including their experience, perceptions, established control practices, pattern of infestation, weed prevalence, and weed ecology. However, experience has shown that where farmers have a specific weed which they consider a serious threat, its existence shapes the overall strategy they adopt towards weed management. This is evidenced in three ways: control is less likely to be discretionary, but rather viewed as an annual, fixed cost; control policies favour blanket rather than spot treatment; and control measures are frequently more vigorous or severe, and aimed at eradication.

Chemical control featured prominently in the practices used by farmers, although six farmers either were using or were planning to introduce biological control agents particularly for thistle, blackberry and gorse control. While biological control agents such as weevils, mites galls and caterpillars appear to create few adverse side effects, goats are widely perceived to present greater problems. Farmers recognise that using goats for control of blackberry, thistles and gorse had implications for tree establishment and maintenance, and for internal parasite management, especially when grazing goats is integrated with sheep. In addition goats themselves can pose management problems. However there is considerable on-farm experience in integrating goats into farming systems and successfully managing weeds (Goat Meat Council 1998).

Wider adoption of integrated weed control programmes is integral to securing sustainable agriculture. All such programmes, but especially those requiring more complex management (such as goats) require farmers to acquire new skills and experiences. This again highlights the complex inter-relationship between information, decision, and action inherent in securing sustainability.

6.4 Pests

The pest problem most frequently identified by farmers is the possum. It was identified as a problem by 28 (80%) of the farmers interviewed. Rabbits/hare, and porina were also frequently mentioned, but are generally viewed as of only minor significance (Table 6.8).

Table 6.8: Land Management Practices

Farmers' Assessment of Pest Problems

Campaigns by the Animal Health Board, the Department of Conservation, and Regional Councils have focused on the impact of possums on TB infection, herd profitability, and flora destruction. Irrespective of the level of importance farmers assigned to the possum, the frequency with which it was mentioned indicates a high level of awareness. This is a positive indicator for behavioural change, but leaves open the question of how effective and efficient the farmers' actions are in achieving control of this pest. Or, whether there are other issues of greater importance than possum control which remain unmet.

Since the winter of 1996, high porina infestation has been a feature of the summer moist zones in the southern North Island. These farmers assigned it a high level of importance and use widespread pasture spraying of an insect growth regulator as their control practice. The sustainability of this control practice for hill country pastoral systems is unknown.

Farmers intend to increase the effectiveness of their control programmes for:

• possums: through more monitoring (1), more bait stations (6), trapping (1), and participation in community control initiatives (1).
• rabbits/hare: through shooting (1), and poisoning (1).
• Porina: through more monitoring (1) and more spraying (1).

Farmers' responses to the National Pest Management Strategy for possums appears to highlight the best and worst features of pest management programmes. The possum campaign has captured the interest of a wide section of the community, including environmentalists, associated industry groups, foresters, and farmers. Common goals have been established and a National Pest Management Strategy has been funded. Farmers' awareness of the pest is high, but at the level of an individual farm, there is little support available to help make decisions about the importance, priority, and input that should be given to management of the pest. Weak on-farm decision support means that the actions taken by farmers may be misdirected with respect to current or future needs.

Contact for Enquiries

Manager
North Island Regions
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Hamilton
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 7 957 8313
Contact this person